Say what you want about Ken; he sure likes his Leica!

<p>Ken Rockwell, I mean, one of the most popular (and criticized) photography bloggers on the Web, singing his Leica's praises:</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm</p>

<p>" In the 1990s I'd never have looked at the expensive Leica gear, but now that the whole Leica setup cost me half of a D3X and gives better results, I'm sold. My complete Leica system, with M7 body, 28mm/f2.8, 50mm/f2, and 90mm/f2.8 German Leica lenses, cost me just under $4,000, or half the price of a D3X body alone."</p>

<p>"The Leica lenses are much better than the Nikon SLR lenses if you're counting pixels. With the Nikon lenses, you want to stop down a stop or two for the best results at 24MP, but with the Leica lenses, you can shoot wide open and get great results. This means I didn't need to bother with a tripod, either."</p>

<p>Etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>KR is just lucky his site doesn't have a section for rebuttals. He's deliberately provocative in a lame attempt to grab page views. Pass it by.</p>

<p><em>"KR is just lucky his site doesn't have a section for rebuttals."</em><br /> <em></em><br /> <em>KR's email address is very much available, just email him if you disagree.</em></p>

<p>Digital is all about convience. I have leica bodies 50 years old that work as new. How can you call them expensive?<br>

He turns his film over to someone to develope and print. If you have to develope and scan yourself to get digi files, everything changes regarding convience.</p>

<p>If you look at cost, I have spent $5500 in two years on a D200, D40+18/135, D700 plus unknown amounts on assorted Nikkor zooms and primes. Life expentency of a digi body is ? not counting obsolesence, just counting unrepairable failure. Don`t know except it is not 50 years. Leicas are alway repairable except for the M7, although they claim they will have electronics for 25 years if they are still around in 25 years.<br>

Then add in computers and software.</p>

<p>Digi is expensive no matter how you cut it, fun but expensive. He is also right about the lenses. </p>

<p>My D700 went for an outing a few days back at -9 deg F, actual, not wind chill. Too cold for photography. My M6 went two days ago when it was 20 deg F. The outing was way more enjoyable.</p>

<p>Well, he's right...this time! Not sure what he means about pixels as there's no 24MP M, but I know what he means.</p>

<p>It's just a phase; he's a gear head. </p>

<p>I don't keep up with his site, but has he "discovered" MF film yet? He'll be extolling the virtues of the Mamiya 7 next. Probably full circle back to digital at some point.</p>

<p>Yeah, he says the Mamiya 7 is the best camera.<br>

His point on the M7 is good, it's light, you don't mind carrying it. I spent a long weekend in NYC wearing a Leica IIIa with Canon 35/1.8 lens on it, and it was never a burden. (Well, plus a Gossen Luna-Six in my pocket...)<br>

Can't say that about SLR or DSLR cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>His point on the M7 is good, it's light, you don't mind carrying it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, I'm eagerly awaiting what comes out next in u4/3. That mockup Olympus showed at the end of last year looks absolutely yummy. With the kind of success people have seen adapting lenses to the Panasonic G1, the Oly should be very interesting with a side of M43 or LTM optics.</p>

<p>Actually, Ken calls the Mamiya 7 "an expensive camera with fantastic optics built with second rate mechanical and material quality". Having owned one I agree. Ken likes the Mamiya 6.</p>

<p>He's certainly right about the Leica optics too. Some of his other observations are, well......different, I guess you could say. Never a dull moment when discussing his website.</p>

<p>I've never understood why people are so interested in the views of a photographer with such a generic portfolio.</p>

<p>Perhaps because Ken Rockwell is "new" to the Leica film system and has been totally immersed in digital SLR, he's discovering most of the important qualities that people on this forum have been taking for granted and rarely mention. I finally got to handle the new Nikon D90 and D700 at Ritz last weekend. I've been waiting for these for some time and hoping that they would finally give me a way to rescue my beautiful telephoto Nikon AF lenses, especially my 180mm lens. Leica, of course, is not designed for such lenses. I cannot tell you how shocked I was to pick up the long awaited full frame D700. It is a total tank of a camera. And I mean tank. The job calls for a precise sniper's rifle and they give you a tank instead. It seemed like it must have weighed at least 10 pounds. And giganic in my hands (now always compared to the M6 or M8). What a disappointment. How did digital SLRs grow so big and why? There's no way I could possibly buy one of those now for any price. <br>

Many of us came to age in photography with Pentax spotmatics and the comparable Nikon SLRs of the same era. For us, this defined what the size of a "normal' camera should be. Lighter P&S cameras came later, but they were for snapshots. In sum, no camera should be or should need to be larger than this. As Ken Rockwell says, you just feel like walking further with a Leica film camera--and that was supposed to be the whole idea behind landscape or nature photography. And no tripod? How could that be? [View cameras and medium format cameras aside, of course]<br>

After using my M8 for some time, I shot a couple of roles of film in my M6 ttl recently. What a nice experience it was. As much as I like the M8 and what it does, the M6 just felt better in my hands, and I quickly fell back into the old habits. I would continue with it except for one thing: the film. I disliked more than ever the now ordeal of processing the film. The XP2 was simply not processed correctly; the color film looked horrible in the paid for scans, but I was able to convert it with some work into decent B&W. But alas, it was all too much trouble, not to mention the $12-18 bucks a role. The M8 is the best answer to this problem: a M6 with slightly more room for the digital back and chips. Instant review with a histogram, and so forth. We could not have asked for anything more the first time out. Hopefully, no future versions will grow any larger than the M8 and hopefully will shrink back to the size of the M6. Why not? This is what a camera is supposed to look and feel like. </p>

