Why Leica- Trying to explain the illogical

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by chris c, Jan 7, 2003.

  1. After 20+ years of shooting Nikon or Canon equipment I decided to buy
    a Leica "M" Body. As other have done before me I tried to rationalize
    the decision to pay thousands of dollars for a essentially manual
    body and then be faced with the prospect of thousands more for glass.
    <P> At the time I read the posts and struggled with why would a group
    of seemingly intelligent(?) people would chose to do this. To read
    the Nikon or Canon posts one would assume it is all about status or
    was related to some type of mid life crisis. <P> After having owned
    and seen the results of this expensive foray this is where I have
    arrived. I would like to hear from others your "elevator speech"
    about why you shoot Leica. Here is mine:
    <P> I took a picture of my daughter which when I developed it caused
    me to have to sit down. It captured the soul of an individual in an
    ungaurded moment. When the momemt arrived I was glad I had a Leica in
    my hands. <P> I received an unsolicited phone call from Leica to tell
    me that my rebate check had been misdirected to a customer in
    Colorado and he was going to send it to me directly. Like it or not
    that is service. You think Nikon would call you? <P> I can learn more
    about photography in a day at the Leica forum than a year in Nikon
    School. Somehow with Leica comes clarity of thought. <P> I used to
    think that a fast lens was 2.8 <P> B&W film is not something they
    used in the 50's. <P> I find myself in the search of the shot as
    opposed to pointing and rattling off 8 fps with a zoom lens in the
    hopes that the computer caught it. <P> Digital is bulls**t and Jack
    is making a huge mistake. <P> Marc W gets it. <P> After 20+ years I
    am coming to understand how much I don't know.
  2. Chris - I've never shot a Leica but your words are inspiring. Pretty much sums up why I spend almost all of my time shooting my Rollei loaded with tri-x.
  3. I've been using one Leica M or another for almost 25 years. To me, it's essential to think about the pictures I take before I take them. Of course, the question always is; am I thinking clearly?
  4. " I can learn more about photography in a day at the Leica forum than a year in Nikon School. Somehow with Leica comes clarity of thought."

    I guess you never bothered to read any other forums? Or you couldn't learn from a forum without buying specific products?

    Some clarity....
  5. A few days ago I decided to haul out my SLR just for the heck of it--I have shot
    nothing but rangefinders for the last 7 months. I was shooting at an art
    museum as I often do. The first thing I noticed is that people notice you a
    whole bunch more when you're toting an SLR, for better or for worse. The
    second was that at the "moment of truth", when light hits film, I have no idea
    what's being recorded. I never remember the mirror blackout being a problem
    before picking up a rangefinder. Now I find it completely unacceptable.

    If I didn't care if people reacted to me as "a professional photographer" and I
    did shoots where people were supposed to pose while I made sure I "got a
    good one", an SLR would be fine.

    The glass is nice too, but I find that capturing expressive moments means
    being willing to press the shutter button even when the conditions are not
    right: no time to focus perfectly or reset the apeture. In conditions like these I
    think the difference between good and great lenses is negligible in terms of
    the impact of the final print. Who was it who said "the best photographs are
    not always the sharpest ones."?

    My .02
  6. Some wise 21 year old sage told this young 18 year old novice photographer that Leica cameras and lenses were the best, and worth the little extra they cost. In 1962 Leica, Nikon and Canon prices were very close. The next few years were a golden age for getting into the system. People were dumping screw mounts for M bayonet, RFDR cameras in general were being traded in for those new fangled SLRs which now had automatic diaphragms on SOME lenses, and more and more cameras sported instant return mirrors. You could buy a IIIC body for under $40, a black dial IIIF for $65 and a red dial with self timer for $85. Leicavits went for $25 used. $15 would buy you a 50mm Summar or Elmar, $20 a collapsable Canon Serenar. An 85/2 Nikkor was about $90 or you could get a used 90 'cron for about $125.

    Within 5 years I'd moved into the M system and never looked back!
  7. But you could buy a Voigtlander Bessa R2 + Lenses and get exactly the same experience for considerably less!!!

  8. I can make more technically better pictures per roll with my EOS 1V than any other camera I've ever owned. Digital is great for its immediacy (I think of it as 21st-century Polaroid). But these four cameras make the process of photographing as thrilling to me as the photos themselves, and that's the way I like it: Hasselblad, Rolleiflex TLR, Nikon FTn and Leica M.
  9. Not quite. The Bessa is a lot noisier, and I doubt that it can compete with the longevity of my button rewind M2, 1958 vintage, that I bought in used 1971 and is still going strong! Or the used D.S. M3 I bought in 1969 and sold for over $700 on The Auction Site last year because I'd found a newer one for less at an estate sale. I'd paid $100 each for the M2 and the M3 back then.
  10. Image quality is not Content quality. Leica has IQ and if you are consistently good, CQ.
  11. "Leica has IQ"

    An M-series has a higher IQ than some of its owners.
  12. "Why Leica- Trying to explain the illogical"

    An old friend of mine is a pretty decent M user, allthough his pictures from when he started could just as well have been taken with any other equipment. I once asked him why the H*ll he used Leica M(considering the cost and the cheezy metering of the M3 with MR meter). He said:


    Well i cant argue with that, i do take better pictures with equipment i like best, the absense of irritation makes it so much easier to concentrate. Maybe one fine day my hands shrink or i will get a little less impatient............

    Greetings, and have fun ;)P
  13. Hmm. I imagine that many of the folks who post here could take better pictures with a Brownie than I do with an M6. That said, M cameras are fine instruments and I enjoy using them. I have good pots and pans, too, but I couldn't open a restaurant.
  14. "B&W film is not something they used in the 50's."

    Don't anthropomorphize your cameras - they hate that...
    So how do I justify using Leica? I usually don't, but if I'm pressed on the issue, I simply say that I've never found another type of camera that I enjoy using so much. Does that improve my photography? Arguably, yes - because I enjoy it more, I do it more and pay more attention when I'm doing it.
  16. Although I don't agree with all of your personal rationalizations, Chris, I suspect we all have a batch of them that makes sense to us individually. For me, what I was looking for when I stuck my toe into the Leica lake was a different, fresh way of "seeing" - something akin to the style of operation associated with view cameras, but far more quick and convenient. The rangefinder approach seems to provide that for me, and Leica glass provides the same level of quality I was accustomed to, so I've continued to splash around in the lake. Although other rangefinders might have provided some of what I was looking for, they also have their own set of compromises.

    I continue to use my Nikons, my Hassy, and my view cameras - but for different things - things the M isn't well-suited for. For me, the M simply adds another dimension to the tools available to get the job done in the best possible way. Sometimes the job really needs the 8 FPS approach, a really long tele, or a 6x6 or 4x5 negative. For some things, digital may even be the only viable option. For the introspective projects, or low-light situations where quiet operation adds to the ability of getting the shot, the M is great, though. But, it is still just a tool (albeit a very good one), not an obsession.

