Logic vs. emotions

[Niels - NHSN]

<P>Lens performance and the virtues of the rangefinder vs. the SLR

are often discussed in this and other Leica forums.</P>

 

<P>It seems to be the rational justification of the hefty Leica price

tag - the argument we use to convince ourselves and/or our

spouses.</P>

 

<P>I must confess that the optical quality is a minor reason for my

interest in Leica, I am in this only for the <I>feeling </I>the

camera gives me.</P>

 

<P>-I do appreciate smooth OOF rendering and sharp images, but it is

not my experience that this is something only a Leica lens can

provide.</P>

 

<P>What really gives me a kick is the unique sound of the shutter of

my M4, the weight in my hands, the compact solid feel, and the

smoothness of operation.</P>

 

<P>I don't think I am the only one who feels this way. I suspect it

is for people like me, that Leica decided to keep their antiquated

shutter in the M7.</P>

 

<P>I also think this is why the Leica SLR range has been relatively

unsuccessful in the market. They just haven't been able to translate

the feel of the M series into those SLR bodies.</P>

 

<P>My M4 and the 50mm Summicron have not improved my photography, but

the feel of the camera has renewed my joy of photography (which in

time hopefully will translate into better photographs).</P>

 

<P>Most of my photography friends don't understand why I sold my

<I>1/8000 top speed, 1/250 flash sync. 5 frames/sec, multi-program

matrix metering</I> SLR monster -in favour of a camera with

specifications dating back half a century.</P>

 

<P>Now - if I could only prove an advantage in image quality, then

maybe it would be another matter, but I can't (at the moment).</P>

 

<P>I tried to let them use the camera '<I>surely that would make them

understand</I>', but no! Holding and using the camera did not evoke

any of the excitement that I felt when I first held it in my

hands.</P>

 

<P>I do not need their approval of course. However, it makes me

wonder why '<I>It feels good</I>' doesn't appear to be a valid

justification, but we accept arguments like '<I>It resolves xxx lp/mm</I>' (when

most photographers are unable to utilize this quality anyway)?</P>

 

<P>Any thoughts?</P>

[eliot]

Niels. I agree that the feel of Leica M and the soft shutter are big

reasons I use Leica, and reasons I switched back from SLRs to RFs.

And I don't really like the feel and handling of modern AF SLRs,

despite all of their conveniences.

 

<p>

 

I don't agree with your comment about the Leica being "a camera with

specifications dating back half a century." I don't remeber exactly

when aperture priority AE came into existence in SLRs but it must

have been late '70s or early 80's, not half a century. I don't think

there was even through the lens light metering 50 years ago. Certain

features like DX coding and TTL flash metering are more recent than

AE. This is hardly a stone age camera.

[karl_georg_wolf]

Hello Niels,

 

<p>

 

I do not know for how long you are using your LEICA M, but with more

experience you will notice, that your photography will indeed improve

IMO.

 

<p>

 

The simple fact that the M is so much smaller and less obvious when

in use will lead to photos which differ from those taken with other

photogear. When going out and being in the mood to shoot I put my

LEICA M6 with SUMMICRON 35 (old style) or (lately) the tiny M-ROKKOR

40 mm and have it on me in a waist poach.

 

<p>

 

It´s so small that you hardly notice this outfit when you carry it.

But it is there when you want it!! Doing this with an SLR-camera

reminds you (at least it does this to me) all the time you are

dragging something heavy around. All the other pros, quiet shutter,

terrific focus abilities esp. for w/a-lenses set aside: the LEICA M

is THE camera for me. It only you and the camera which is at hand

what makes the picture ... Think about all the photoopportunities

which din´t work out, because your equipment wasn´t there, there are

quite a few for me.

 

<p>

 

Have a go and good LEICA shooting to all

[bert_keuken]

I can relate to the feeling the camera gives you. I have the same feeling like you.

 

<p>

 

I traded a Canon T90 plus 5 lenses for a Leica M4 plus 35 Summaron. Since then I replaced the M4 plus Summaron for an M6 classic (bought new in 1992) and 4 lenses (28/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/2.0, 90/2.0).

