Update on my Leica Experience thus far. Good and Bad and the Ugly

[steve_ql]

"you're problem is you got way to much money...."

 

Agreed.

 

What, no one could take worthy kid pics before the '80s and

the proliferation of AF?

Is it that hard to learn to zone focus?

 

Otherwise, I think a video camcorder will serve better.

[paul_neuthaler]

Stephen,

 

A couple of points:

 

When your kids get older, you won't have to take pictures of them anymore:

 

Wentong has been married for 1 1/2 hours & dispenses marital advice (watch one, do one, teach one!):

 

I have found my Leicaflex SL to be the best combo. of Leica quality/feel and ease of picture taking. I just sold my beautiful, but IMHO outdated and impractical (don't jump all over me), M4 for $1,400.

[stephen_persky]

Hello,

 

That was some really great advice from everyone. I appreciate it. I was laughing about that comment with the video camera "now that is a motor drive."

 

Hey on a bright note at least when none of my kids can afford collge, they will have some great pictures to look back on (just kidding) from good old dad.

 

I felt it was almost a weakness admitting defeat, but I have been trying to setup DOF and prefocus for the Leica M7 with the kids. My oldest child is 3, my other just turned 2, and my youngest is 4 months. Trying to prefocus on all that activity will give you a sure fire headache. On top of everything else, I have grandparents who are wondering where the weekly uploads of pictures to their FTP site have gone.

 

The zoom aspect and just standing back is a great idea, I have done that before. Do you know how many fingerprints you get on a lens when a child sees that you have a camera.

 

Finally, I sound like life is really tough for me. It is not, and I do consider myself fortunate in many aspects of life. So this little mini digital drama is not so bad. Just wanted to share my experiences so far.

 

Dont expect the shamless spamming of my ladscape pictures to end with my Leica M7. I just got 15 rolls of Velvia 50, and plan to make some really cheezy oversaturated pictures in the near future.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

[d._p.1]

Grant said it all. If you didnt have THAT problem, there'd be no further qualms about using a F*$%#*^% M7 in the first place! My grandmother made 'pics of the kids in the park' with her brownie, and looking at them I feel ashamed to have swapped my Nikon stuff (bodies, lenses, you name it) for a Leica. She never knew. <br><br>And btw I cant stand the endless blurb of digi pics my friends show me of their kids. I'd rather have one good (as in: <b>GOOD</b>) picture in a whole year (okay, month, if you work hard on it) than billions of lookalike jpegs on my hard drive. You can say it's nostalgia (those 3 defining shots of my mother from my grandmothers brownie &c.), I say it's really all you need. Plus it's common sense not being fooled by the hype. But by all means go ahead and buy your next camera if that makes you feel confident and your wife happy. <br><br>Sorry to sound so harsh. But it does make me feel sick sometimes, the endless digital blurb. Stephen, promise you come up with nice shots o.k.? (from your m7 I mean)(heh)

[larrybc]

I've had a similar experience. Bought a Bessa R last year to test the RF waters and found that I enjoyed it quite a bit. However, it became clear that my SLR is still required for fast action, long lenses, accurate flash (including off-camera use), etc. Last month I bought a Minolta A1 to get into the digital game (but not a DSLR yet...waiting for the Minolta one to debut) and have had times when I preferred my Maxxum 7 SLR or my Bessa R. Each camera has its strengths.

 

Because of its newness, the A1 has gotten sole use since I bought it and the majority of the shots have been of my 8-month old son. It's nice to be free of the high cost of GOOD QUALITY film processing and printing. Of course, there is the learning curve related to developing a good work-flow and calibrating your monitor's view with what you get back from the lab...but it's been an interesting experience. When I see my son in an interesting scene or pose, I grab my A1 and keep shooting and reviewing to see if I've captured what I saw with my eye. I definitely shoot a lot more with the digital because I know I can do so without wasting film. Whether or not this causes me to be less thoughtful about composition and develops into a bad habit, I cannot say. I still view each shot later on, on the computer monitor, and evaluate it and try to understand why it did or did not work. So in that respect, it is still similar to my film process.

 

So far, I think the main difference is that I am less picky about what I choose to shoot. My actual process of composition, evaluating the light, etc still remains the same.

 

Larry

[Karim Ghantous]

Matt wrote: "What about one of the 5mp p&s? They do alot for $500"

 

We're tring to help him, not curse him!

 

Stephen, I agree with the comments about smaller DSLRs. Do you really need such a monstrosity as the EOS 1DmkII?