    Any woodworker who has used a really fine dozuki or a Japanese chisel will understand the difference, though.
    Don't anthropomorphize your cameras - they hate that...

    Lets reverse that,

    Im cranky, not objective and if you dont push the right buttons i wont shut up.....

    Who am i?

  18. I have to say, that the overwhelming majority of these positive attributes are due to the TYPE of camera, not the fact that it is a Leica. I get all of the same set of benefits with my Minolta CLE and my Voigtlander Bessa-T, and I have no doubt that I COULD get them with a Hexar RF as well. I sold my M4 and CL and have never looked back in regret.

    I will give Leica credit for perseverence. But there is no doubt that their cameras (as distinguished from their lenses) are not competitive with Cosina Voigtlander or Konica anymore.
  19. "Im cranky, not objective and if you dont push the right buttons i wont shut up..... Who am i? "

    My wife?
  20. For me it's a practical matter: the Leicas are quite robust (but nothing exceptional), focus really well, and are small and portable. That's it, I think.

    I'll drop them like a shot as soon as someone makes a digital camera that I can use for a week without an external power supply and storage equivalent to 100 rolls of film. Until then, the Leicas meet my needs.
  21. Douglas, I've got a Minolta 7S somebody gave me. Since it's a rangefinder, maybe you'd care to trade for it and make some money in the bargain. I'll throw in 500 bucks in return for an M6. I've been waiting for a good opportunity to pick up a 2nd body, and since it's all the same to you, you'll still have substantially the same photographic capabilities and cash in your pocket. What do ya say?
  22. £In these days of Fuzzy logic, all reaction about the M system seems acceptable....


    I discovered that using CL of 1976 is quite fun after all. Pictures are not improving as my IQ is rather low but at least it's a pleasure for an acceptable amount of money.

    But a M6 or M7? Not really A Honica Hexar RF, yes, rather.
  23. The first SLR I had was a Nikon N70 that I received as a gift(on my Christmas list) a few years ago. Seem neat at the time--all sorts of different modes etc. After using it for about 6 months I got a good deal on a used F100 and traded the N70 in. A few months later I read an article about the Bessa R and thought it might be a neat second camera, especially for travel. As I learned more about rangefinders I made the decision to just look at a Leica, never thinking I could afford one. The body was a joy to hold that didn't compare with the Bessa. Loved the lenses as well. I found a used M6TTL and a 50 summicron. Added a 90, 35 and an extra body--after trading in my F100 and have not looked back. A quick summary of my likes:

    The fast, high quality lenses-I shoot wide open frequently.
    The ability to see the whole scene as I take the picture.
    Size-my whole kit fits in a Domke 803 bag that is easy to lug around.
    Total control of exposer-my photography has improved more w/camera.
    Feel of using the body and lenses.

    These are just some of the main reasons why I use the M6. Leica M's are not for everyone and will not allow you to do every type of photography, but what they do, they do well. I learned that I don't need all the program modes etc. to take pictures and while I would consider getting an SLR again--macro and telephoto work, at this point it is not a big urge and it would be in addition and not a replacement for my Leica's.
  24. After using 35mm gear for so many years I came to the conclusion years ago I needed to move on from my 35mm Nikon gear. Fortunately I was in a position to have hands on with virtually every format and camera type in existence.
    I liked the 'M' series, and always considered rangfinder based photography to offer several ergonomic advantages over SLR based 'snapshooting'.
    I also weighed out common sense alternatives, and the brutal reality that after looking at proofs and custom printing all formats on a daily basis that when it came down to it, and everything else being equal, more film equals better pictures. 35mm photography all looks the same, and german lenses don't make up for raw film area.
    This may account for why every pofessional photographer I know who lives, breathes, eats and provides their family income from photography DOESN'T use Leica. They either use bigger formats, or if 35mm based are rapidly migrating to digital.
    This forces me to the conclusion that most Leica users (most here) are nothing more than arrogant, hatefull hobbiests that are overwhelmed by their images only because their lack of camera skills and technique requires the use of Leica gear to get decent results in the first place.
    Basically, if your photography was that good, you woulnd't be wasting such time telling others how wonderfull it is. Any *good* artist in any media tends to shy away from those tactics because their work stands on it's own.
    Somehow with Leica comes clarity of thought.
    Like drinking bleach? As I stated, the majority of professionals I know don't use Leica, and produce better images than you. You will of course spend incredible amounts of time bragging to others how wonderfull your images are. Then the more you are ignored, the more you will start to attack other formats, brands, and digital. You call it 'clarity of thought' while I call it a crutch for lacking other skills.
  25. Chill out, Scott. Plenty of pros use 35mm, though many of them are migrating to digital. Journalists, sports shooters, fashionistas, even many wedding photogs shoot 35 to feed their families. Those redoubtable pockets of equipment iconoclasts, Magnum and NatGeo contain a good representation of Leica shooters.

    Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's butt what "the pros" are using. Their objectives and mine are entirely different. Thank goodness I don't need anyone's approval of the gear I prefer (well, except maybe for my financial manager :)
  26. "I'll drop them like a shot as soon as someone makes a digital camera that I can use for a week without an external power supply and storage equivalent to 100 rolls of film."

    This year you'll be at least halfway there -- Apple is expected to come out with 20-gig and 40-gig video/photo iPods. If your shots are, say, 4-megs per image, that's 5,000 shots in a 20-gig drive, or 139 rolls of 36-exposure film (or 208 rolls of 24-exposure film).

    As for not having or wanting access to electricity for a week, that requirement is unneeded for at least 99% of digital shooters, so given the miniscule market I doubt any manufacturer is looking to make such a camera.
  27. Gee, Scott must've woke up a different guy today...

    The Nikon Look

    I've been trying to define the "look" of photographs taken with Nikon lenses. I believe the secret is in the highlights: the Nikkors give
    clean separations and a kind of brilliancy to the higher tones of a photograph. The effect is more obvious in color shots. Anyone agree?

    -- Robert Byrd , January 06, 2003; 06:02 A.M. Eastern



    Last professional sporting event I went to had about 30 *professional* photographers on the floor, the majority of which agreed with
    you and were using Nikon glass. The 'stringer' walking around with 5 Nikon bodies flopping against him must know something as
    well. I wonder if he shoots color and not just Tri-X to compliment his optics?

    Can say the same for Canon as well which I feel has a very similiar 'look' to Nikon glass and highlight quality. One can argue if Nikon
    or Canon is better, but the 'look' is still there, and if it's shot *professionally* on 35mm film it's likely shot with Canon or Nikon glass.