 

<p>

 

I can say I shoot sharp pictures now, focussing on a ground glass just isn't my cup of tea. I also found out I didn't use nor need the feature overload of the all singing-all dancing T90.

[jacques_balthazar1]

Niels,

 

<p>

 

I fully relate to your interrogation. I also think the pleasure

element is a key. But I think the main key is the unique set of

functionality of the M: size, simplicity, reliability, discretion,

unchallenged ease of use with crucial wide angles (28 and 35) and low

light capabilities, married with the knowledge that optical issues

will never be the point of failure in any assignement.

 

<p>

 

People who do not need that unique set of functionality may or may

not still relate to the pleasure element, but will be less liable to

do so. If you do not really care about size, noise, ease of manual

control, available light, etc, why spend the bucks ?

 

<p>

 

That is why, IMHO, the R does not induce same enthusiasm. The R's

functionality is far from unique, and the optical superiority is too

marginal to justify the expense, from a rational point of view.

 

<p>

 

But unlike you, I find very similar tactile and intellectual pleasure

in handling R as in handling M, and that 'justifies' the investment

for me. Construction, ergonomy, general feel, are very reminiscent of

M. And so are many of the MTF charts, of course, if you need to

rationalise.... ;-)

[glenn_travis]

"I see Pictures," Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji

Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=759589&size=lg" WIDTH="750" HEIGHT="508">

[fotografz]

Niels, I totally agree with you about the hard to explain feel of the

Leica in ones' hand. The heft of such a small instrument often

suprizes friends who ask to hold it. For that reason I even sprung

for a Black Paint M6 LHSA that is even more solid feeling (like a

chrome only in a silky luster black). Love the retro look and feel

of the 35/2 BP with the old style metal shade, as well as the

scalloped focusing ring of the 50 Lux BP...both of which have a

sustantial weighty-ness that belies their smallish stature.

However I do not agree with the optical portion of your post. Right

this minute I am taking a break from scanning a ton of Leica

produced B&W negs along with those shot with one of those

35mm beasts you mention, and some MF negs. The Leica negs

are a joy to scan. Every selected neg has an equally hard to

explain emotional quality and tonal range that blows away

everything else. These lenses never cease to amaze me. I just

pulled a Super B sized print from one of Leica negs ( T-Max 400

CN ), and the creamy tones, snappy blacks and pure spectral

whites absolutely look like medium format. How light is rendered

by these little chunks of glass IS why I love this camera system

more than any other I own or have ever owned. I consider the

35/1.4 Asph the best lens EVER made by anyone EVER! Not for

reasons of bench tests or technical mumbo-jumbo, but because

of the impossible to explain, easy to show, images it consistantly

produces. And I can say that as an owner of Canons 35/1.4L and

50/1.0 ( which my Leica Noctilux is clearly superior to ).

Expanding my Leica M system is rendering my 35mm do-all, be

all, computerized beast to the dust-bin of obsolesce.

[mikep]

Niels wrote:"I must confess that the optical quality is a minor

reason for my interest in Leica, I am in this only for the feeling

the camera gives me."....

 

<p>

 

kidding right? a camera is a tool, a leica is a wonderful tool, but

a tool nontheless. This statement alone seperates you from being a

photographer to being a camera buff.

 

<p>

 

Niels wrote: "My M4 and the 50mm Summicron have not improved my

photography, but the feel of the camera has renewed my joy of

photography (which in time hopefully will translate into better

photographs)."

 

<p>

 

This is the truest thing you said, your photography will start being

improved when you learn how and when to use your tools right. Yout M4

is quiet and smooth, so its incomspicuous, and you can get slower

shutter speed operation than your Nikon., IE better for that chore.

