Question Canon use vs Leica use

Here is a question I have that maybe someone can answer. I read an article here

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

 

 

Its about a man in Iraq using almost exclusively Leica. Yet he keeps saying and

comparing images from the 5D and how much better the 5D images are. Why on

earth does he keep using that garbage equipment. Its clear how much better the

images are from the 5D. He has used Canon DSLR's since 2000, but keeps

buying that Leica junk. On a side note, I noticed he kept trying to get good

images using a 1/4 shutter speed and complaining of the blur. Maybe he was

trying to avoid high ISO and just deal with slow SS.

 

But what is it about people and their obsession with Leica. I've never used one,

but from what I've seen, they look terrible to hold(flat and square). Stuff like no SS

visable in viewfinder when in Av mode. All of the images I've seen from them are

not that good. I've never seen comparable sharp images from a Leica to say a 1

series Canon. The color is not near as good. He says so himself. Yet people say

otherwise. I'm not an

artsy kinda guy. Am I missing something about them. Please. I want to

understand all that is "Leica". I mean $5500 for an M8 plus $1,000's for lenses. Is

is a collector thing like Vintage racing. I mean it doesnt make since but if that is

the purpose I guess I understand. There is a whole cult like following of Leica that

reminds me of Trekies(Star Trek) and I just dont understand. HELP! I am open and

willing to learn why!

And of course, the best way to learn about why people use Leicas is to start a thread in the Canon EOS forum asking why people use that Leica "garbage."

Perhaps you should post this in the Leica forum instead. Assuming you're not a troll, why don't you actually hold a Leica M and maybe you'll understand why people like Leica and understand what a rangefinder is all about.

ACtually, he explains very clearly AT THE BEGINNING why he *needs* the M8, which boils down to being able to have a smaller body for taking pictures in areas and situations in which picture taking is NOT allowed. Since he's a professional PJ stationed in war zones that makes perfect sense. You can't sneak a picture in front of local law enf. and/or armd men with a 1D or 5D with grip but, with a small rangefinder and pre-set focus you can quickly pull it out of your pocket and take a few snaps.

 

That is the reason.

I was just quoting what the guy said. He said it was garbage himself. I posted

here because it was a Canon camera he was comparing it to.

Thought maybe some Canon users with alot of history or time in the business to

shed some light on why such a following. I use a Canon 1D Mark III and cant think

of any reason to give it up for a Leica that performed like that. He was using a 5D

and was happy with those. He continuously complained about the Leica and he is

a serious Pro in serious conditions. I just want to know what about Leica keeps

him coming back if its that bad according to him.

 

I didnt know that there was a Leica forum here. I never looked or had a reason too.

Maybe it would serve better in there, but not as much taffic in there I'm sure. I

figured the veteran Canon users in here had probably had a run in through the

years that could give me some background on it.

 

Besides, most of the Leica discussions I've read had a lot of biased views in them

(towards Leica of course). Canon forum is generally the most subjective that I've

read on this site. I've seen plenty of posts in the Canon forum of Canon users

telling Nikon users to stay Nikon not switch because of there circumstances.

Rare in most other brands.

>Walt. I didnt know there was a Leica forum. I dont know of anywhere that sells a Leica M. I'm very curious. Never been in a situation TO hold one. Its why I am asking.

 

>Giampi. I read about the needing small discreet comment he made. I understand the situation, but he is carrying a 5D. So wouldnt 1 camera be more discreet than 2. A plain 5D and small wide angle is not that big.

But I was just asking from a IQ perspective, why he kept coming back. He posted several pics where he didnt need to be discreet and he actually did side by side shots to compare. thats not discreet. I would think that once he discovered the difference, he would ditch the Leica in most situations. Looks like he uses the Leica in very dangerous situations that could get him killed in which case I say the hell with pictures for a paper. my life is more important. The print will most likley wind up in the bottom of a bird cage anyway.

 

Please no attacks, I am just asking why.

Forget about Leica for a minute. How old are you? Have you shot film? Do you value small cameras with shutters so quiet people around you don't hear anything? Do you know what a rangefinder camera is? The Leica M is considered the top 35mm rangefinder.

<i> Why on earth does he keep using that garbage equipment. <P>

He has used Canon DSLR's since 2000, but keeps buying that Leica junk. <P>

I've never used one, but from what I've seen, they look terrible to hold(flat and square).<P>

There is a whole cult like following of Leica that reminds me of Trekies<P>

Please no attacks, I am just asking why.</i>

Generally, sincere questions aren't loaded with terms like "garbage, junk, terrible, cult." When questions are phrased in such a manner, about 100% of the time, someone is trolling.

i've been a canon user for many years now, but i got the chance to "play" around with a friend's leica M3. the M3 is old but it represents many of the leica ideas that are still installed in today's models. these cameras are manufactured with the highest quality. when you hold, and shoot with one, it feels as if that camera was built just for you. maybe because of the built quality, which is far better than any canon/nikon equipment. maybe because there aren't that many leicas around. but it's a differesnt feeling

Seems to me he is lambasting the digital Leica, which is something that many Leica fans have

also done. However, he gives praise to 35mm Leicas, which have helped him earn his living

over many years.