    I also agree the look is more obvious in color. If it's a *professionally* shot image in any major publication it's likely shot with Nikon
    or Canon glass that has that 'look'. I just wish the lenses held more value when they were stuck in a glass collectors case and pampered.
    I dropped my 50mm 1.4 down a flight of stairs once and would you believe it actually scratched the barrel? I think it was defective.

    I also wish there were more variations of Nikon glass. I couldn't find much difference between any of the classic 180mm 2.8s I'd use
    other than the amount of black paint worn off by nearly two decades of constant use by staff photographers. I hear the 180mm type 'Z'
    (Z for Dr. Zuess) made in Poland is slightly better than the type 'G' (G for Gesundheit) made in Italy.

    -- Scott Eaton , January 06, 2003; 11:44 A.M. Eastern
  28. Scott, Seems as if you must have had a busy day at the takeout window. So stressed. <P> It would seem that you have to measure your choices against "what the Pro's would do" that alone weakens your already weak assessment. <P> It would seem that you lack not only independent thought but also the good sense not to make all around you aware of this deficit.
  29. It's not illogical.

    I dont photograph for a living, although it's the hobby that eats the largest hole in my bank account. I used to have, and still have manual focus SLR's and later autofocus, because I got glasses. I always liked the design of the M line and finally wanted to have one to be able to use the Noctilux. Holding it felt better than any other camera I own and it is the only one I carry with me on a daily base. As stated a lot of times here, people don't react to a M the same they do to serious SLR, they just look away, barely noticing you and I need that, 'cause I'm very impressed with some examples of street photography but I'm simply not the kind of guy who shoots into strangers' faces while they're watching me. And it's small enough to have it around all the time without sacrificing flexibility of the system like a P&S would.

    Focusing is a pain, compared to any of my SLRs, I used to exchange the focusing screen against a plain one with gridlines and never cared about split image, rangefinder patches or whatever, even with manual focus. Taking vertical images is a pain compared to the F100 or D100 with battery grip, but I'll get used to that. The Noct might be a different beast than my Nikkor 1.2/50, but not much. All reasons not to use the M.

    *But* the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it, and that's the M. P&S, as already stated, are no alternative, I want the ability to change lenses and usually have two or three with me as they are so small and zoom P&S's have too limited aperture ranges. Even the Noct is nothing compared to a decent Nikon zoom lens starting at f2.8.

    Additionally, it gives me confidence in a rugged mechanical construction with a proven track of reliability that will last for a while. Maybe no argument for a pro working in the studio, having a few backup bodies around, and even less for an amateur - I won't lose money if the camera fails, but it's a good feeling and while I do spend money on getting other cameras I wouldn't like to spend it replacing defective gear. I know the money I spent for the D100 is completely gone in two years and I did the jump from the Coolpix 990 to the D100 because I wanted to use my existing lenses like the shoot now, think later mindset too. Not so with the M. I bought an M6 used, an M7 new at nearly 70% of the local dealer price on the auction site and now wait for my M3 because I do like the idea of having a camera that worked for 30 years and will probably work another 30 with the lenses I have.

    So, it might be illogical to collect a wealth of gear including LF, MF and digital, but I'm a techhead and try to use all of it as often as I can, but I think the reasons for having a M have a solid foundation in comprehensible reasoning.

    Well, at least for me ...
  30. I fooled myself with the same thoughts to justify the high expenses of a Leica M. I had to recognice that I could not compensate missing talent with more expensive cameras and lenses. Today I use my M4-P and my M6 from time to time to have fun, but most of the times I use a Konica Hexar RF because it's faster to operate and the results are the same. Personally I had to learn that using a tripod, a cable release, a sun shade and the right film(s) did more for my photography than using a Leica M and a Summicron.

    I fully agree with Scott.
  31. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Scott, you're a Thread-Crapper! I was completely inspired at the top of the thread, and now I just want to go to lunch.
  32. Do you think Scott would be kind enough to put some of his pics. on the site ? We should then be able better to judge the merits of his opinions.
  33. "As for not having or wanting access to electricity for a week, that requirement is unneeded for at least 99% of digital shooters, so given the miniscule market I doubt any manufacturer is looking to make such a camera."

    true. I'm sure that battery technology will get there eventually. But you're right, except for the power issue, digital is basically there already.

    I've seen a lot of journos shooting Leica alongside digital SLRs in places where you might find yourself away from home for a few days - seems to make sense. Not many shooting just Leica. But no doubt there are some.
  34. Cuz Big Daddy likes the Leica.
  35. I was asked to shoot some graduation photos for a friend of mine's daughter on pretty short notice. She needed them in three days to get to the yearbook printer.

    I decided that I'd shoot the whole thing with my N90s just to "simplify" the process, using a zoom and auto exposure. I had had my M6 for about two years at that point and handdn't picked up the N90s during all that time, so if nothing else, I'd give the old Nikon a well deserved workout.

    About ten minutes into the shoot, I began to notice a couple of things. Everytime I released the shutter, the poor girl winced. The noise of the auto exposure warning beep kept going off, even though I knew what I wanted, and the motor on the dang thing compared to the M6 manual advance, sounded like a truck coming down the road.

    I shot about four exposures before I gave up and switched to the Leica. With hyperfocal focusing, the exposure set and left for the duration, and a 90mm lens, I took some of the best photos that I've ever captured. They looked spontaneous, posed, but still relaxed, and some great candids of her father helping her in and out of her graduation gown, setting up, helping her on and off of various rocks ( we shot outdoors with the mountains as a background ). It was great.

    What I though should be easy with automation, turned out to complicate matters for the purposes of what I was trying to accomplish. Now, had I been trying to shoot wildlife at a distance of a couple hundred yards, the N90s would surely have shined, but I wasn't. And since my interests in photography have turned from the "Ansel"-look of perfectly "zoned" landscapes, to capturing emotion, and feeling in people, the Leica has become the perfect tool for me.

    I may occasionally use the N90s and the FM2 in the furture, but right now the M6 is the perfect tool for what I want to caputure.

    BTW... I originally "fell" into Leicas when I was planning for a trip of a lifetime to Europe. I was going to take along a Mamiya 645 Pro ( that hasn't seen the light of day in years ) to really capture the environment and European Alps and other landmarks and later be blown up into poster sized prints for hanging. But I was not keen on hauling around the HUGE case, lenses, and accesories that I would have needed, especially since I knew ahead of time that there would be a LOT of walking involved and I'd probably need a tripod. A camera buddy of mine and a sales person convinced me that a Leica would give me every bit the quality of a medium format camera in a smaller size, touting Leica optics as the main reason. Well, I fell for it and bought the gear. In retrospect, I should have known that the quality would not be as good, just because of the smaller negative size, but we are all suckers at one time or another. I'm still happy with every shot I took while in Germany/ Austria/ France, and even though I got the Leica for ALL the wrong reasons, it has opened up a whole new area of photography that I would never have considered with the Nikon gear.