Now go to a football game with your Leica and see what you get. Try

the Nikon with say a 280mm 2.8 Nikkor, or even (god forbid) Sigma

lens and see how its fit for that job. Me, I have many tools in my

bag, and the moment one dosent work for me I replace it. I dont want

to sit in front of my TV shooting blanks with my M2, I want to shoot

film , and lots of it.. sorry for the honesty.

mike

[michael_kastner]

Niels, I like this type of thread and since I feel you're looking for

a list of various feelings here, here's my opinion. The first thing I

think of is something I've already said many times here. Yes it's

something you can also read in catalogs and so forth. And no, I don't

work for Leica! But what I like most about Leica (and "Leica" to me

always means Leica M) is that here, I'm in control of my camera, the

camera is not in control of me.

 

<p>

 

My old Nikonos and FMs were okay, but these too have already started

to become too dominating. Almost any SLR today, at least from Nikon or

Canon, is so automated that I don't know how to reset something. Or it

takes too long. It's also like the brand new expensive Kyocera

photocopy machine in our institute. It keeps resetting itself, tuning

in new things I don't even want. Can't even use. Costs me too much

time and effort. When I know how to work it, it's still too slow, and

the copies aren't any better in quality either.

 

<p>

 

Next points: of course the Leica M image quality is good, but that's

secondary (for me). A camera with specifications dating back half a

century is good too (again, for me). The joke here is that today

(since a half a century) everything (over and above cameras too) has

become more and more electronically advanced, and the first thing

forgotten or even consciously dispensed with is the mechanics of the

thing.

 

<p>

 

My M6TTL does everything I want (except maybe a self-timer) and

nothing I don't want. That's the best <i>feeling</i> the camera gives

me.

[kristian dowling]

Great shot Travis.

 

<p>

 

Great post Niels.

 

<p>

 

I am on the same level of thinking as you and others and i guess

that's why many of us own Leica M gear. Unfortuantely for me, it

is no longer possible, but I'll be back. The Leica M has allowed

me to get shots i would've only dreamed of getting prior, and the

camera really keeps you in touch with the photographic

experience, as their are no distractions by shutter noise, busy

viewfinders, mirror blackout and techno capabilities.

 

<p>

 

Simply the best camera i've ever used/owned, and I'll be back for

one once I have taken care of my priorities.

[karl_yik1]

Niels, I think there are many M users on this forum who share the

same feelings as you which other people find strange! But as to what

makes us 'click' is a very personal thing, build quality, looks,

ergonomics, performance, gadgets are parameters to be weighed when

designing consumer goods these days. The longevity of the classic M

design is a statement in itself as well as others such as that made

by Alessi that the Leica M would be the only object in the world that

he would not redesign.

The M is a mechanical masterpiece, an art that is dying with todays

digitalised world which I beleive makes it even more special.

[albert_smith]

Giving a "cult-like" status to inanimate objects can lead to

frustration if the results do not match expectations. I have spent

many Dollars on Leica M camera and lenses (5 bodies and 12 lenses,

pared down to two bodies and 4 lenses today), but I also use SLRs

from one of those "lesser" companies. I honestly can't say I've ever

been stunned enough to dump one system to go totally to the other.

They work well as two parts of a whole... sometimes a rangefinder

would excel, and sometime the limitations of that type of camera

would be too stifling.

 

<p>

 

As to the pricing thing, I have been starting to question the logic

here since I've retired and must justify spending "crazy" money to

get what could be acquired for less. Paying 200% for something to

get maybe 15% better performance doesn't pass the sniff test anymore

these days.

 

<p>

 

Below are two photos of the same person shot a couple of weeks

apart. One is made with a Leica M6 and a 50mm Summicron. The other

is made with a Nikon and a 50mm f/1.8 Manual Focus AIS lens. The

ratio of pricing is about 10 to 1, with of course the 10 going to the

Leica. So is one image 10 times better? Is one only a tenth as

good? I always heard that Leica lenses beat every other brand until

the middle apertures. Both of these photos are shot at full

aperture, so according to the rhetoric, one photo should be blowing

the other out of the water. I know that judgments can't be made from

a computer screen, but I have the negatives and enlarged prints, so

my points still hold up upon viewing these. <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=754151&size=md"> Photo 1 </a>,<a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=712544&size=md"> Photo 2 </a>

 

 

<p>

 

There is definitely something other than logic involved with buying

Leica gear.