 

The lesson would seem to be that Canon (et al) have embraced digital technology and

perfected it, whilst Leica has only just made the move from film, and is still on a steep learning

curve.

I have actually used Leica cameras in the field. While they are not my personal favorites, they are still superb pieces of machinery by any objective measure.

 

It is a shame they are often wasted on MDs and other Rollex-watch-wearing, BMW-driving, latte-sipping conspicuous consumers.

 

;)<div></div>

>>Seems to me he is lambasting the digital Leica, which is something that many Leica fans have also done. However, he gives praise to 35mm Leicas, which have helped him earn his living over many years.<<

 

Right - and he's right. Leica is years behind Canon and Nikon in terms of Digital cameras. So, no surprise there...

Building a digital rangefinder is more difficult than producing a DSLR. Some of the

M8's issues are related to those difficulties.

 

I don't know if Leica can correct all the problems he encountered but I fell like

there will be some changes made for the better in future digital Leicas. Certainly

Leica needs to build a pro quality DRF to stay competitive.

So its a purist thing. I can respect that. Old cars arent the best compared to the

highest technology out, but still people enjoy racing in Vintage races for the

nastalga of it. I can respect that. As I said, I never used one and cant see the

desire. I'm young and when I look at spending 8000 on gear, I look at a 1Ds

MarkIII and an M8 and think, "I bet the 1Ds will probably be the best bang for the

buck" This is why I asked. Its becoming a little clearer now.

 

Matan, Ken, JDM. thanks for giving a valid opinion and reason to help understand

why and not getting sh*&ty with me. I have struggled with the reasoning for a

while, but now it makes a little more sense.

 

>Walt. Yes I have shot film. Very little, but yes. Film is irrelivant. Were talking

digital. To me, its(M8) not much smaller than a 5D. I never liked range finders.

Just my opinion. I dont care how quiet a shutter is. I want it to work. If I am at war

and I need dead silence, then as I stated, pictures are the last thing you should

worry about. If I am a soldier and a photog is snapping pictures that could get me

killed, Im gonna brake his stupid camera anyway and he would be lucky to live

himself.

 

>Mike. What the hell is trolling. I assume it means patroling sites and forums. If it

is, isnt that what you are doing. I actually started this thread, you found it by

trolling. Correct?

 

I found the Iraq story on one of the only 3 sites I read everyday at some point. I

found it on Luminous Landscape. I look everyday because he has nice

photographs and ideas and opinions. I read Rob Galbraiths site because he

usually has new product updates very quickly and yes...Ken Rockwell. I dont

agree with everything he says, but I like his photographs and most of his updates.

He is usually very subjective. He's the only Nikon fan i have read that said an old

Canon(5D) trashed the D3 in sharpness. I "troll" these sites to stay current on

whats coming out so I dont buy a 3 year old piece of equipment 1 day after the

new model was released.

Troll lurk under bridge, attack people crossing over-- see "Three Billy Goats Gruff"

David - From *horse's* mouth , i.e. Leica forum. This is not new.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PmJg

 

<br><br> You must understand. Leica is a brand which is very, very respected in terms of build quality, reliability, ruggedness and excellent optics. Their lens are *legendary*. There are many, many journalists, professionals who made mind-blowing frames and photos using a Leica. Leica is also synonym to "Range-finder" camera - a totally different way of *taking* a photo. These aspects create a aura, aura creates a price-tag. In Corp. world, call it "brand name".

<br> However, everyone has to move on, some do it great, some fail. Leica for instance - in their release of M8 (digital) failed. Do we write them off? No, for everyone learns, adapts and improves. We all hope that Leica improves and produces a winner. As said, in this forum, range-finders have a tremendous advantage in silence and smallness.

<br> I can boldly say I thing - in this forum, which is Canon specific, if Canon die-hard fans hear tomorrow Leica closing shop --> all here will shed a *tear*. That's for sure.

He wants to use them for the same reason Leicas were loved by journalists, small quiet, simple and reliable.

 

With the digital requirement now, they are no longer so small, not so quiet, not so simple, an nowhere near as reliable.

 

As far as colors go, the Leica is set to deliver very natural colors much like profesional color neg film. Canon can do the same if you choose to set up the camera to low contrast-low saturation-etc. Even my lowly first Canon A610 P&S has these controls. It is easy to punch up contrast and saturation in PS, not so easy to get rid of it. Set the camera for the pic you want. They are called natural, faithful, vivid and a few I can`t remember.