    I have not used any other camera since my switch four years ago, with the exception of the graduation photos, but I keep them around, "just in case".

    This is just my $0.02
  36. "Do you think Scott would be kind enough to put some of his pics. on the site ? We should then be able better to judge the merits of his opinions.

    -- Tony Brookes , January 07, 2003; 03:39 P.M. Eastern "

    Well if by site you mean photo.net just click on his name. I believe he has 31 images posted on that/this site.
  37. Chris... You ask "Why Leica-..." I still don't know what the "illogical" thing is, which is to be explained, but... the thing which I always bump into here as a sort of "answer" is that I love Leica M because I determine everthing (re photography). I have to. I want to. I still don't know how to deal with my wife's new Nikon. I don't want to. Leica is maybe like me (maybe that's bad, too)... if I can do it, that's fine. If I can't do it, that's okay too. But I'll try and fix it.
  38. Why such vitriol? Is this a sports bar? It's just a conversation about cameras...and "your equipment vs. "my equipment" is tiresome already. As always, the proof (no pun intended) is in the pictures. BTW I checked out Scott's posted pix. Mostly the seemingly requisite photo.net, and all too prosaic, flowers:} Technically decent though... he must have a "good" camera.
  39. To all who felt that I was disparaging Nikon or Canon I will quote the great Don King " You have msiconstrued the intent of my meaning". <P>I continue to shoot a FE2 and still believe that the F5 is the King of SLR's. But at the end of the day I get the most satisfaction from my leica gear. Even if the results suck. <P> As far a digital? I have owned it, enjoyed it but I personally don't think that taking an image and enhancing it with Photoshop qualifies as Photography. IMO that is photo processing and a discussion already beaten to death.
  40. Oh, Scott, don't you LIKE anything? Why are you always kicking over the other kids' sand castles?

    If I were shooting professionally again, I'd sure as hell be into digital. It's an expedient way to accomplish a goal. But I'm not. Don't want to do it professionally. I'm just havin' fun with my hateful hobby.

    Hey, I like that: "hateful hobby".
  41. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Not to pick on Scott Eaton, but let me pick on Scott Eaton, or, actually, take a bite right out of his leg:
    "This forces me to the conclusion that most Leica users (most here) are nothing more than arrogant, hatefull hobbiests that are overwhelmed by their images only because their lack of camera skills and technique requires the use of Leica gear to get decent results in the first place. "
    "Basically, if your photography was that good, you woulnd't be wasting such time telling others how wonderfull it is. Any *good* artist in any media tends to shy away from those tactics because their work stands on it's own."
    This is just poison and obviously should not be taken seriously by anyone, *professional" or not. I'm shocked right down to my bones to see such a respected photo.net "Hero" make such inflamatory statements. I just don't see how any reasonable person; much less, a photographer; much less, a non-Leica photgrapher who doesn't even consider our forum a "home," can be so mean. Scott has written volumes worth of good, photo-related technical information for photo.net. Why does he come over here to the...."LEICA" forum with such poison for us? What is your point, Scott? If I am interpreting your statements correctly, then we should all put our Leica's in our sock drawer (or sell them) and go buy a Canon or Nikon, and we should NEVER upload any of our pictures for display for that would be taken as "bragging" about how marvy our photography is.
    And don't get me started on the small format v. MF or larger debate. It's rediculous and makes no sense without a context. Any one, *professional* or not, who claims that one format is "better" than another, based solely on "raw film area" is way full of *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*, even if they know how to operate complicated lab processing equipment. Most *professonal* photgraphers I've run into during my life in photography (which started in 1970) have always taught me that context is everything; format means very little except when you want to make wall-sized enlargements. Most of my prints are 5x7 and 8x10, and I like to use a Small Format Leica 35mm camera to make them. And I have probably bragged at one time and another about how cool some of my pictures look. SO WHAT!?!?!?!?
    Now, if Scott is willing (or even listening), I invite him to show me an equivalent post (to his) appearing in the Canon or Nikon forum, written by a Leica owner, presumably, one of "us." I'll bet it can't be done.
  42. Leica will have to come out with a digital M in the not-very-distant-future. I don't see what's taking them so long.
  43. marc - Scott's pictures are technically very good. I'm not sure about the lighting in some of them . Composition is a bit of a crit but that's possibly nit-picking. The flower pictures are typical medium format.
  44. Snicker-snicker :)

    Just ordered a couple more bricks of Delta films (I must be a
    real idiot for not ordering memory cards and CD-R's

    Gosh, I really love the look of Ilford FB matte paper, the bigger the

    I wish I could get framing costs down, it's way more expensive
    than my M and Summicron's. But, a framed FB print is pretty
    darn nice to have hanging around (specially if I took the
    mediocre picture).

    Professional photographers do not set the standard for anyone
    but other professional photographers, so screw them AFAIC.

    Who's doing all this bragging about their images. Most people
    around these parts seem to be pretty humble.

    I love my M, wouldn't give it up for anything.

    There never will be a digital M because the wide angle lens
    geometry cannot properly illuminate a CCD sensor (just think
    about the angle of the light rays in the outer zones (hint: too

  45. "Everytime I released the shutter, the poor girl winced."

    Well, that's the N90 for you, not necessarily all SLRs. The N80, for instance, weighs 30% less and is significantly quieter. The Canon Elans are whisper quiet.

    Digital is quieter than a Leica.
  46. Ray,

    I would GLADLY trade you an M6 for an equally nice and functional Minolta CLE and $500 thrown in. I was specifically referring to INTERCHANGEABLE LENS rangefinders, other than Leicas, which meet my needs, not limited low-end products like the Hi-Matic 7s. But I don't presently have an M6, which should put me on an even footing with you and the CLE.

    Or, perhaps you would prefer that I re-jigger the deal the same way you did, and I can trade you a Leica C1 or Minilux in exchange for a Minolta CLE and $500 additional of your money. I consider these cameras to be FAR more technologically advanced than an M6, because they have hinged backs that can swing open allowing for easy loading and unloading of the film.
  47. "format means very little except when you want to make wall-sized enlargements."

