Leica excellence: Leica film camera vs. all other digital?

Philip, although I like math, I hate menus. I like problem solving like using Excel to create a special complex spreadsheet to solve or study something I'm interested in, but I hate figuring out why a print driver won't work because I see it as an obstacle to what I want: a hoop to jump through more than a task fundamentally rooted in the end product. I have a fair amount of knowledge of technical photographic issues, so using my M is enjoyable because it seems so simple to me even as I have total control. It is designed for that. (I've only had it for about 5 years, but it was a natural extension of the way I used my manual film SLRs and the rangefinder was a revelation with little learning curve for me.) Honestly, I am not on a quest to improve my photography either, which is fortunate because I am simply too lazy to go through a 1/2" thick digital camera manual. So I use a digital point and shoot for basic stuff because it is cheap, but I don't particularly enjoy it and have never read the manual.

 

Granted my disincentive to learn new equipment has something to do with the fact that there simply isn't anything out there in digital (or even film SLR) that can do what I enjoy considering that my highest priority is on small size equipment with great low light and wide angle capability. Let's say I go on a trip with my 35 cron aspherical and my Voigtlander 15 mm. Yea, I think Nikon made a 24 f2 that would be a 36 f2 on one of their consumer DSLRs, but it won't even meter on those bodies. There is absolutely no compact digital equivalent for my M6 with the 15mm VC. Then consider that my used M6 with a new VC15 cost about $1500, which is the entry price for a D300, I think, which is bigger and with no economical lens SO SMALL to achieve what this set up does. I can take this 2 lens set up with me anywhere with my wife on vacation or anniversery (maybe with a tiny 90 f4 for a portrait at dusk) and enjoy myself a bit creatively with her (35 f2 of her at the table from 7' with backlighting, hand held) without having to lay a big honking DSLR and megazoom on the dinner table at the restaurant she wants to go to in the evening. Then we can go back to the hotel, and I take a picture of the cool bathroom with 15mm superwide braced against the door frame because it is a slow lens. Maybe I'm weird. Its easy. Its awesome. I love it. Maybe one day there will exist a mini 4/3rds digital system that can do this, but there isn't now.

Recently I came in possession of a Leica M1 in superb condition. I also have Canon 40D with 6 fine lenses. Let me put it this way: I would not trade M1 for a new 5D mark II fully aware that it is totaly irational. About some things man have to listen to his hart. This is not vs. issue.

Once the M8 arrived, the M6 and M3 got packed away and I never used them again.

 

If I didn't have an M8, perhaps my primary camera would be my Sigma DP1. A quirky thing, but it sure takes fine photos.

 

Main places I might still use film are large-format work and panoramas.

I shoot film exclusively in M7/M6. And usually only one of the many great colour films currently available. For six pounds

GBP per roll I have film developed and scanned to CD in 18Mb files at a near-by pro lab -- this provides me with what I

regard as a sort of digital contact sheet. I tweak 'prints' in P/Shop (making minimal adjustments). To me this seems the best

of both worlds. But then I have no one (generally speaking) waiting on my pictures, no deadlines to meet, and no need to

adopt a working method other than this.

 

regards

alun

And I presume that some think that digital has gone about as far as it is going to go?

 

Digital is barely off the ground, and now we are comparing it to Leica. Six years ago, when I first started shooting digital, no one would have suggested such a thing.

 

Where will we be in another five or six years?

 

As for someone's link to Ken Rockwell's site, I have to say that Ken manages to get some of the worst results from the 5D that I have ever seen. That takes real talent. Here is a crop from a snap that I took with a 5D:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7869436&size=lg

 

Back to my original point, though: film is not progressing very much. Digital is. Is digital already superior? If so, look for the gap to widen. If not, look for the gap to close fast, and then watch digital pull away. I wish that it were not so. I don't like to sit in front of the computer to process images, but, if I want the best results and the most creative control, that is what I really have to do.

 

No one disputes the quality of Leica optics and overall engineering. But the mystique? Well, that is a very personal thing, I presume. Photographic technology could have stopped with Leica film technology, but it didn't. The comparison therefore cannot only be between was is already out there. A truly meaningful comparison would have to be about possible futures. Leica glass on new Leica sensors sounds good to me, if I had the money to do it.

 

--Lannie

The answer is pretty simple for me. I shoot Leica (and other film cameras) 99% in B&W film. Digital B&W output cannot

compete with film yet, on the other hand, digital colour is very competitive against film, and it really boils down to taste in

the final output, while the convenience is obviously on the part of digital. So I shoot film, scan and print on an inkjet.