 

Go to the rangefinder forum and read the last post from Bill Pierce a man who had a full carreer as a PJ

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=60070

I have two Leica M2's and some modern Leica lenses and I also have a Canon 5D. Let's disregard for the moment the quality those old M2's and lenses exhibit and just look at the optics.

 

Modern Leica lenses are every bit as good as anything you'll find anywhere from anybody including Zeiss, Canon, and Nikon. In effect, it would be as if Canon ONLY made their pro L lenses and nothing else. They wouldn't make many lenses but the ones they did make would be good. So Leica is no exception. Their lenses are ALL pro quality lenses and are very good.

 

I'm not saying that my pictures with my M2 are better than my 5D, I use the 5D most of the time. But with a good scanner, like the Nikon Coolscan V they're definitely competitive.

 

Is it worth the money to buy the Leicas? Probably not, but they are fun to use and I do like rangefinders and Leicas are certainly capable of doing FINE work. It's also true that lots of people who buy Leicas buy them to sit on a shelf rather than as a tool to take photographs, but that doesn't mean they're not valid photographic tools.

 

Also, I can carry the M2 and a couple of lenses all day without coming home as tired as I do carrying the 5D, the 24-105 and the 50. And I can use Infrared film too, even with opaque filters.

I wish Canon would make a full frame digital rangefinder.

It al makes perfect sense now. For as long as I can remember, I kept seeing these digital Leicas in books that look like converted 50's film cameras and they cost $10,000. They dont look very versitle so it makes you wonder, "Why?"

 

>Baivab. Thanks for the link. I had no idea there was a Leica forum here. Dont ever give me a link to a post that long again. LOL. Oh my god. That review opened a can of worms. Thats probably the longest thread I have ever read here before. And some very depressed people over the M8.

David, did you read his entire review? I think he gives a lot of examples on why he wants a small quiet camera. He's not always in a "war zone," sometimes he was inside a mosque. It's clear that he's a big fan of Leica's older film rangefinders and wanted to have the same capabilities just with digital. The M8 fails on that. No new photographer is going to jump and buy an M8. People who buy an M8 already have experience with a film rangefinder and since you don't I doubt you'll understand. If you want to understand find a store that sells them. Both of my local cameras stores have about 5 used Leicas and lenses.

 

Being called a troll is an insult. A troll is someone who says outrageous things just to antagonize people for their own sick perverted reasons. The Canon 5D is a pile of crap, anyone who bought one is a clueless idiot. Nikon rules! That's a troll.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Looks like this post is getting just as long. I wish I had found the Leica forum and posted this. I know Canon users hate long forums. Now I am the culprit. I should have just emailed a Leica user and let him right me a book on "Why Leica" and took up less bandwidth. Sorry Bob.

But some very good answers, thanks.

I assume you mean the other David, but I read the M8 review by the war correspondent, very interesting indeed. If it weren't for the price, a flawed first product would be understandable, after all it IS their first attempt at a digital M. But at that price, expectations are high. Plus it probably isn't a surprise to anyone that Leica's demographic is really more rich collectors than working war correspondents (like in the M3/2 days). Too bad though.

 

But the film M's, especially the M2/3/4/6 are the energizer bunnies of cameras. I bet an M2 would keep going long after my 5D (or even 1DSmkIII) has packed up and surrendered. You could hit someone over the head with my M2 and then take their picture -- just like the Nikon F's.

The M8 has some "problems" which many M8 owners will verify. This reporter was

just doing the same.

 

The basic problem (from the M8 owners' mouths) is that it cost over $5,000 and

does not function as they think it should.

 

Check out rangefinderforum.com and you will see many threads about this very

same issue.

 

I think the problem is that the M8 is the first generation of Leica's digital RF and the

5D is the culmination of a few generations of improvement with a huge R&D budget,

and competition to spur them along.

 

If you like irony you'll notice the threads about the problems...two weeks later a

person will say, "I think I'll get one" basically ignoring the problems. Two weeks

later still the purchaser complains about noisy images, dead pixels, having to use

filters, and waiting for the camera to be returned from Solms for repairs.

 

I don't know but, maybe people expect too much from Leica at this time?

"You can't sneak a picture in front of local law enf. and/or armd men with a 1D or 5D with grip but, with a small rangefinder and pre-set focus you can quickly pull it out of your pocket and take a few snaps."

 

I agree with Gaimpi, 35mm rangefinders are small and possibly more importantly almost silent and with no mirror slap able to be handheld more easily.

 

There used to be a lot of good little rangefinder 35mm film cameras out there that were inexpensive although they did not normally have interchangeable lenses like the Leicas.

 

It would be nice if someone made an affordable RF digital, the Leica ones, whatever their merits, are not inexpensive.