    Speaking as someone who mostly shoots 35mm, I disagree. I consistently get distinctly improved b&w tonality in proof 6x6 prints from my TLR compared to 5x7 proofs from any 35mm SLR.
  48. Dan,

    Never say Never, with respect to digital technology. There is no reason why digital receptors can't be developed that are receptive to light that strikes them on an oblique angle. They may not be there today because there hasn't been any overwhelming demand for them, but if the need is out there, there is nothing fundamentally preventing it. Don't eat all of the Dog Food that Leica is feeding you. They are darn well working to solve that issue, because they would like to remain in business in the future.
  49. Douglas, you're right, I rigged that deal pretty good. Not fair. This topic to a large extent is a waste of time anyway... To each his own. ;)
  50. What an unpleasant person Scott Eaton must be! Aside from that, I have been a professional for 35 years. I began in 35mm and became a newspaper photographer. As the years passed, I have used medium and large format cameras (and 35mm ) as a wedding and portrait photographer and finaly a commercial photographer shooting all formats on everything from executive portraits to ads to brochures and annual reports. My studio is pretty much full service.

    My felling is that technically, medium and large format look good, but the images seem sort of boring to me. More and more I shoot digital for one reason or another, but it usually seems like a shortcut. All these bring in the dollars, but...ho hum...

    The days when I wake up anticipating a 35mm, especially Leica shoot, are the golden ones to me now. I will be more likely to like these pictures. They will seem more alive to me. This hasn't changed since I used a Leica for the first time--nearly 30 years ago.
  51. Scott's a very good photographer. I thought his generalisation("Leica users are, etc") shows some immaturity. But what never gets stated outright in this forum is that the M cameras and the screw mounts before them, are beautiful objects in and of themselves. And they are very functional. They encapsulate the concept of simplicity, and the phrase "form follows function". Some people could care less about this, or don't see the esthetics of Leica, and some of them are fine photographers. Like Scott. Nowadays if you're shooting news, sports, fashion, corporate portfolios, you mostly want a camera from the 21st century to do these tasks. But because the Leica product is of such a high caliber, there are and will always be(as long as film is a viable option) practitioners using them. Google up the name Nubar Alexanian. I believe he uses only Leica for his 35mm work. And yes, you often can see a unique and consistent "look" in the work done by Leica photographers.
  52. To me, Leica represents the penultimate in optics. It is still up to
    us to put that to good use.
  53. I'd like to spar with Mr. Eaton in the ring...how about it Scott? ;)
  54. Leica represents the penultimate in optics.
    If Leica represents the penultimate, doc. . . then what represents the ultimate? Medium format?
    And if film area trumps every other concern, Scott. . . then why aren't Magnum shooters using Speed Graphics?
  55. One of the biggest reasons photo.net doesn't get my financial support of much of my respect is that a troll like Scott Eaton has hero status. I've lost count of the number of times he's spouted senseless garbage just for the sake of meanness or the number of genuinely knowledgeable people he's run off with his hateful attacks.

    I use a Leica because it suits the way I shoot extremely well. I don't require anyone else's approval and I offer no additional justification. They're my pictures, they're my cameras, I'll do whatever the hell I want . . .
  56. Here, here!
  57. I could see immediately the "difficult-to-describe" differences in the photographs taken by David Alan Harvey, then Sam Abell, then William Albert Allard. I found out what cameras and lenses they used, then noticed on the web that many other Leica photographs had a similar quality. Then I read all the promises being made on this forum and elsewhere. I decided I no longer wanted to wonder if any of my photographs might have been better if they had been taken with Leica M and lenses. So, I bought a used .58 and 50 cron, took some photographs and discovered that all the promises were true, and all my photographs were better. Side by side with the ones from my Nikon lenses, everyone immediately chose the ones taken with the Leica without knowing, but neverthless using all the right "Leica" words (special, 3-D, really sharp,... etc., everything but "glow"). Of course, I also realized that the three photographers above were also doing a lot more with their cameras, but that is merely the challenge.
    If I fail, I know it's me not the camera or lens. I did not think the rangefinder camera itself was much different from my SLR in terms of viewfinder, shutter speed, or even the weight (N80 is small and lightweight). Until a year later and I also tried to take some party snapshots with my Nikon with flash, instead of the Leica (I knew people would pose anyway). What a shock. I couldn't see them as well. The time for the shutter to work seemed like at least 5 seconds. It was too slow to get the unposed natural shots in between the poses. Little kids were way to fast to get any good shots. The final prints were good, okay, but none were special. I snapped everyone's picture and many were impressed with my 85mm 1.8 lens. And so forth. Enough said. For the purpose the Leica was designed for you are wasting your time with any other camera. You will just miss out on too much. Everything else--autofocus and telephoto lenses-- will have to come from the Nikon.

    If I were a pro, the speed and cost factors would force me to use digital "as long as the customer did not know any better" and would be satisfied with the 8 poses out of 60. But I would still want to offer them a Leica portrait to give them a choice. From what I've heard on this forum, when that is done they choose the Leica photographs because of the way that they look. The "way that they look" is what got me started in the first place.
  58. I tried to send an email message to Scott Eaton. I tried to access his email address through his identity on photo.net.

    My message, in civil tones, strongly disapproved of his post in this thread.

    Sorry Chris for the skewing of your original post - which I enjoyed.

    Apparently, Mr. Eaton has a fake email address listed in his photo.net identity.

    Mr. Eaton, why do you hide?

    I think Mr. Eaton should be stripped of his luminary status on photo.net and banned. If Mr. Eaton has a fake email address and will not receive replys privately and posts uncivilized crap, then why is he considered a luninary on this site?

    I don't think Phil Keen was any more disruptive or uncivil. Phil at least had some sense of humor - not just pure meanness.

    Mr. Eaton, if you read this, please email me and leave your real email address, I have a response already composed - and it is civil but directed to you. And, I will publish your address in a post on this forum so that others may correspond directly with you.
  59. OOOOhhhhhhhhh flower boy, come out come out where ever you are! >:)
  60. Scott,

    I don't think anyone here who has experience with larger formats
    would argue that bigger film equals TECHNICALLY better
    results. But there is more involved in making a great photograph
    than mere technical issues.

    I'm a professional photographer, and I have many friends and
    acquaintances in the business. I know countless photographers
    who shoot 35mm. Many are documentary photographers who
    not only put food on their tables with photography, but they have
    devoted their lives and made many sacrifices for their work. They
    are passionate and care deeply about their work. Some shoot
    Leica, others don't. But none are "hatefull hobbiests" (sic).

    Don't believe me? If you want to see some 35mm work (not all
    leica), check out www.magnumphotos.com, or
    www.viiphotos.com. Look at work by Sebastao Salgado, Larry
    Towell, Eugene Richards, David Allen Harvey, Abbas, James
    Nachtwey, Zalmai, etc. etc. etc.

    And being "professional" doesn't mean crap. There are some
    amazing photographers out there (some on this forum) who
    photograph only because they love to. There are also plenty of
    professionals who, quite frankly, suck.

