Worth it????

[xayraa33]

There has NEVER, ever, EVER been a difference in grain between shots on the same film with the same film size, developed in the same developer. The film has no clue what camera it was used in.

It is not the food that makes the differences but it is the fine china plates, the crisp and expensive linen tablecloth and the highly polished silver plated forks and spoons that add so much to the dining experience.

 

[ptpdprinter]

It is not the food that makes the differences but it is the fine china plates, the crisp and expensive linen tablecloth and the highly polished silver plated forks and spoons that add so much to the dining experience.

If it is the experience of photographing rather than the resulting photograph that is important to you, I can understand why you might (or might not) prefer Leica. If so, you needn't even load film.

 

[Sumarongi]

More popcorn!

Hooray!

 

[jsrockit]

I recall reading about professional photographers 'discovering' Japanese lenses back in the 50's and 60's (I assume Nikon and Canon equipment) and ditching their Leica's en-masse. I'm fairly sure it wasn't because they were looking for a retro, gritty look

I thought this was more of a discovering the advantages of SLRs vs. RF and not necessarily about lenses.

 

[xayraa33]

If it is the experience of photographing rather than the resulting photograph that is important to you, I can understand why you might (or might not) prefer Leica. If so, you needn't even load film.

I say the whole package from soup to nuts is important, to me at least and maybe to most of us on this "specialised camera" forum.

 

[Franko]

I just bought a Leica II, circa 1935. Did I need it - no? Will it generate income - no?. Will others care about the pictures I will make with it - no? Will it give me real pleasure to use a precision tool made eighty-three years ago - ABSOLUTELY!!! Your mileage may vary.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

I thought this was more of a discovering the advantages of SLRs vs. RF and not necessarily about lenses.

Not at all. During the Korean War, David Douglas Duncan, Horace Bristol, Carl Mydans, and others were given Nikkor lenses to test on their III-series Leicas. They promptly dumped their Leitz lenses and switched to Nikkors. The photographs for Duncan's great book This Is War! were taken with Nikkors on Leica rangefinder bodies. It was not until the late '50s that SLRs began to edge out rangefinders.

 

[jsrockit]

Not at all. During the Korean War, David Douglas Duncan, Horace Bristol, Carl Mydans, and others were given Nikkor lenses to test on their III-series Leicas. They promptly dumped their Leitz lenses and switched to Nikkors. The photographs for Duncan's great book This Is War! were taken with Nikkors on Leica rangefinder bodies. It was not until the late '50s that SLRs began to edge out rangefinders.

Ah, I see... I was thinking the 50s and beyond. Thanks.

 

[RichC]

I was just stating the fact that digital cameras cannot create photographs, only files. At least according to my understanding of what a photograph is: an image created by the action of light on a substance. A negative being that image, and later the optical print.

The fact that you can't insert light sensitive material into a digital camera for it to record a photographic image, means it doesn't have the ability to create a photograph. An ability that all film cameras do have. Ergo that ability is removed from the 'photographer' when they use digital imaging instead of film.

Pedantic? Yes, but still true.

Utter rubbish. Talk about flogging a dead horse...!

Digital and analogue cameras create images by exactly the same basic process: an image is focused on a light-sensitive surface, exciting electrons to create a related pattern. This pattern is latent and cannot be seen, and so is converted to a visible image. This image can then be printed (optional). The printing process can be the same for both digital and analogue: for example, Lightjet C-type printing on traditional silver paper using light (laser).

Different kinds of processes have been used throughout the history of photography - daguerreotype, tintype, ambrotype, Autochrome, Kodachrome... on metal, glass, celluloid, plastic, paper... And today, silicon wafers - including digital cameras that work like traditional Polaroid cameras: you take a photo and a paper print comes out.

As you’re being pedantic, which of the above do you consider “photography”?

If it’s the use of light that concerns you throughout the entire process (notwithstanding that light creates the latent undeveloped image in both digital and analogue cameras, and can be used to create silver prints from both types of image), we can build a camera that uses a digital sensor and places the latent image onto traditional film: of course, that would be ridiculous, but it could be done - would that be a photograph according to your rules, since you then have a “traditional” negative that needs to be developed chemically using light?

Short summary: a photograph is any image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface. End of.

 

[pgk]

The film versus digital and Leica 'quality' (however you define it) versus other manufacturer's 'quality' debates are irrelevant with respect to the thread's question (and pretty irrelevant anyway IMO). What is more pertinent is the enjoyment of using the 'right' tool for the photographer. To me this is why I use Leica's. I like their rangefinders and lenses and enjoy using them. I'm also very familiar with their simplistic controls. As a consequence I take 'better' images with them. I don't care whether other gear may be as good or even better because its not as relevant as enjoying using what I have, and wanted to use, and as a consequence take better photos with it. So to me my Leicas are 'worth it'.

Others may have very different views and take better images with other gear. Great, I have no problem with that. I use other gear too when its more capable than the Leicas for the application.

 

[ptpdprinter]

You know of a digital-only camera that outputs a photograph? Which one? I've seen a few and they all just churn out files, the same as my Mac.