 

D.P. wrote: "And btw I cant stand the endless blurb of digi pics my friends show me of their kids."

 

Don't worry. These same people likely don't know much about archiving either. Eventually their pictures will disappear from poorly created CDs or virus-infested hard drives thus saving future generations from the onslaught. ;-)

[Spearhead]

<i>"And btw I cant stand the endless blurb of digi pics my friends show me of their kids." </i><p>

 

I hate it when people take out packages from the drugstore and show me 36 shots of their kids that put me to sleep. It doesn't have anything to do with film or digital. It's human nature.

[working camera]

Stephen

 

A good post that should permanently be made to float at the top of the Leica forum

so we don�t get so many �why Leica M?� threads.

 

But apart from your fine logic, your post does concern me. Most of us here are

complete idiots, and despite the fact we actually need a digital camera we still go out

and buy another Leica. The usual response from our better halves is �But don�t you

already have six Leicas?� You are just going to have to sell the kids. That way you

won�t need the DSLR and cant buy 3 more Leicas.

 

BTW. There is a guy on another forum who is dead set upon having his M do 1:1

macro, sans Visoflex unit. If he can do that then you should have no trouble at all

making your M7 do just about anything.

 

Craig

[johnmarkpainter]

Stephen,

 

I just want a 1D, go ahead.

 

It is certainly possible to picture of kids and action with a Leica. Especially with an

M7...you have a Meter AND AE...You just can't do it right now. If you don't practice with it,

you will never be able to :)

 

Get a cheap (less than $800) P&S Digital to send pics to grandma.

 

jmp

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Not that I can advise anyone on this subject very much but that's the

advise I have been getting lately and I think it is right. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

What advice did they give you about hanging out on the internet during your honeymoon?

[yochin]

If you want high resolution photos then a point and shoot 8MegPixel or equivalent or a well-priced DSLR is a good idea. If you'd rather see motion and hear your kids talk then a MiniDV camera is the way to go. The Sony MiniDV camerae are generally speaking the best overall of the consumer MiniDV camerae out there. Seeing home movies of them when they were two and three later on when they're like in their twenties or older you'll probably appreciate the MiniDV camerae in the long run more. With MiniDV you can edit on your computer and output to DVD-R or DVD+R and their many derivatives. If you want the best of both worlds (supposedly) then you can buy a sony MiniDV camera that also shoots 2megapixel or higher stills when you need to. Of course, the longer you wait the more the still part of MiniDV camerae will catch up with regular digital still camera, but you've got to consider that if you have a MiniDV camera then you'll always be able to shoot pretty good movies with it, while if you pick the flavor of the month DSLR or point and shoot digital still camera you'll either not be able to shoot movies at all, or you'll get chinsy movies that are like three minutes, and some pretty nice photos, but either with bad sound or no sound to boot.

 

Of course, all of this depends on if you want to shoot digital movies or not. I mean, with shooting your kids I'd worry about long term storage for your keepers. I mean, pictures I've taken from three years ago with a digital I can't even find today and a lot of my CD-R's already have read errors. I mean, I don't know how much you want to trust your precious memories to them but a lot of this move towards digital sort of glosses over all of these long term aspects.

 

I guess my message is that although we all like to take pictures and send them all over the place in the long run we would probably all enjoy movies of whatever we're taking more than merely pictures alone. I mean, you want a camera to compliment a film camera then a movie camera fills the gap almost perfectly. I mean, imagine sending the kids' grandparents little clips of movies you've taken of them chirping happily at each other or a Dvd of spring vacation with the kids instead of the impersonality of a generic webpage with a bunch of thumbnails on it. I mean, a dvd people can enjoy in the comfort of their own living room, but a website they have to go sit cramped together in the study.

[andrew robertson]

I'm with Grant on this one. You are willing to drop $5000 on the hottest new DSLR for

your (presumably) non-photographer wife to take pictures of the KIDS?!?

 

I think you should just hire a team of photographers, composers, portrait painters and

sculptors. You should have enough money left over for a gold house and a rocket car!

[sliu]

90 percent of the pictures of me and my brother as kids were shot two decades ago with either a Seagull TLR or a Holga. We grew up pretty healthy ;-)

 

Your M7, D100 or EOS 1D-Mark II could support the education of a kid in China from kindergarden to graduate school ;-)

[scott_mcloughlin]

I'm a RF newbie, but here are some thoughts.

