boris_chan1 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 "Leica is the only system in town that you can build an RF pro system on.........." As I said Alex, I like your pictures, but you really are kidding your self if you think that Leica's the only show in town. If you haven't already done so go and have a look at a Contax G2 - it has many annoying quirks but overall it's a much faster, responsive camera than a Leica. Many photographers (including a fair few at Magnum) for whom money is not an issue have chosen them above Leicas on issues of practicality. You work a lot in low light, and, surprising though it might seem, you can handhold a G2 (or a Canon EOS for that matter) at lower speeds than a Leica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Boris, you make a good point re the Contax. A used G1 with lenses is one of the great bargains today. However I think there are more lenses available for the Leica at present and that's not counting the (thread mount) CVs. Don't think that at even the best of times a G2 can totally replace a Leica M. Sometimes some photographers (each to his own) will prefer not to have motorised film advance for example. Depends on the situation of course. If I could only have one system I'd choose the M6 over the G2. In fact I'd pass on the G2 even if I could have it. But I'd also buy a used G1 just to make life interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I like Leicas a lot, but am surprised at claims that, even with the newest glass attached, they can compete with a properly adjusted medium format camera for image quality. I cannot see much, if any difference between my images talken with a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 SLR lens and a Summicron 50 (on an M Leica) during normal operation. Am I missing something? Obviously, the lack of mirror slap, build quality and viewfinder/focussing system of the Leicas is a big attraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_perkins2 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Boris, there's an element of self-parodying machismo about some cameras, sure. For the record, I use EOS digital and MF stuff too, and many colleagues use Contax Gs or Hexars, which are nice. Anyone who tells me I'd "do a great deal better with an EOS" doesn't know the work of: Larry Towell (M6, EOS1 and I think Xpan), Cartier Bresson (obviously), Chris Steele Perkins (M6 and medium format), Bruce Gilden (M6 and flash), Giles Perez, Ian Berry, Alex Majoli (M6 and Hexar) And outside Magnum there's Tom Stoddart, David Modell, William Klein, Nan Goldin, Mary Ellen Mark, Jane Evelyn Atwood etc. It's a running joke about battered Ms, but it has that unpleasant ring of truth. Go to Visa pour L'image one year, I think it must have the higest concentration of Leicas anywhere. Scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Rev Kozzee saved me from those wicked Leica people. I'm fully automated now, and it's a lot better.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bds1 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I can fit my outfit (2 M's, lenses, blah blah, blah) in a small bag that doesn't cripple me . Thats pretty much the reason why. The nikon kit has to live in a vast rucksack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xavier_dalfort Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Mike, Let me add a couple of words, although according to Jay's remark, some cameras branded Leica are not (I own a R7 and a CL!) Leica is reputed for the quality of their optics, scientific quality for every day use as my dad puts it. The quality control is good and the product are quite consistent. But this info needs to be put in brackets as the Korean or Japanese plants are good too. Now, the cameras have kept a "je ne sais quoi" which makes them easlily spotted. These days, the big wave pushes the "M" type, a slow and purposeful evolution of the model built in 1910..... Are you tempted by the Leica Gangsta World? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_chong2 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 $0.02 One of the best things about Leica M & thread mount systems is the lack of planned obsolescence (spelling?). You only have to scan through the threads on this forum to see images made using equipment older than the person who made them; & the potential to have state of the art glass on a newer body OR vice versa is something, in my view, that keeps users with Leica & attracts new users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I like the one where someone accuses you of being irrationally equipment-centric, and then they go on to refute your choice of camera by drafting painstaking and excruciatingly detailed posts about their own gear: "get over it, the tools make no difference! ...and besides, my 1982 61mm zathrobiohologon-L (later version), when fitted with part number B-126(51), slightly modified, can out-resolve..." The other comical debate is the one where people form imaginary equipment alliances with famous photographers: "me and James Nachtwey have chosen..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 the most expensive camera out there" Not really. Canon D1 ($8000 for the 11 MP variety) are pricey as are many L-lenses. The Nikon F5 is $2200 - about the same as a new Leica M. Then there are the $22,000 MF digital backs. Leicas are pretty expensive taken as a whole, but not so awful always - if you buy secondhand you save a lot. Some of us never buy new. I think Andy puts it very well. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel rainville Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 > but he could have taken any of them on a Canon, a Nikon, a Contax G2, or a point and shoot digital. Thanks Captain Obvious. ;o) I was refering to the Leica quality of it. Any competent photographer could have taken these images with their camera of choice. What I'm saying is that they wouldn't look exactly the same. Feel free to disagree, but I do believe in the "Leica look". When I browse Photosig.com, some pictures will attract my attention and I'll often recognize the glow of a 50mm Summicron. And please remember that comes from someone who never ever touched a Leica. Let's try it. Someone on this board must have both EOS and Leica bodies with two similar lenses like the Canon 35mm f/2 and the Leica 35mm Summicron. Use a tripod, take the same picture twice, 1 with each camera and lenses at f/2, and I'll guess which one is the Leica. Too easy? Shuffle 20 random copies of these 2 images and I'll tell you which ones are Leica, and which ones are not. If I can't do it, I'll be really grateful to learn that Leica is just like any ordinary camera out there, since that'll save me lot of money in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 If one has to ask... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khiem_nguyen1 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 beauty in its simplicity , and the lense quality will give you its unique images. trust me you will need ti hide money from your wife to pursuit LEICA experiences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_hodson Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 I think I understand a little better now. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 "Anyone who tells me I'd "do a great deal better with an EOS" doesn't know the work of ..............Giles Perez.............Alex Majoli" John, I'm sorry to hassle you on this but what makes you think that Gilles Peress is working with a Leica, all I can imagine is that you've read this in the introduction to "Telex Persan", but those pictures were taken 25 years ago. For a long time now Peress has mainly used Canon EOS backed up with Contax G2s. Alex Majoli, believe it or not, over the last year or so has been working with Olympus digitals. People who are pushing at the boundaries of reportage are far more open to changes in equipment than the average amateur. Leicas are nice cameras, but right now there are many other equally compelling options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 "Feel free to disagree, but I do believe in the "Leica look."" Well start saving now Joel, you're the perfect Leica customer............ Best wishes - Captain Obvious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bds1 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 mind you Boris "Telex Persan" or Telex Iran in the Uk has never, In my eyes, been bettered. I couldn't give a rats arse about what someone shoots with unless it plays a major role in the way the picture was created. just show me the pictures and I'll be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 "Telex Iran.......has never......been bettered" I sort of agree with you, in it's own way it was as influencial on a generation of photographers as Robert Frank's The Americans. I do think though that it was equalled by Peress himself with The Silence, and that brings us on to your second point. I believe your choice of cameras does influence the style of pictures you produce, it's no accident that for the directness of the approach taken in The Silence the photographer primarily worked with SLRs. It's not about which camera is "best" but SLRs and rangefinders certainly aid different visions. For what it's worth, two other books that equal Telex Iran are Luc Delahaye's Wintereisse, and, in a very different way, the British photographer/artist Richard Billingham's Ray's a Laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bds1 Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Wintereisse is indeed a stunning book, however I don't feel it was as groundbreaking as 'Telex' I think Billingham is a bit of a one trick pony (I have to admit it's a pretty good trick though) you might be interested in this guy's site http://www.billemory.com/ takes a while to look though it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 "Wintereisse........stunning book.........I don't feel it was as groundbreaking as Telex."The joys of chatting with someone in a different time zone......Don't forget the resounding apathy that Telex was greeted with. I'm guessing that you're in London but haven't been around long enough to remember the mountain of remaindered copies of that book piled up in the Photographers Gallery in the mid to late 80s - they couldn't even shift them at two pounds fifty a copy. It takes time to assess the impact of a body of work, Scalo eventually republished at a time when the value of the book on the secondhand market had crept up to something like USD500, but it was a long slow burn. A lot of people viewed the book with contempt in the eighties, the Iranian photographer Kaveh Golestan (who sadly died in northern Iraq last year) whose own coverage of the revolution won him the Capa award laughed out loud at it and denounced it to me as "Frank in a war zone" - his assessment was the norm at the time. It's too early to say whether Wintereisse will have as much impact, but I really do think it's as groundbreaking as Telex and it's already exerting a strong influence on younger photographers, just as Delahaye himself was influenced by Peress. Wintereisse came out at almost exactly the same time as Nachtwey's Inferno and while that book garnered a massive amount of favourable reviews and publicity in the media at large it left many of his direct peers questioning his judgement in producing something so overwrought and bombastic. By contrast the modest form of Wintereisse combined with the intensity of the work astonished the majority of serious reportage photographers, it really pushed the bar higher. And now Brian a direct question for you (and for John Perkins who I unkindly slapped around earlier, plus a few others) - why are you wasting your time on this forum? You obviously take your work seriously so why do you need the approval of the dentists, lawyers and advertisising copy writers on this list? I know they're easier to please than the average magazine photo editor or agency boss but surely you feel a little soiled by your involvement. I first posted here following a drunken chat with another photographer who said to me "you're not going to believe this place Photo.net", and he was right I couldn't believe the depth of ignorance here. I've since dipped in and out with a mixture of fascination and revulsion, but I promise you this is my last post. "Boris Chan" has left the building............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now