Given that you have defined the term "photograph" narrowly to include only film, of course not. So yours is merely a semantic argument. Others take a broader view. Photography etymologically is light writing. There is no requirement that the light writing be on film rather than a sensor, other than one you yourself arbitrarily impose.

 

[jsrockit]

You know of a digital-only camera that outputs a photograph? Which one? I've seen a few and they all just churn out files, the same as my Mac.

Technically, you are correct...

Raw image files fulfill the same role as negatives in film photography, but the RAW is not directly usable as an image (instead being a file which has all of the information needed to create an image). A film negative is an image already. We can view it as such. However, nobody (or very very few) shows off their negatives as finished images.... you need to print or display them as positives generally speaking. So why does it matter what the image capturing medium is if we only care about the resulting image in its display format?

 

[KenR]

Some years ago I was looking for a film rangefinder - looked at a Leica 6 and a MP. The film loading was still 1930's - everyone else in the world moved on to rapid loading following the Nikon F mode. So I bought Cosina RA2 and RA4 and still had money left over for a few lenses.

 

[icebear]

...
The fact that you can't insert light sensitive material into a digital camera for it to record a photographic image, means it doesn't have the ability to create a photograph. An ability that all film cameras do have. Ergo that ability is removed from the 'photographer' when they use digital imaging instead of film.

Pedantic? Yes, but still true.

LOL the light sensitive material in a digital camera is called sensor surface, just in case you are not aware. And it can be used over and over again.

When was the last time you have pulled out a photographic image ready to show out of a FILM camera? It's been a while but last time I worked with an analog camera, I open the film canister in a darkroom an developed the exposed film to transfer the latent silver image into something commonly called negative. If you take a closer look at said negative, you will see the silver grain(s). There is a chemical reaction somewhat proportionally to the exposure intensity of the light in the film emulsion. On the sensor this light intensity is translated into electrical values and stored as digital information. Exactly same thing - just a different tool.

If you only like one tool ... limit yourself.

If you deny the other tool the ability to work per your own definition, well ... lock yourself in and have fun with the dead horse.

 

[Axel]

....

An activity that involves using cameras that output nothing but data, should not be called photography, in my opinion.

So your activity above involving a computer shouldn´t be called writing?

Nonsens in my opinion. That devides just because of a subjective mental state.
No practical use and no logics.

...I’d like to know how you feel about Leica rangefinders, both film and digital. Are they worth it and if so, why?

They are I mean. But I have not enough money to afford one again.
My M6 was a real tool, I learned much about how simple photography can be. Today I break down every camera I own to
the basic concept of time and aperture. And light meters are only a hint, not more. Old school? Maybe.
When you don´t want to look what a camera probably can and enjoy photographing instead you see what a camera does.

 

[Sumarongi]

So your activity above involving a computer shouldn´t be called writing?

... it shouldn't be called *handwriting*.

Agreed?

Nonsens in my opinion. That devides just because of a subjective mental state.
No practical use and no logics.

Please, try it *handwritten*, perhaps then I understand what you're talking about.

 

[Axel]

... it shouldn't be called *handwriting*.

Agreed?



Please, try it *handwritten*, perhaps then I understand what you're talking about.

No. The item I replied to was "photography" so the other proper example is "writing". In general. That´s the point.

 

[icebear]

I don't understand why people using digital gear get so defensive about this, and why there's always the comments about 'limiting yourself' and being a luddite etc. I also don't understand why people think separating the two disciplines is in some way a denigration of digital, or it comes about from having a sense of superiority, as one of the other posters accused film users of having. It's actually very odd....

An activity that involves using cameras that output nothing but data, should not be called photography, in my opinion.

You don't see that your denying a different camera tool of doing the same job comes across as exactely what you describe above?
A photographer sees frames exposes an image. It's the exact same process. How you end up with a printed image of the exposure might be different.

Your analogy of a potter with a craftsman skill and a user of a 3D printer doesn't really work. IMHO.

 

[Sumarongi]

No. The item I replied to was "photography" so the other proper example is "writing". In general. That´s the point.

Well, no, because: *nicht alles, was hinkt, ist ein Vergleich*.

Writing is *several thousand years* old, photography mere 200.

Classic photography (involving chemistry) is just a tiny branch of all possible arts; so, why not grant the new art without chemistry a new wording?

 

[leicapixie]

Regarding lenses causing grain, please do your own test!
Use ONE roll and HP5+, Kentmere 400 Tri-X.
Develop in D-76,HC-110 or the worst for grain Rodinal.
No T-Max or Delta as they are too fine.
Shoot a few different scenes with older LEICA lenses.
Remove film and expose in any SLR, Spotmatic, Nikon or Canon.
Make 8x10 prints and compare.
The only "April Fool" are those believing I am wrong.
Erwin Puts came up with same conclusion.
Do the test!
The RFF is for sharing experiences and knowledge.
I shot thousands of rolls doing PJ, Fashion and Documentary.
PS I like grain!