 

(1) I'm an uncle to a three year old, a one year old and now a 8 week old. I've been to my brother's alot these past few months and have taken quite a few pics of the kids with my CV Bessa + Nokton + 21/4. I also use my N80 + 85/1.8 As stated above, I'm a newbie, but I don't recall having any particular difficulties taking lots and lots of pics of the kids. Maybe they were sedated :-)

 

(2) But more importantly, the family is actually really *blown away* by the CV 21/4 pics of the kids. Playing. Shots of a (pretty rare) family dinner. Some slow shutter pics with a little motion blur (the kids, not me this time :-) Some close ups of the newborn in its basonet. Stuff like that. The family really likes this stuff because the pics don't look like everyday snaps. They look more like documentary style photos. Pretty cool. The CV 21/4 payed for itself pretty quickly.

 

(3) I was launched into my little photo hobby recently because my girlfriend wanted a digital camera. While shopping around, we visited my grandparents and saw 50+ year old boxes of prints/negatives of my now deceased mother. On the drive home, my girl friend said she wanted a film camera, and I heartily agreed. We were both just blown away, really moved by the longevity of the film medium (in shoe boxes, no less). I'm no artist; my pics are about memories.

 

(4) I love my SLR, and I'm expecting a second Nikon body tomorrow (FM3a), mostly for mounting longer lenses, shooting tight head shots, blah blah. That's a manual focus job, hence the FM3a to complement my N80.

 

(5) But I'm sticking with film. I'm a hardcore software engineer (product mgr, reasonably successful entrepreneur, etc.) and have lots and lots of computers (Windows/Sun/Linux/Laptops). I'm certainly no stranger to technology. I do scan film with a film scanner.

 

But I've wrestled with industrial backup professionally and home backup personally (I use a SCSI tape system). I've seen tons of $$$$$$ spent in industry; and tons of backup/recovery failures in spite of that.

 

I just have legitimate doubts that should I go someday, my brother or father or girlfriend will be able to turn a bunch of my old, faded dye-recorded CD-RW's or SCSI tapes or backup hard drives (I use RAID) or whatever back into images and ultimately memories. Negatives do not present the same level of difficulty in this regard.

 

Maybe someday we'll have a consumer photography oriented Iron Mountain or similar archival storage company that will remove these concerns about digital archiving for a reasonable price. (I've worked with a few startups in this area that didn't make much headway.) That would be great for digital photography and for family memories.

 

But for now, at least consider film :-) Sorry if that sounds too much like a rant.

 

Scott

[jorge]

<i>>> What advice did they give you about hanging out on the internet during your honeymoon? <<</i>

<br><br>

Hey º]º, give the man a break. He has to take rests in between, no? ;-)

[jorge]

Stephen et al,

<br><br>

Re: Digital & kids. My own personal feelings towards digital as a medium to keep <b><i>important</b></i> memories are very dim. In the early 80's I succumbed to the video craze and accumulated unaccounted hours of my growing kids antics in videotape of various formats. The ones recorded in Beta (remember that don't you?) are gone forever. Been trying to find a way to convert to DVD fruilessly. Some in 8mm are still visible. The ones converted to VHS are about to reach the vanishing point.

<br><br>

Now, I know this has been discussed endlessly but I still remember 5-1/2" floppies. Really dread the day when CD-ROM's and DVD´s are no longer readable. Also, who can really tell what the mean life of a DVD will be?

<br><br>

OTOH, a cousin of mine found a throve of old negatives with pictures of her parents and mine and came to me to see if I could salvege some images. I'm in the midst of printing some fine images in my darkroom. Some negs are of our grandparents, ca. 1900. Try that with digital and then convince me.

<br><br>

Thanks heaven, D76, HC-110, Xtol and fixer are still available. When they aren't, I plan to mix my own. Ditto C41. Also, fortunately, I'm a 57 year old grandfather. Won't worry much time about <i><u>my</i></u> memories. :-)

[edmo]

rangefinders work fine, if you want the dslr...just get it

<p>

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2259615&size=lg"></center>

<center></center>

<p>

[jorge]

For misspelling your name. ;-)

[stephen_persky]

I totally agree with the fear of losing Digital pictures. I archive all my negatives from my Leica M7. In 60 years, my when my grandkids want to see pictures you can bet they will be in that old shoebox with the negatives. I still think an DSLR is important for some of the pictures I want to do.

 

As for the comments about the amount of money things cost. Do not over simplify things. I am not wasting money in my opinion. Everyone has a different value of what they perceive they need, and lets not compare what everything cost to how many poor kids we can feed or educate in China. I work hard for my money, and I spend it as my wife deems fit. The camera is not just for my wife. I will use the camera, but she will be able to take snapshots with it as needed.

