No place for Leica M any more?

<p>Thanks JDM. This next shot was taken from the perspective of a different bottle of wine. 2/3rds of the world population lived under Roman rule, incredible. If you ever can, visit Israel, it is the most incredible place for photography. From snow covered Mt. Hermon in the north to ancient spice cities in the boiled dry Negev Desert, history is on every corner. I took my Mazda 323 all over the Great Sandy speeding past burnt Egyptian tanks, unable to stop for a photo as to stop was to get stuck. I had wanted to visit all of the Spice Cities, but only made it to Shivta, Advat, Mamsh*t, (PN won't let me spell it correctly), Nitsana and Moab. You can visit sites such as the Gladiator Arena in Beit She'an and under a full moon and still hear the clink of armor and screams of death and victory, or walk in the footsteps of King Richard the Lion Heart, alone in your own thoughts. Visit the eons of excavations at Tel Megiddo.</p>

<p>Hopefully in my lifetime I'll be able to visit Syria,Iraq and Iran.</p>

<p>To go back on topic, all of these photos are sufficient quality for me.</p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> Actually I shoot a Nikon N80 and a D200. I am happy with them both. I have always kind of wanted a Leica but around here film is getting really tough to live with. No labs, mail order film. I would not be willing to spend a great deal on a film camera as it's a vanishing thing in my life. I do like film better then digital but digital will be what I have in the end. </p>

<p>I could live with the limited range of focal lengths of a Leica for travel and most other purposes. Instead of a 35, it would be nice to have a 28 at the lower end, but 90 is still a good choice for landscapes and 50 is still a good walk-around choice. If I got tired of hauling 100 or more rolls of film around, the same lenses would fit an M9.</p>

<p>While this would not give me the flexibility I need professionally, it might be a pleasant change of pace for casual use. I have the M2, and with a little shop time, it could be restored to fighting shape.</p>

<p>I don't hold any romantic attachment to cameras or film v digital. You just have to understand your tools and medium, their strengths and limitations.</p>

<p>At my last wedding I used both film and digital (something I wouldn't normally recommend), and shot most of the procession on two Mamiya 6s, one with 75 and one with 50 lens. The operational aspects of a rangefinder for this type of work are much more pleasant than a DSLR for me.<br>

The advantage for me are:<br>

1. Ease of focusing, especially with wide-angle. There is no waiting for the camera to acquire focus, and shutter release, like a Leica, is absolutely immediate. With either camera, there is no question of being able to catch a decisive moment, depending on the photographer's own reflexes. For the shot below I simply focused on a spot on the grass and waited.<br>

2. I only meter once for the conditions (one for sun and one for shade). No need to change anything. Any changes are easier with a mechanical aperture control. I find that the digital control of modern cameras is actually slower, and the camera has to be turned on and in my case, actually metering, to change aperture. <br>

While a mechanical rangefinder is faster and easier in some circumstances, it's not the thing for volume shooting, which is why I used it in limited circumstances. </p><div></div>

<p>

<p>Regarding the cost of digital vs film, the cost of film and processing for me was not the largest cost, it was the time it took to scan the film that was the big cost. If I had been happy to drop off my film and get 4x6 inch prints with colors that were often way off then the cost of film would have not be nearly as high. But the quality improvement I got with scanning my own film was so large that scanning ended up being part of my film workflow. But scanning takes a lot of time and if I was to shoot more film I would be buying a new scanner at a cost of what a DSLR body cost in any event. I have also had film bodies go bad so that is not something that only happens to digital cameras.</p>

</p>

<p>No arguing with that shot Scott, lovely.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Steve,<br>

Thanks. Back to the subject of Leica specifically--one could make the argument that a specific lens could convince one to use it, and for certain emulsions. For example, I have lots of great Canon and Pentax lenses, but none have the certain something that my Summicron 90 f/2 has. The same could be said for the Summilux series. <br>

Scott</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Owing a Leica M is a lot like owning a classic sports car. It's not practical for many things and might not keep up with the latest and greatest when it comes to pure image quality.</p>