    This thread started with a leica user sharing his insightful
    thoughts on why he choses to use a certain photographic tool,
    and thanks to your post, it has turned ugly. No one here is
    bragging about how good his or her photographs are, so I don't
    know where your statement about bragging came from. This
    started as an intelligent discussion about the positive and
    negative aspects of shooting with leica cameras. An interesting
    and appropriate discussion for this forum.

    I've photographed with everything from digital to 35mm to 8x10.
    There are benefits and disadvantages to each format. Part of
    being a good photographer is choosing the right tool for the job.

    I was going to avoid this, but since you are so quick to critique
    other people's work without seeing it, here goes. I took a look at
    your work online and found it extremely average. Most of the
    photographs are technically extremely good. Great exposures,
    sharpness, color, etc. But these photographs are full of every
    visual cliche in the book--pretty flowers, silhouetted things at
    sunset, bridges with reflections, etc. I've seen these pictures a
    million times and I don't need to see them again.

    Many of the photographs are uncomfortably composed, which
    combined with the technical perfection, seems out of place. More
    importantly, the work has no emotion, no soul. I look at the
    images and I wonder why someone went to so much trouble to
    make them. I don't know your photographic background, if you're
    new to photography I have to say you are doing very well.
    Otherwise, take a good hard look at your own work before
    criticizing others and insulting a whole category of
    photographers because they use a certain kind of camera.
  61. Now, now boys, it's reaching a bit to say Scott's work has no soul. Scott's a good photographer, his work even shows a certain amount of sensitivity- probably at least as anyone else here. Scott is very knowledgeable and passionate about his craft from what I've gathered reading his posts. The thing is he's a little headstrong, and shall we say, opinionated. I think it's pretty obvious Scott showed his prejudices by contradicting himself between his comments on the Nikon forum (which I posted above) and his comments here. He seems to have a soft spot for Nikon in the same way he criticizes those here for their fondness of Leica. Does it really matter? Scott always has something interesting to say, and I dare say I've learned from his knowledge. I don't even dispute his viewpoint on Leica, it's a perfectly legitimate view that gets argued over again and again from both sides. I don't know why Scott loses his perspective on things and goes overboard in his generalizations about the people on this particular forum. It's too bad he seems to drop his bomb and take off into the night without hanging around long enough to really communicate about these things, but that's him. Maybe someday we'll find out why he has the particular chip on his shoulder he does. I certainly wasn't around to see it when it happened, but somebody somewhere here must've pissed him off. Maybe in time he'll mellow, maybe not. Whatever, we all do what we think is right for ourselves and everyone's viewpoint is heard. What camera anybody chooses to use isn't really so important anyway in the end. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans. We're all in it for the same game. Peace, Scott.
  62. Well, how illogical it might seem to many of you, Scott only explained his view on the subject IMO. With all these people getting all defensive about it you only prove he was RIGHT!

    I personally find it pretty childish his opinion HAS to be discussed by all of you.


    Please relax and let someone else have an opinion of themselves, even if you dont agree, ok?

  63. Chris, decent question! Scott Eaton, I try to avoid taking part in "slagging off of others" type discussions, but I think your comments are really rich, especially after looking at your updated photo's, pretty average by any standard - really! and I do make my living from my images.
  64. Scott's language can be quite abrupt and opinionated, and he champions digital but what's wrong with that? Particularly there is an element of truth in his statements. Come-on, 85% of what appears in this Forum is not novel stuff to any of us. (usually it's Medium Format better than 35mm, Leica has a smaller number of dog lens than other manufacturers, the bodies are hardly innovative etc).

    The quarrel seems to be more about his abrasive style and the ends he espouses than what explicitly appears in the statement.Nothing to fuss a lot over in my humble opinion and at least it is not personal and provocative as "Digital is bulls**t and Jack is making a huge mistake." As far as I know, Jack has not repented his switch to digital. Who are we to judge?

    Btw, given the quality of comments we are seeing, who can really claim to learn a lot from one day at the Leica forum? (Don't mean to pick on you Chris but your original post is the only one I see after hitting the comments button so I draw my examples from your statement).
  65. Let's not attack Scott Eaton. He may not always know what he's talking about but he carries out a useful function on the forums - as an irritant; something like the particle of grit in the oyster shell that occasionally produces a pearl.
    You can play him at his own game. If you really want to get him frothing at the mouth, tell him you use Fuji Superia 100 in your M7, developed at Walmart, and "it's awesome".
  66. "Hateful hobbiest"

  67. I primarily shoot handheld, 400 speed negative, so the superiority of Leica glass isn't usually apparent to me, other than being very useable wide open. The reason I love the M system is the handling. A focus tab and a small body make for quick, intuitive use.

    It meets my needs, feels good in my hand and I can afford it. The end.
  68. Read your own words Scott, "their lack of camera skills and technique requires the use of Leica gear to GET decent results in the first place. " So if we have to use Leicas to get decent photos in the first place RATHER than any other brand you yourself are suggesting Leica is better! Your post is a joke. I first got into Leica M's because at the time if you wanted a current rangefinder system thats all there was, and when you think about it if you still want a Manual focus rangefinder system it will STILL be M mount. Cant I just like using rangefinders because they are what they are without your insults and predeterminations?

    PS Tony, you were just busting to use the term "Thread-crapper" werent you?! LOL
  69. Scott has had a character change. Perhaps he should consult a psychiatrist or get himself analyzed. Once he was helpful and informative person. Perhaps he has had a bereavement or a divorce. He is now bitter and twisted. I should know, I have these tendencies myself. As for his "I can speak for all professional photographers" it is plain absurd and a little unbalanced as is his hatred of Leica.
  70. >>"One of the biggest reasons photo.net doesn't get my financial support of much of my respect is that a troll like Scott Eaton has hero status. I've lost count of the number of times he's spouted senseless garbage just for the sake of meanness or the number of genuinely knowledgeable people he's run off with his hateful attacks."<< Mike Dixon

    Mike - I am in absolute agreement with you. I am one of those people who left (although I don't profess to be as knowledgable as the almighty Eaton). I came back after a 6 month hiatus because the site had been restructured, I felt, for the better. One of the reasons I spend time in the Leica forum (having never owned the camera) is to get away from vitriolic losers with huge chips on their shoulders. And on the top of that dysfunctional list is Scott Eaton. How he can continue to have hero status on this site is a complete farce. Especially given the supposed new tighter controls and lower tolerance levels of the photo.net administration. Apparently the sanctions are selectively handed out on criteria other what they claim. I too, will never give this site any of my cash as long as it continues to implicitly condone such ridiculous behavior.