<p>He can use whatever he wants but I think the guy has a lot of nerve asking for donations from us so he can buy it. </p>

<p>Ken appreciates older equipment that is simple to use, inexpensive, yet capable of giving results he finds comparable with what the latest, hi-tech, very expensive offerings from N or C can yield.<br>

This practical approach to photography seems to be an underlying theme throughout his web site.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like most serious shooters, I'm so done with digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I must have missed the droves of digital shooters that have dropped their DSLRs and went back to film. Guess, if this is true, it will also reverse the trend that film cameras are dirt cheap - in turn negating KR's argument that film is cheaper than digital. And why again did he purchase that D3 - ah yes, so he can shoot basic JPEG at 6MP.<br>

And he didn't bother with the tripod either - right below the image of the M7 on a Novoflex magic ball.<br>

<br /> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, he is confusing on Cosina Voigtlander!</p>

<p>He tests the 21/4 (which I have), and he says "<em>The lens works magnificently</em> ." ....but then he says goes on to say " I<em>f you're sinking serious money into a serious camera, why would you want to save a tiny fraction of that amount by buying second-rate lenses which will be part of your system for far longer than that camera body?.... </em> <em>Why saddle yourself with "settle for" lenses, when you could own the best instead</em> ? "</p>

<p>So what he's saying is that it's a "magnificent" lens but you shouldn't buy it. You should spend all your coin on a Leica, whether you can afford it or not. </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I love Leica lenses, but people have to make their own decisions regarding their budget, and Voigtlander lenses are very good value for the money.</p>

<p>http://kenrockwell.com/leica/cosina.htm<br /> </p>

<p>Had he purchased the M7 new and not used, his cost calculation wouldn't work I suppose - seeing that the M7 costs new about $5500.</p>

<p>Mamiya 7 is not particularly expensive for a high quality MF system, it is light, and I don't find the materials particularly cheap. It's funny, Mr. Digital Rockwell singing the praises of a film camera.</p>

<p>But Ralph, what is there to dislike about Leicas? ;p</p>

<p>But seriously, I think Leica has made its name in quality (both built and image) that I think any photographer who can appreciate both will have little bad things to say.</p>

<p>My only gripe about Leica is the price; but as the saying goes, you pay for what you get.</p>

<p>You guys read Ken Rockwell? Why? </p>

<p>G</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think Leica has made its name in quality (both built and image) that I think any photographer who can appreciate both will have little bad things to say.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, I don't know about that. Leica is more about jewelry than cameras these days. Go check out the new "Safari Edition" M8. The only thing safari about it is the green paint job, and that'll cost you about $5000USD more than the standard M8. Of course, I must say it goes just dashingly with the Hermes edition MP of a few years back.</p>

<p>Having looked at his gallery, I can tell you that I couldn't find any photos taken with either a Leica or a Mamiya 7. All 5D or 4x5. So it's hard to take his fave of the week seriously.<br>

And just recently he disparaged the cost of Leica lenses, while complaining that they "don't even have autofocus" for so much money.<br>

Really, it's very hard to take anything he says seriously. He even thinks using film is easier than "dicking around" with a RAW converter. I like film, but he can't be serious....<br>

I like his enthusiasm, but this is the problem when people get a megaphone with no one to edit what they say.</p>

<p>Lol Robert. I forgot to add the disclaimer "with the exception of the M8". Never tried it before but heard some not so good things about it.</p>

<p>Great to see that Ken is starting another sucessful topic... the Nikon stuff was going down. His Nikon pro opinions are exhausted. Few new Nikon products to test, thought.</p>

<p>Now, fodder for Leica eagers... Leica AG must help sending him lenses to be tested! Fast! If not... with only a camera and a "cheap" lens.... how could he gives the expert` opinion about Leica? If I were Leica AG I`d send him the complete Leica-M line, M8.2 included, without any kind of doubt, as soon as possible... (I`m seriously speaking!)</p>

<p>I wonder why he isn`t yet on politics... Or is he?</p>

<p>Congratulations for the new born. Didn`t noticed that. Too much time without visiting his site, I think. With all my respect, I liked his "baby R" stuff. For sure he is a good guy.</p>

<p>I read his stuff because he calls a spade a spade. His reviews are detailed and no nonsense. But he has his enemies. He makes a valid point though about digital. I am coming to digital with lots of good lenses and nice FM, FE and F4s bodies. I can use all the lenses on my D300 which I got secondhand, so the step into digital was easy. I have computers everywhere and colour printers/scanners.<br>

I would not want to come into digital with nothing. That would cost a fortune at D300/700 level plus say 3 fast lenses plus everything else.</p>

<p>It's funny to learn that Ken finally came up to realize what Leica people know since many years...<br>

Concerning digital, come on let's face it, after all the ado about digital, if all of you are honest, you will have to admit that by loading a good old Yashica T5 with Fuji Velvia you will get much (a lot much) better pics (in terms of colour, sharpness, and noise above all) than with a brand new Lumix lx3 (or Canon G10). Dare to affirm the contrary......</p>