<p>But like the classic sports car it's a joy to operate. Best build in the business, quiet and smooth. And if you have good light and shoot with a film like Delta 100 the image quality is not as far off DSLR's.</p>

<p>Here's a shot taken with an M3 and Voigtlander 35mm Color Skopar on a somewhat grainy Tri-x B&W film. My digital cameras could not do a better job here.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Owing a Leica M is a lot like owning a classic sports car. It's not practical for many things and might not keep up with the latest and greatest when it comes to pure image quality.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And some of those flagship dslrs reminds one of the ubiquitous family van; new, practical and extremely large. It would be hard to take a family of 7 from Ohio to Florida in a sleek little sports car, right. And it's just as silly driving some big honking van while trying to tool around a little village. </p>

<p>But then I see women driving these things everywhere ... possibly because that's all the family has?</p>

<p>Michael, Thomas, I think you've hit the nail on the head, and I've pretty much expressed the same thoughts here too.<br>

What I was, and still am really, trying to decide was whether I could have that joy with the classic car but without sacrificing too much. I just couldn't help thinking that with things like fast kids which I enjoy shooting the lack of quick AF, fast fps, high ISOs and infinite shots would skew the results so much in favour of the D3 that it would be no contest. To compete I felt I'd need a Mamiya 7 with 1600 ISO film at least in order to be able to shoot at f11 to help me with focus and then have the world's greatest timing to capture the exact moment I want rather than blast it at 9fps!<br>

I am still thinking about it though, thanks for all the thoughts.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Leica rangefinders have been niche items long before digital came along. Autofocus film SLRs really finished them as mainstream items. They are lovely to use (I used them for years), but for me they are impractical compared with the DSLR I switched to. Apart from anything else, in my DSLR I can see the whole viewfinder. In my Leica I couldn't even see the corners of the 35mm frame in a 28mm finder. I did enjoy using them, but I'm glad I switched. That doesn't mean I think anyone else should do as I did, that's up to you.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

Sigh, I promissed my self I would not come back here, but here I am.

 

Firstly, I think by my personal and professional experience that you are asking a question that you have kind of already

made your up mind about.

 

The advent of a nail gun did not make a hammer not have a place in a craftsman's tool arsenal. Salgado only just

stopped using film Leicas because it was getting to be too much of an issue to hand check Tri-x through the less

understanding airports of the world.

 

Alex Webb would have just kept right on using Kodachrome if Kodak had not nixed it last year. The reasons why are that

a true artist / talent finds an arrangement of medium that works and generally sticks with it. The 

most important part of image quality is not the scientific or measured under a microscope kind but the total and final image

the photographer comes up with through the use of his tools and foremost, his vision.

 

I chose Leica cameras and lenses for my project on Kodachrome because they simply get the he'll out of the way of

making great images with a medium that I personally feel still exceeds digital in it's total image quality.....and I have shot a

ton of digital for the past 16 years of my career.

 

I am just finishing up a two week stint in New York. I went and checked out Bresson's darkroom prints at the Moma and it

simply confirmed what I have always believed and that is the technical merits of a photographic process have no value at

all if the talent and vision is not behind the camera.

 

Plenty of us still shoot Leica because it is the tool for the job we do and when we use film in it, we feel it is a better choice

that digital and that is really all that matters. Your measurements really mean nothing to us and our clients.

 

So in a manner of speaking and with all due respect, if you have to ask, you will simply never know...