    >>"Apparently, Mr. Eaton has a fake email address listed in his photo.net identity."<< Doug Landrum

    Doug - It has always been that way. One of his cowardly tactics. He says something nonproductive and hateful, never answers for it and doesn't allow anyone to contact him to respond. He personally attacked me last year in a film/digital debate and then refused to have any contact either on or off board. How's that for a joke? A HERO status photo.netter who personally attacks others on the site AND has a fake email address. What a joke.
  71. what's a photonet hero? that little label?
  72. Leaving aside the personality issues that have derailed the thread, I don't think using a Leica is illogical at all. In many fields of study, like art, evolution, or computer science, a recurring theme I see is "simplify, simplify, simplify!". One does not use a complex operating system to run a pocket calculator, generalist animals are not efficient at any particular task, and the simplest compositions are often the most powerful.
    The camera I've chosen (a Leicaflex SL) is not a generalist; it's the simplest camera I could find that can do what I want it to. My most-used lens, the 400mm f/6.8 Telyt, is even simpler: 2 elements, not even distance or DOF scales, and a bare minimum aperture mechanism. This is not general-purpose equipment than proliferates like crows or starlings; OTOH it meets my specialized needs exceedingly well, and it's exceptionally efficient at that task.
    Some people respond that one could use a complex camera in manual mode and get the same results, ignoring the unused features and modes but IMHO carrying unused features has its cost. Unused organs in animals shrink and eventually disappear under evolutionary pressure, unused software eats drive space, RAM and clock cycles, and camera features that I don't want to use have to be checked periodically to be certain they haven't been accidentally re-activated or to be certain they haven't broken and are causing problems. There is always some cost associated with unused features. There is nothing illogical about using a camera that isn't loaded with features, but don't expect a specialized tool to be as common as the crow.
  73. Doug, Logic or lack of is directly proportional to the weight of your argument. <P>If when you approach the pearly gates and have to explain one of your lifes choices to move on, and that question was " how do you justify your decision to spend obscene amounts of time and money on photo equipment? You response could simply be to point at the pictures and remain silent. No logic needed. I on the other hand would be left to talk real fast an pray for an easier question...
  74. Thanks Douglas Herr for your very insightful post, one of the most intelligent things I've read on this forum.
  75. You Scott sympathizers take the cake. Self flagellation anyone?
  76. Amusing thread, y'all. There's nothing "illogical" about leica cameras. It comes down to a matter of personal preference, which is something that can't be said to follow hard and fast the rules of logic anyway.

    For kicks, a few justifications in favor of my M6 with its 50mm summicron:

    1) Incredible optics! Seriously, the results taken from my local pro B&W lab are sometimes breathtaking: sharper, with better shadow detail, that "pop", etc. ( I have processed stuff from my nikon there for comparison, stuff taken with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, so the comparison seems pretty valid)

    2) Extremely durable. I haven't dropped my leica down a flight of stairs, but I'm comforted by reports of people who have and who've said that it still works. Incidentally, I dropped my old Nikon N70 from knee height (camera was in my lap, I stood up to get off the metro, and plop) and the batteries went flying out and it cracked the body. I had to glue it because there was a jagged piece that was stabbing my right palm every time I took a picture. To the N70's credit, however, it did still function properly after that.

    3) Has great longevity. I'm not very old, but I intend to keep my leica for the rest of my picture taking life. I doubt very seriously that it will become obsolete and unrepairable while I (or even my future children) are alive.

    4) Investment factor. It's illogica to buy a camera that you can recoup virtually 100% of the original investment on when reselling? (I haven't done this, but considering the price I paid for mine, which is second hand, and what they continue to go for, it's not far fetched.)

    5) Lastly, I fricking love it! I'm not interested in carrying around medium or large format gear in order to get great results. My old Nikon was heavy and awkward enough. The M6 is small, and so solid that it feels like a brick in my hands. I took the it hiking through a pretty dense redwood forest shortly after getting it, and I was instantly sold on the feel while climbing and jumping over huge logs, running down slopes, etc.

    There are many other reasons to prefer Leica rangefinders, and most people here are already aware of them, so I won't bother continuing.

    There's a photog on the web named Dave Beckerman (www.davebeckerman.com) who wrote a review of the M6 (posted on his website), which explains from his own experience the exact phenomenon being discussed. I found it very useful when I was considering a leica.
  77. Jessie...I like #5
  78. "There's nothing "illogical" about leica cameras. It comes down to a matter of personal preference"

    Same for heroin use and Hummel-collecting.

    "5) Lastly, I fricking love it!"

    More "logic."
  79. Bailey

    What are "Hummels"?
  80. http://www.google.com/search?q=hummel+collecting
  81. What happened to this thread kinda reminds me of terrorism. There's a topic and a buncha people discussing the topic, everybody more or less contributing something, and then one lone wacko(sorry Scott) walks into the room and shits on everybody in the room, and leaves. Suddenly all the normal, mature people (sorry Scott) find it necessary to deal with his insults rather than the subject we were building on. It shows the power of negativity. If I said:" You Leica users are all a bunch of creative far sighted artistic types who know what the finest machine is for meaningful photography and spend huge amounts of time and energy thinking about how to improve your art and help others!! So there!" , I doubt if there would be any notice of it in the succeeding entries. It seems that today, it only takes a tiny minority to disrupt the constructive activities of the majority, dictating the agenda for everyone.
  82. Well, thanks Scott. I was starting to feel lonely (apart from a few notable exceptions), i was starting to think i was the only Leica fan on this Forum. I suppose its takes some solid flaming to bring the others out....should have thought of that myself. Scott, i think your photos are excellent, and i enjoyed looking at them (yes,really). Long may your flames continue; it bring out the best in us.
  83. Even brought Mike Dixon out of the woodwork (i used to enjoy his pics), i thought he was long gone to other Forums.
  84. Good analogy John
  85. Baily, you should realize that, as it's something that pertains to _personal preference_, liking or owning a leica is neither illogical (my statement, contradicting the subject of this thread) nor logical (what I expected you to infer; i.e. it itself is out of the realm of logic) . You can give justifications for or against it and that's pretty much it. Whether these justifications are logical or not depends on your own situation, and everybody's is different. You seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote.

    In any case, the sense that the word illogical carries in the parent post is something like "mysterious" which is rather different than its strict sense.
  86. "as it's something that pertains to _personal preference_, liking or owning a leica is neither illogical ... not logical"

    Personal preferences cannot be exempted from logic. Then surely can be considered logical or not.

    By the way, after Beckerman wrote that piece you refer to, he wrote about supplementing his stable with a Canon system. Apparently he ... logically ... found the Leica sufficiently lacking in some areas so as to need another system.
  87. You would have thought ,at least,he would have chosen Nikon. Those plassy Canons...oops i'v just bought a a plassy D100. Talk about two faced.
  88. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Really, had it not been for Scott's reputation for being quite skilled and knowledgable about photography, I would simply have dismissed his statements as coming from just some crackpot. I'm beginning to think that, in his wisdom, he has stirred us up on purpose for some higher purpose. It may have worked, too.
  89. Baily,

    I looked for a link to the Beckerman - Canon thing, but couldn't find one...