You're right, this isn't a film v. digital argument. For me, leaving quality and everything else aside, it's a manual thumb powered camera versus something that requires you to carry a mobile nuclear power station sort of argument. My M (in the past M4-P, M2, M6, M6TTL 0.58, now MP 0.58) + two lenses (24 Elmarit + 50 pre-ASPH 'Lux) goes travelling with me. Sometimes I travel to cities, where batteries are available, but sometimes I travel to places where they aren't. Before I was a Leica user I sed Nikon F's. back in the early 1990's my wife and I took a holiday to Egypt, and spent the third week going up Sinai in a shared jeep. The people travelling with us had a very new (by the standards iof the day) Camcorder. Styopping overnight at St Catherine's monastery (the burning bush, Jacob's Well, Mount Sinai) i got up early the next morning to take some sunrisy pictures. Coming back down I met my new frien, without the camcorder. "Not taking pictures today?" I enquired. "Wouldn't charge" he said. And that was that. After St Catherine's monastery we crossed the Red Sea into Jordan and saw Petra. I sent him a spare set of prints, as he still hadn't managed to charge the camcorder. Given the choice between a Nikon F with plain prism and a Leica M, of whatever sort, I'd take the M these days, although there's nothing wrong with the F. But something totally reliant on batteries...?

Philip, my vote is for a M6 TTL. It offers so much... Value, meter, flash accuracy and old world durability.

 

Lannie, Ken Rockwell's link shows me that there are other alternatives for the folks that truly WANT to own a Leica

and still post great/affordable digital results. Ken's knowledge and photographic skills are top notch. He's a big

digital Canon & Nikon fan, who was just making a point for those that can't afford the high dollar DSLR's. After all,

Philip did indicate that cameras priced like the M8 where out of his budget range.

 

Besides Lannie, your unknown lens example of a CENTER portion enlargement, doesn't address: "The $5 Olympus

Trip 35 is sharper, since the Canon 17-40mm got a little softer in the CORNER and the Olympus' sharpness stayed

as high as it was in the center. These crops would print the entire image at 44" x 29" (110 x 70 cm) if you printed the

entire image at this magnification." Little less than a 4 foot by 3 foot poster size !

 

Back to my original $5 point, though; if someone goes the route of new or old Leica FILM equipment, in light of the

Trip 35 experiment, can have FANTASTIC results!

Instead of answering in the abstract, I will offer a comparison of two pieces of equipment with which I am personally familiar. I have both a Leica M2 and a Canon Powershot G5, a 5.0 megapixel digital camera. The G5 is a good camera, but for most uses that count to me, the Leica wins hands down. The M2 focuses accurately in dim available light. The G5 is unable to do so. The G5's autofocus hunts and hunts in dim light without reaching accurate focus, so the G5 is basically unusable in such situations except with the built-in flash. While I have to use a hand-held meter to set the Leica's shutter speed and aperture manually in advance, the Leica shutter fires almost instantaneously, with almost zero shutter lag when I go to take the picture. The G5 pauses between pushing the shutter and taking the picture while the autofocus and autoexposure functions set the camera before the shutter goes off, and although these functions work relatively quickly considering the complex functions involved, the gap between depressing the shutter part way until the green focus light comes on and then pushing the shutter the rest of the way until the shutter fires can seem like an eternity when the subject is in motion. While the Canon zoom lens on the G5 is surprisingly good, the Leica fixed focal length lenses on the M2 are better, and the M2 can use the latest M-Mount lenses offered by Leica (or other firms such as Zeiss), while the lens of the G5 is a fixed-mount lens that cannot be updated. The M2, being a manual camera that does not need batteries, works at any time and in a wide range of temperature conditions. The G5, being dependent upon a rechargeable battery, works only when the battery is charged, does not seem to have a very long battery life, and seems to have an even shorter battery life when the weather is cold. The M2 is a strongly built and durable camera, with spare parts and service still available 50 years after it was manufactured. The G5, while a well-made camera, appears significantly less durable in terms of ability to withstand unintentional abuse without major damage, and I doubt that it will be repairable 10 years from now, never mind 50. The G5 does offer a couple of good features, however. Assuming that the battery is charged and there is enough like for the autofocus system to function, the G5 allows me to download images to my computer quickly, while with the M2 I have to wait several days to get developed film and a photo CD back before I can see how the pictures came out. Since the G5 has a zoom lens, I don't have to change lenses to change focal lengths. The G5 is also good at allowing close-ups. On overall balance, the G5 is a good camera, I like it, and I can see why some people prefer some of the conveniences of digital photography, but the M2 is a great deal better at the things that really count to me.

