Something about Leica M...

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by nhp, Nov 8, 2000.

  1. nhp

    nhp

    Thanks for sharing your opinion... Let me tell you about my situation. I had Two Leica M6 TTL and Summicron 50/2, Hexanon-M90/2.8 and Elmarit 28/2.8, but I have sold one M6 and 28/2.8. I am wondering between following option; 1. Sell Summi50/2 & Hexanon90/2.8 and buy Summicron 35/2 ASPH. 2. Keep current system and add 35/2 or 28/2. That's why I posted two more questions on this site. BTW, I have got Hexar Silver 35/2 about 2 weeks ago. I think it is pretty good, but I am not sure about its quality and performance in compare with Summicron 35/2 ASPH. My specialty is in Architectural, Still Life, and Street Photography. You can see my images at www.welcome.to/studionaki. Leica M was, is my dream camera since I had studied photography, and I love to shoot people in the street with M6. Therefore, at least I want to keep this M6 even if I quit photography for any reason. Well, what do you think about this situation? Of course it's up to me, but I want to know your thought. Thanks for help.... ^L^... http://welcome.to/studionaki
     
  2. I suppose it would help to know something more about your
    options:
    Re #1, do you like using a 50mm lens for the shooting you do
    and likewise, do you like the 90mm? Both are excellent lenses,
    quality should not be at issue here, but are they at all useful to
    you? If the answer is no, then selling them might make sense
    even if you don't buy the 35/2 in their place. Secondly, do you like
    the 35mm focal length? Is your reason for buying the 35/2
    summicron to add versatility to your Leica? The Hexar gives you
    the same speed, focal length, rangefinder compactness and
    optical quality as the M6 (and at half the cost of the summicron
    alone, FWIW), only you have no advantage of lens
    interchangability. Is that important to you? Do you like to carry
    both cameras or do you want the flexibility of shooting at 35mm
    with either? Is the 35/2 ASPH your only option or could you
    consider the 35/1.4 ASPH as well? Did you not like the 28mm
    focal length and therefore not use the 28/2.8 lens much? If so,
    then how much more useful would you find the extra stop of the
    28mm summicron ASPH? What about a wider lens instead:
    the 24/2.8 or 21/2.8, do they make sense for you? Or does the
    tri-elmarit lens appeal more, slower speed notwithstanding? All
    of your choices are high quality lenses and cameras but none of
    them make sense to have if you don't like using them.
     
  3. Everyone has a favourite point of view, a lens that feels natural to
    use. No one can help you here, it is your vision that needs to be
    satisfied not ours. I started with a 50/2, a wonderful lens, and
    gradually, after ten years, I realised that I see the world more with
    a 35 or 28 framing. I think the 28 would have been best but, as I
    often shoot in very low light, I settled on the 35/1.4 Asph. Happy
    as a clam now and I seldom use my 50/2, wonderful lens
    though.

    <p>

    Cheers

    <p>

    Cheers
     
  4. NHP, I think you are moving too fast! Please make one change at a
    time, and take time to evaluate whether the change was useful. I
    regret every time I traded a piece of Leica gear! I'd like to have
    back my M3; my 35mm summaron (even though I love the 35 Summicron &
    Summilux); my 50 mm f:2.8 Elmar; my IIIF with 50mm 3.5 Elmar, and my
    Leica D with uncoated 3.5 Elmar (well, maybe not that one). I'll
    never part with my M2, M6, or any lenses I still have. I've learned
    my lesson.

    <p>

    Now: what are you trying to accomplish? I looked for your website,
    but your URL didn't work. Seeing your images would have helped.
    Ultimate sharpness isn't the be-all and end-all. See, for example,
    Degas' ballerinas. Or see Renoir. I'll bet top technical quality
    isn't why you use a Leica for street photography. But it's good for
    architecture, and I guess, for still-lifes. You have diverse
    objectives.

    <p>

    For architecture I think you should have a perspective-control shift
    lens. This means Leica-R or Nikon. Olympus has one, too. Better
    yet, get a view camera. With a little practice, you can flip one
    around pretty handily.

    <p>

    For still-lifes, you can use a lot of things. Leica-M, Leica-R.
    50mm Summicron. Nikon with 55mm Micro-Nikkor. Hasselblad with 120mm
    Makro-Planar. Whatever.

    <p>

    For street photography, you're all set with what you've got. Take it
    slow! Explore each camera & lens. Don't part with anything unless
    you're SURE!

    <p>

    Yours for continued growth-personally and photographically--

    <p>

    Bob
     
  5. It seems you are NOT enjoying your photography or your on permanent buying spree...Leica for me means less equipment not more!If I use SLR I usually carry 3~5 lenses.I very seldom rely on one.The M3 usually only the 50.Architecture may need PC-lens,available only in SLR.Do you in fact own other cameras?I have been a long time ago on that pursuit of the "Holy Grail" in a perfect camera combo.There is no such thing.Stop opening boxes and open your shutter and just work at taking photos.
     