 

I consider the use of 2 tools (digital and film)to accomplish my goals a good thing. I will take more pictures for different situations, thus enhancing my versatility.

 

Regards,

Steve Persky

[jonathan_reynolds]

Stephen,

 

Last Christmas I bought my wife a quality p&s, on the grounds that I carry my Leica everywhere and that my old Nikon SLR was too big. After 4 months, we are absolutely unanimous: the p&s was a waste of money. It produces LOTS of sharp but hideous and unappealing pictures, of which I would immediately cull 99% if allowed. When it comes to album shots, my wife does far better with the Nikon and a 105mm lump of glass. For photos to print to 16x12 and hang on the wall the Leica surpasses them both by miles.

[sprouty]

<I>"In 60 years, my when my grandkids want to see pictures you can bet they will be in that old shoebox with the negatives"</I>

<P>

In 60 years if the box of negatives is still around (and it's highly debatable as to which storage method will be easier to maintain) your grandkids will convert them to whatever the latest digital storage media is and then throw the box in the trash...

[al_kaplan1]

As some of you know, I just got back from a trip to North Carolina where I visited my lady friend, met some of her relatives, friends and co-workers, and got to look through those shoeboxes FULL of snapshots and studio portraits alike.

 

As expected, the Polacolor and regular color prints of her daughter taken in the late 60's through the early 80's ranged from BADLY faded to noticeably faded. Her own childhood photographs were mostly B&W "drugstore" prints complete with deckle edges, and looked like they were printed yesterday. There were B&W pictures going back to wnen her great grandparents were newly-weds, all in great condition, no fading or staining. We're talking late 1800's here, folks! A young good looking dude with droopy walrus moustach, black suit, string tie and his American Indian bride, both sitting stiffly and looking poker faced at the camera for the multi-second long exposure.

 

I think many families will preserve shoe boxes full of old photos. I doubt many will take the trouble to keep recopying digital files onto the latest media every few years. Also, that penciled info on the back of so many pictures, dates, names, location, ages? Who the hell will put that on a CD cover?

[robert_hively]

a canon 1Dmarkii is too big......quote What is "too big"? 512 pixels or more in width.endquote

 

not my words, simply the realism that every webmaster imposes upon the reality that faces us: limited bandwidth.

 

in a world of 36 (and higher) megabyte images of 3600x2400pixels we amateurs are constrained, by limitations in our computer equipment to manipulate the image, by limitations in our output equipment to print the image, by limitations in the pipeline to upload the image, by limitations on the bulletin board to display the image, and so we take a gun capable of bringing down the elephant, with 9mp raw image output, and we select "800x600" (or less here) in Adobe CS for size, "save for web" and "jpg res low" for content, and end up with a 50K mosquito file. Still looks pretty good on the screen, but talk about overkill to get there.

 

what gives me a headache? doing that amazing shrinking picture act 150 times in post processing after "capturing" a family get together. you'll soon learn to switch off the machine gun option when unlimited storage cards and a loose finger gives you 1000 images of little johnny sledding down the same friggin hill to cull and process and print.

 

The Canon "1" is a fashion statement, but the word discrete is not in it's vocabulary; there is simply no way to act casual or unobtrusive while wearing "1". It's right there in your face, (and everybody else's) hanging around your neck like an albatross, fuggedaboud casually slinging it over one shoulder, (unless you like the hunchback look.) gives you a new persona though, nobody mistakes you for a guest at the party, you are the professional photographer hired to shoot the event. (score one for the sophistication attributed to the host by the partygoers.)

 

and then after you get this uberkameramitsportobjectiv, some joker runs an a/b comparison article like this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/8mp-alternatives.shtml

 

so go ahead and get the 1dMarkII, but no need to dis Leica as a reason, or claim "it's for the kids." It's for you, pure and simple, and you are worth it. But come back and join us when the newness wears off. I may even regale you with memories of my first m: an MDa with a collapsible elmar and a 50mm brightline finder. Metering courtesy of a handheld metrastar. Oh how I lusted for a 35mm objectiv back then! But I never considered it a headache to be so constrained lack of automation, Leica's are fun!!!! Still own it, will never sell it, and would never speak poorly of it. But I'm having way too much fun with my Canon "1"'s and the leica lenses I stick on them to wax nostalgic. Memo to self: when I absolutely, positively need a quick pic, I don't reach for a Leica, or a Canon, I grab a lil' Sony cd-300 $299 at circuit city. (cropped)results below but who says we can't have it all? (big grin)<div></div>