 

As with all such questions, the answer turns upon your personal preferences and the types of photography that you do most often, as much as upon the equipment itself. For available-light photography, candid portraiture, and extended shooting under field conditions, a Leica M is hard to beat. I don't do "street" photography myself, but many people appear to find Leica M cameras ideal for that kind of work, because one can set the exposure in advance, zone focus with a wide-angle lens, and then compose and shoot very rapidly when an opportunity presents itself. For casual shooting in daylight conditions where you want to be able to see your pictures the same day, a digital camera might be preferable. For sports photography or long-range nature photography requiring long telephoto lenses, a DSLR would probably be preferable.

"If you like low light & wide aperture lenses, the M8 + ASPH is way better than my D700 Nikon + 50 1.4. WAY better. Not even a contest. No pixel peeping required. Same with film."

 

Since I'm interested in both these cameras, I'd like to know exactly what you mean here. Are you saying 1) the M8 itself is better in low light? (there seems to be a lot of well supported info claiming the opposite). Are you saying 2) that the M8 focuses more accurately, and therefore produces better results? Or 3) are you just saying that at wide apertures the 50 lux asph is sharper than Nikon's 50/1.4? (who would dispute that?). Or even 4) some combination of these things?

 

If 2, then are you saying the Nikon D700 focuses inaccurately in low light? If so, how low, at what distances etc. by how much is it off, could it be user error? Could manually focusing help improve things?

 

If 3, then have you tried other lenses - the Zeiss 50/1.4, the Voigtlander SLII 40/2? Or even the Nikon 50/1.8?

 

I'd appreciate a considered reply - even better if you could post some evidence.

I shoot street. I need AE. I prefer loading film via swing back. I want a relatively a long EBL. I want good value. I

bought a Zeiss ZI.

I got an idea, how about just go out and photograph and stop worrying about the film digital nonsense.....

Hi,

just adding fuel to the fire ... in the last months I finally realized that I have two photographic "modes":

1) Landscapes (mostly, ruins) & still-life

2) Streets candid & travel

 

For my mode (1) I have a Contax 645 that is a dream and joy but,most of all, does exactly what I want. The problem is that is quite unsuited for my mode (2) for which I would need a small, silent, sturdy, quality camera (with fast lenses).

 

Looking around I sorted out various possibilities:

- Leica M8/M8.2

- Leica M7/MP

- Zeiss Ikon

- Bessa R2/3 (A/M)

- Epson R-D1s

- Old RF (Canon 7, Canon P, Leica M3, Leica M4 ...)

 

After taking into account size, sound, comfort (i.e. swing back, AE), durability and money the right tool for my needs seems to be (in my opinion) either the Epson R-D1s or the Zeiss Ikon but I'm a bit perplexed about the Dynamic Range and Resolution of the Epson.

Everything else aside, there is a problem with most digital cameras, save a handful: they are not full frame. This goes

for the M8 and the RD-1s. If you are keen on wide angle and are a committed RF shooter, for whatever reason, film is

still medium. This is why I pack a film M camera along with my M8. Lately, I've gone back to my mechanical Ms.

 

It's not "film vs digital." It's what you want to produce.

 

I have confessed this often enough but I'll do it again. I am a inept at processing my own film and have never had the

where with all to assemble a darkroom for black and white, much less color. The digital revolution has been a liberation

because my darkroom is a computer, a scanner, the Internet and an inkjet printer. I know I have missed out on the joys

the traditional darkroom, but such is life.

 

I absolutely recommend an M6 or another M if you love RF photography. A good mechanical M is less headaches in the

long run--say I a confirmed M8 addict.

I bought a Canon 10D in 2003. I was frustrated by the digital learning curve and thought that my camera would not

produce good images. I blamed the technology, and bought a Leica MP a la carte. I used both cameras that year

and by August of 2005, after suddenly having lost regular access to a wet darkroom, my post-processing Photoshop

skills began to yield images from the 10D as good as those I'd been making with my film cameras.

 

Since then, my MP has become a very expensive paperweight. It is the single most ill-timed and poorly thought out

purchase I've ever made. Its a wonderful tool; there are perhaps none better, but its not for me. Given the choice

that digital offers, I don't responsibly have the extra time needed to expose and process and print film. Losing the

access to a darkroom was a bit of a surprise. Inasmuch as I've not had to buy film for the Leica, the price of the 10D

has now been offset. So, I'm not really out any more money beyond the (rather substantial) purchase price of the

Leica by having both.

 

I came away from my experience having bought two very nice cameras and having learned one very expensive

lesson. If others are getting good results using the same camera that I have, and I'm not getting good results,

maybe its not the camera!

 

I should probably sell the Leica, but somehow cannot talk myself into doing so.

 

Michael J Hoffman

what I like most about the Leica M is its positive fast focusing -- always dead on. The 35/50mm ASPH glass is nice too.

 

There is something uniquely special about bringing up my MP/Summilux ASPH to my eye and having it represent what I see.

I can understand not wanting to part from your MP, Michael. But if ever you do, well, let us know.