  6. nhp

    nhp

    Thanks for help. Leica M6 is my latest camera for me, and I am
    expecting something from this camera such as excellent quality of
    image which I want to make. That is the reason why I am wondering
    about this nice camera. Maybe I could not enjoy the taste of Leica
    yet. Well, I am using Canon EOS system, Hasselblad system, Toyo 4X5
    system and Nikon Digital camera for my photo assignment and self
    promoted project. I think Leica is perfect camera for street
    photography or Documentary, not for architectural, table top,
    commercial works. The reason why I got this Leica is simple. I want
    to carry reliable, high quality, and compact camera everytime,
    everywhere. I love to record everyday life of these days in my
    environment. I think most important and fascinating aspect of
    photography is THE RECORDING MOMENT and TIME. Thanks again, and you
    can see my works at www.welcome.to/studionaki If you have any
    comment or advice for me, please let me know. ^L^....
     
  7. NHP, let me jump in here one more time. It sounds like you want to
    do what Henri Cartier-Bresson did, capturing "the decisive moment."
    He used a Leica, you know. I don't believe his lenses were anything
    too fancy. Probably 35mm and 50mm lenses available at the time.
    Maybe Elmar, maybe Summar, Summaron, who knows. He learned to use
    them to meet his objectives.

    <p>

    Now consider the Life Magazine photographer, Alfred Eisenstadt. You
    know, the one who took the picture of the sailor kissing the nurse in
    Times Square. Another Leica man. "Eisie" said that whenever he felt
    tempted to buy something, he always asked himself whether it would
    really improve his photograpy. Usually the answer was "no" and he
    didn't buy it. He said he couldn't justify a new Gadget bag for that
    reason. Eisie talked, not about Leicas, but about the importance of
    developing a rapport with his subjects.

    <p>

    Let's move on to W. Eugene Smith. He shot mostly with cameras
    borrowed from friends. Nothing fancy. Yashicas and stuff. The
    country doctor. The two kids walking down the tree-lined path. The
    death of Gus-Gus. According to the latest issue of Aperture, you can
    get five prints of Smith's work in a nice little cloth-lined box, for
    only $1500.00.

    <p>

    Now imagine the following scenario. A painter goes to Claude Renoir,
    and asks him whether he should trade in his 35mm Sable brush for a
    35mm camel's hair; or whether a 28mm or 50mm brush will make him a
    better, more famous painter. What do you think the master will say?

    <p>

    A driver in New York City rolls down his window, and yells to a cab
    driver: HOW DO YOU GET TO CARNEGIE HALL? The cabbie yells
    back, "PRACTICE! PRACTICE! PRACTICE!

    <p>

    Best Wishes,

    <p>

    Bob
     
  8. NHP,

    <p>

    Bob is giving very good advise here. There was a time that I was
    making quite a bit of money, and my every whim for new photo gear was
    met. I have cameras with literally one roll of film though them.
    While my knowledge of the science was good, my selection of equipment
    un-matched, my photography was very uninspired. My ratio of true
    subject photography to "lens testing" was pretty slanted. Gear does
    not equal results! Too much gear gets in the way of using it... too
    many choices cause delays and lost opportunities.

    <p>

    After a process of streamlining in my life that also effected my
    hobbies and extra curricular activities, it became clear...LESS, NOT
    MORE. I use to drool at the announcement of any new Leica (or
    Nikon)... but now I apply the question that Bob attributed to
    Eisenstaedt... "Will it make my photography better?" The answer is
    usually no. The 1400 Dollars I didn't spend on the new Aspheric 35mm
    Summicron, to replace my perfectly fine Pre-Asph model, has gone into
    film and travel... and that has made my photography better.

    <p>

    As a practice, you can do a lot worse that a total immersion into one
    lens, one camera. Live with it for a long time. Eventually you will
    know what you need... wider or longer. Or you will realize that it
    matches your vision and it will be "your outfit". Nobody ever
    recommended to Henri Cartier-Bresson that he needs a few more lenses.
     
  9. Mr. Naki, having viewed a small sample of your architectural work on the internet, I would say that you will make outstanding images with whatever gear you use. Based on this small sample, It appears to me that you are an artist who can achieve the sort of work the best equipment is designed for. While other makes may be almost as good as, and maybe in some instances as good as, Leica products, I think for street photography, you should go for Leica wherever possible. Don't waste time agonizing over other brands. While your URL address doesn't seem to work directly, I was able to access a cached version of your site via Google.
     
  10. Your photos are excellent! Congratulations. I have to say that I do
    not think that I would choose the Leica M for architectural
    photography, in fact I would not choose any rangefinder camera for
    this. You can make excellent photos of archiotectural subjects using
    an M6, of course, but I do feel that the direct-parallax-free-precise
    alignment kind of photography that you can get with a reflex is much
    to be preferred, unless you are superb at previsualising the outlook.
    With a rangefinder you cannot even really see converging verticals so
    I wonder whether it is suited for the kind of work you are so expert
    at. Likewise the Ms are not good for macro work. For general
    street/tourist type work or low light candid photography then the Ms
    are superb, so if you want to do this then an M will suit you. If you
    will mainly carry on doing the kind of work your web pages show then
    I think you might be making an expensive mistake in hankering after M
    Leicas. In this case perhaps you should start considering R
    Leicas...Personally I think I would want to think medium format or
    even large format looking at your portfolio.
     

Share This Page