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In the final analysis, a camera, any camera, is just a tool to capture an image at a particular point in time. I cut my teeth as a UPI photog in Vietnam in the 60s. The only camera I used was a Leica M2 with 35/50/90 Summicrons. Other colleagues swore by Nikons, I preferred the Leicas. All we shot was Tri-X, except for some rolls of Kodachrome for the family back home. Other guys used the M3, but I preferred the M2 because I wore glasses then--contacts now--and couldn't see the full frame on the M3. We got so good with guestimating exposure, that I rarely used a meter, but I did have one on top of the M2, not that it got any use.<br>

I'm retired now and still use my Leicas, but mostly with color print film to satisfy the grandkids. My wife has gone totally digital. As long as I can get film processed, I'll stick with it, but you cannot beat the immediacy and economy of digital.</p>

There was a time when many photographers aspired to own a Leica M series even if they had to refinance their home, or wait until retirement. Not sure if that is still going on with the Digital explosion. It wasn't too long ago that everybody thought Leica might fold as a company, but they seem to have made a comeback. Still $2000 and $3000 lenses is a bit hard to swallow for most people.

<p>Daniel, thanks for the long responses.<br>

I'm not sure what "measurements" you're talking about, can't remember giving any.<br>

As for Kodachrome, it was my favourite for years and I have stacks of them in my files. I also have quite a stock of 120 film here still too (mostly Portra, some FP4 and Pan F). I think I've already mentioned shooting 6x7s and how great they are a lightbox, so don't need a cheap ebay viewer. But digital shots are even more archival than Kodachrome - computers are not going away, and 0 and 1s don't degrade, they just are.<br>

I might well have made my mind up about this (although not quite), but even so I don't see any harm in giving my thoughts on it in case anyone is thinking the same and might benefit, or others might have ideas to chip in - that's what we're here for.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Steve, your logic is faultless but... it's like measuring a Maserati you really would like, then not pulling the trigger on actually getting it - because you cannot fit a full set of ladders in the back.</p>

<p>What you say is correct, if irrelevant for those who enjoy theirs. You're right though - your DSLR will suit you best.</p>

<p>An mp ( leica ) and be done with it.</p>

<p>Folks saying a Leica screw or M mount has no place is as old as dirt.</p>

<p>Folks said that when the M3 came out; that they should have made an slr!.</p>

<p>When the Nikon F came out; old Exakta slr users often went to Nikon F. <br /> ****late 1960's:<br /> Leica Thread mount stuff was in a deep funk in the late 1960's; Even M stuff was not well on the used market.</p>

<p>A Doctor who got a Leica M3 and Summicron often traded the darn things in on an slr in the late 1960's; and paid EXTRA to buy a Petri slr ; or Nikkormat.</p>

<p>A used Summicron was about 25 bucks; you could not even by a Used 50mm F2 Nikkor for Nikon F for that.</p>

<p>Used LTM was worse; one had all this LTM stuff one took back in trade ins. LTM stuff was like taking in Pentium II computers in trade in; you made folks feel good by giving then some money; you just factored in all this crap one took in.</p>

<p>At one store we had drawers full of LTM stuff; a 5cm F2 Nikkor sold for about 9 to 15 bucks used. In a cash only buy one would buy them for 3 to 5 bucks.</p>

<p>One had 2 to 3 years worth of inventory; LTM stuff was in a total funk.</p>

<p>ONLY super speed 1950's stuff held any real worth; a 85mm F1.5 Nikkor was about 120 bucks. There really was NOT much collecting then; old cameras were like old computers; no real love; just old stuff</p>

<p>A used Leica M3 with 50mm Summicron was about 180 bucks in 1969; if one paid say 80 to 100 bucks one could buy a NEW Minolta SRT 101 with F1.4 with a trade in.</p>

<p>That used Leica M3 and Summicron might be traded for a Petri FT slr with F1.8 len and no cash</p>

<p>Kelly, I think you've hit on an important point - I didn't mean to say that I thought that Leicas had no place, I just wanted people's ideas about why they did still have a place, as it occured to me that some of the reasons why they had been favoured have now been superceded.<br>

I definitely think they still have their place - that's why I considered buying one!<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p> Maybe a place for Leica?</p>

<p> <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00Whuz">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Whuz</a></p>

<p> I would like to have a Leica M. I cannot think of another camera that would suit my needs better then that. The only problem is I have 4 kids in college right now and I need to pay for that first. But then hopefully my time will come. I would like to own the M7.</p>