The simplest solution if you find yourself lusting after a Leica is to just buy it. Then look at it, hold it in your hands, caress

it in the evenings when watching TV. Oh, yeah, and take a few photos with it. Get it out of your system. Whether you end

up loving or hating the Leica, you will always wonder until you actually own one and shoot it. Lots of folks end up loving

them, lots of folks don't. But you will never know how YOU will react by reading threads on Internet forums.

I purchased an MP brand new in 2004 and then sold it a few years later fearing the "end of film" and thereby reducing the value of the camera...

 

Biggest mistake I have ever made in selling that camera. I now on an M6 and a number of lenses and also own a digital camera.

 

Ultimately, a camera is a tool and its a case of "horses for courses". There are things the Leica will always do better than a huge DSLR, and vice versa..

Digital is cool. At some point I want to get a full frame M or full frame Canon to complement my film Canon and M.

 

That being said, I have so much fun shooting film, mostly with my M, but even with my SLR. I do mostly black and

white and process it my own. I mostly scan it to, but manage to get into the darkroom once a month or so.

 

Get an M6. The couple extra hundred dollars or so buys you a meter, easier film loading, and probably avoids the need

for a CLA. Or get a Zeiss Ikon.

 

Alternately, keep shooting with what you have. It's a good setup.

 

A DSLR is certainly more versatile. And more easily produces big prints. And is more convenient to get pictures onto

your computer. But, not everything needs to be super versatile. I enjoy my quirky camera and my quirky images.

Grain/noise at ISO 1600? I can deal.

Think about it like this. If you buy a DSLR you are basically buying into an upgrade cycle. Your DSLR will be great for a few years, but then you'll start wanting the next big thing. You might even make it 4 or 5 years before you upgrade, but you will want to upgrade eventually. So, instead of making your jump into the DSLR upgrade cycle with something like a 5D, make it with an M6. It's futile to resist the cycle completely, so just think of the M6 as your first DSLR purchase. When you're ready to upgrade in a few years, you can get the latest DSLR, better than what is currently available, and still have a perfectly fine M6. Who knows. By then you might be eyeing an M9.

Your question almost brings up the less common rangefinder vs. SLR debate. Like Vel, I shoot mostly landscapes or street... meaning 21-50mm. A rangefinder excels at the focal lengths. The ultra wide angle lenses are going to be much smaller and lighter than their SLR counterparts. The M3 body will be a lot smaller than the full frame DSLR.

<p>

<b>I recommend a M3 with a Voigtlander VCII meter </b>. It's a good comprimise between the two. You can always sell both for at or near the same value. Digital, you will have a lot of depreciation.

<p>

Digital, don't forget about shutter lag. There is a lot of post processing. I scan, but I don't need to spend hours in Photoshop. I don't feel the need to develop my photos either. Bresson didn't so why do I have to?

It depends on why you are into photography. Photographs have to come into it somewhere, but aren't mentioned much in the OP. If you like photography because it lets you fondle lumps of mechanical perfection then buy a Leica. But ask your self if the photos will show any difference. Lots of people claim that Leica lenses are "better" than any others. I used Leicas for years but never saw that difference. My Leica's have been sitting in a cupboard since I bought a couple of DSLRs. I can honestly say that the DSLRs with their automation and various gizmos have enabled me to take pictures that I never would have taken with my Leicas.

 

I shoot colour and I think that is a key point in my views. If I still shot black and white I would be more tempted to continue with film, as black and white film has much more latitude than digital cameras. Another factor is that I have acquired a family. A two year old does not leave much time or energy for developing films or anything like that.

 

For me, the bottom line is I want to take pictures and I don't care about the stuff that enables me to do it. I want to record my life and what is happening around me. No one else cares about the hardware used, why should I?

 

Regards and good luck in whatever you decide.

 

regards

 

Alan

<i>More simply put: Do you still prefer to use your film M with all of the digital options out there?</I><P>

 

I left my M6 in the back of a cab on Feb 1. As far as my photography is concerned, it was <b>the best thing</b> I ever

did. I was never really satisfied with what I was getting from my Leica, and when I looked at the work on this forum, I

saw even less to get excited about. <P>

 

I don't shoot digital. These days I shoot almost all medium format, mostly with Holgas. At least give MF a go. It's quite

an experience. I shoot street.<P>

 

Before you rush out and spend your hard-earned cash, take a look at the work of people on this forum. See if any of it

matches your own expectations and aspirations. If not, go to Flickr and expand you search to include other camera

systems. There's so much out there! Bottom line -- Take your time.<P>

 

(On a purely selfish-indulgent note, I suggest you check out Kiev MF cameras)

<p><a href="http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?currency=GBP&products_id=252">http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?currency=GBP&products_id=252</a></p>