    "he ... logically ... found the Leica..."

    I think you're confusing yourself with your use of the word logical. Should one be aware of one's personal preferences and understand their ramifications? Absolutely. But it doesn't necessarily have much to do with logic.
  90. Mr. Tony Rowlett, I think people like Scott Eaton, Allen Herbert, and Bill Mitchell come from the school of "Crazy Wisdom" a legitimate and sometimes more effective way of elevating levels of understanding. You only realize their value after you have attained what they wanted you to achieve.
  91. "Crazy Wisdom"

    I'll half-agree with that.
  92. "I looked for a link to the Beckerman - Canon thing, but couldn't find one..."

    He discussed it months ago in his 'Daybooks'. Most of his Bronx photos were with the Canon, I believe.

    "it doesn't necessarily have much to do with logic."

    Oh sure. You could have an illogical, racist preference, for instance. But it can be understood as logical or illogical; whether you want to understand it is another question. :)
  93. this got me to wondering. if a forum comprised of wackos, gets called as wackos, would they know it, or would they consider the one that called them wackos, a wacko?

    hmmm ....
  94. Yes as if anyone who calls a boat a portrait of himself could be relied upon to determine who or what is a wack job... ;)
  95. Bailey,

    Heh, you're getting cleverer and cleverer! Now I think you're mudying the idea even more with something that happens to be illogical, but which is also immoral. (If it _were_ based on some criteria that you found to be "logical" you would then be a biggot then, I presume?) It's a bad example for that, but also for the term "racist preferences" which is kind of a strange form of "preference." At least it's a lot different than liking Leica rangefinders or dark beer or flemish art or...
  96. "I think you're mudying the idea even more with something that happens to be illogical, but which is also immoral. (If it _were_ based on some criteria that you found to be "logical" you would then be a biggot then, I presume?)"

    Sorry, you missed my point. Besides, I didn't mean to mudy (sic) the waters in discussing anyone's 'biggotry' (sic).
  97. Tony, I don't think that Scott Eaton has contributed anything positive to this forum by his post on this thread. I think he has turned off some people who don't care to be ambushed by a disrespectful post about using Leica equipment on a forum dedicated to Leica photography. His penultimate statement that:
    This forces me to the conclusion that most Leica users (most here) are nothing more than arrogant, hatefull hobbiests that are overwhelmed by their images only because their lack of camera skills and technique requires the use of Leica gear to get decent results in the first place.
    Mr. Eaton is simply being hateful. I am an advocate of free speech. I defend Mr. Eaton's right to his views and his ability to speak his views. But that does not mean his views should not be condemned for what they are - petty jealous hate. And freedom of speech does not mean that civil society does not have the right to condemn hateful speech.
  98. I'm sure Scott couldn't be a totally bad guy, but problem is I've neverseen him make a comment on this forum that wasn't essentially the same message he stated on this thread. Negative generalizations about the people on Leica forum are the only reason he goes here. Maybe he ought to run for office, since he seems so inclined to twist facts. Witness his comments on digital and medium format. As if there's isn't constant discussion of those topics here. Sure.
  99. The thing Scott obviously excluded in his post is that lens quality also has to do with more things then sharpness etc. I am too amazed by the way alot of Leica users rave about the sharpness and quality of Leica optics, dismissing any other brand as second to nothing. These people obviously lack the experience to say this. 35mm film is not the medium to be picky about optical quality. BTW anyone ever tried a 'blad with 120 planar-s?......

    The clean separation of some Leica lenses is quite nice, yes indeed, but it does only make a picture LOOK sharp(enlarge it and youll know). And BTW Leica does not have a patent on clean separation.....

    Doug Herr has a quite interesting point, specialists can have a logical preverence for Leica, funny enough i started in Leica gear because i got a pretty nice assignment which gave me a larger budget to spend on gear. At that time i chose to buy a R6.2 just because i had the cash and needed a camera which didnt raise eyebrows for a certain job. I only had beat up Nikon gear back then......

    Essentially i only have that camera because i need something that looks good sometimes, allthough i like the 50 cron and 90 cron/elmarit for their clean look.

    Specializing on a certain photographic look is what draws photographers to Leica IMO, remember Ladislav Drezdowicz with his 35 lux asph shots of Tibet? (http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=571136).

    As opposed to Scott i try to ignore people raving about Leica, its not that i disagree, but i just have not found anything to back it up. In other words i never found any reason why i should prefer Leica glass over anything else, and i actually tried plenty. In other words when i put my Leica shots under an enlager(Leitz englarger i have to admit :-/) and compare them to my Nikons or other brand shots there is nothing i can find which could make me believe one is better then another.

    OK Scott wasnt really nice about it, but he was right about certain matters, i dont think brand-related fanatism(yes i think so sometimes) is doing Leica any good, probably even to the point that people dont even question(and value?) their own findings anymore, that SUCKS IMO.

    Probably in todays sociaty this is inevitable, who doesnt want to believe that with throwing around mayor cash you can become whatever you want.....

  100. Henk

    "Essentially i only have that camera because i need something that looks good sometimes"

    Is a weird reason to buy a camera. You could have bought a lot cheaper camera that would not have "raised eyebrows" _ Canon Ftb, SRT101 etc.

    "Specializing on a certain photographic look is what draws photographers to Leica" Exactly - for many people this is the look they are looking for --- so it is "better"

    I don't believe you are being truly honest - you bought it because you thought it would be "better". No need to pretend! Maybe you are disappointed in it, but you do not say that.

    Notice I am not attempting to define "better".
  101. I remain AMAZED at the fact that Scott has completely taken over this discussion by insulting Leica users. This isn't a schoolyard: no one need answer Mr. Eaton. We have a topic.
  102. Robin,

    Leica made choises when they designed their products, there is no 'better' just a 'difference'. Your 'better' derives from personal preference which is similar to me liking the design. How about choosing rangefinders over slr's because of the mirror slap, 35mm over medium format because of the portability, film over digital because of batterie dependance, all subjective choises. And BTW if more people make the same choises, it doesnt become an objective choise.

  103. Scott Eaton is no hero, he is just wanker! He is not photographer, he has few snapshots taken with lousy gear but nothing more... so why hero? Must be a joke!!

    He should be banned from this forum!!!
  104. I use Leica myself and love it, but to put things into perspective, all one has to do is go to the "Top Pictures" in the Gallery of Photo.net and you will notice very rarely these fine pictures are taken with Leicas. In fact, the majority are either Canon, Nikon or even digital. If I can take comparatively such good pictures with my Leica, I would agree and vouch that its my Leica, but the truth is in the "pictures"....and the person behind the camera.

Share This Page