[Robin Smith]

Well, I am basically a reflex sort of person - if given a choice I

would always pick reflex viewing. But I do think that Leica glass is

special and that is why I own them (M and R). In addition to this

comes all the other rather nice ancillary things such as feel, weight

and mechanical excellence. The M also has the nice idea of focal

length preview and smaller size and an always bright viewfinder and

quiet vibration free shutter. But, I do think that Leica M owners

over-emphasize the advantages of their cameras and often overlook its

disadvantages: this seems to me to be almost certainly partly a

compensation for the expense and the sheer oddity of the cameras. In a

world where there are very few professional r/f cameras the Leica is

different and therefore special. As a matter of interest my R6.2 with

50mm Summicron has pretty well the same dimensions and weight as my

M6TTL and 50mm Summicron. The Ms remain unique, no question, and they

have a wonderful feel, but this is not why I own one. I own one

because of the relative small size of the lenses and their excellence,

particularly at wide apertures this improves my photography.

[yossi1]

Leica represents the essence of photography to me. It makes me wanna

take better pictures, and most times it does.

 

<p>

 

The feel of a M4 and the shutter is unparallel. The 50 cron at F2 in

untouchable. The durability is unsurpassed.

 

<p>

 

 

You dun need to have second thoughts when you are using Leicas.

Unless of cause you have given up photography.

[james_.1]

I fully agree. I tried to remain objective while deciding between a

Contax SLR with their Zeiss lenses and the M, but the compact

solidity and workmanship got the better of me. That I think was the

real clencher. I also appreciate the rangefinder design, no mirror

shake. I even tried the R6.2, close but no cigar. The shutter speed

dial just wasn't like the M's- the M is metal and doesn't shift

around in its mounting. The R6.2 was plastic, shifted around, and

was hard to smoothly turn. The M was smoothly positive. There we

go. I was also tired of Canon's use of plastic housing on their

lenses. I enjoy the feel of metal lenses with their smoothly

positive aperture ring and focusing. I've always been a gearhead,

and the M satisfies. Of course the optics for me are probably the

main deal- fast lenses with high performance.

[jay_.]

A contrarian view:

 

<p>

 

Some say the Leica M is inspirational in its feel. Despite its heft

and the myth of its ruggedness and dependability, it in fact is quite

delicate and tempermental. Hasselblad is similarly solid and

similarly tempermental. A Nikon F feels soild but it actually lives

up to the feeling. Store a Leica for 2 years unused in its box and

more than likely the shutter will require service. Pick up a Nikon F

that's been in the attic for 25 years and more than likely it will

work perfectly.

 

<p>

 

Whatever the mystical (mythical?)properties ascribed to the M lenses,

the woefully imprecise framing and forced imagination of DOF, not to

mention the bulls-eye focusing (a trait early AF's were roundly

trashed for), makes composing and capturing precisely-visioned images

a daunting challenge. What are largely held up as examples of the

best of Leica M photography are basically happy accidents, even if

couched in the euphemism of the "decisive moment". The M is often

heralded for its simple user interface but operating the M to capture

a pre-visioned image (precise composition and selective DOF)is

anything but simple or swift and requires a lot of thinking and

experience.

 

<p>

 

The M is a compact camera with high-quality interchangeable lenses

and has made a good travel outfit for me. But if I had to rely on

only one camera system, it would not be the M.

[Troll]

Leica, Si -- SLR, See! I've been using Leica cameras for over 50

years, and I too love the way they feel and sound. Even just

handling them, particularly the early LST cameras, satisfies my

mechanical needs for pleasurable tactile sensations. But for making

good pictures, I do much better with an SLR where I can evaluate

exactly what I'm shooting.

[difeng_ke]

THIS MAY SOUND WEIRD TO SOME BUT......

 

<p>

 

I told me wife, about six months ago, that when I die I want to be

burried with my Leica. My Hasselblad, my Sinar, my KB Canham she can

sell. But my Leica goes with me.

[Allen Herbert]

A work of art,hand built,history,a joy to use,unmatched quality

lenses,a craftmans tool....pure pleasure.

[Allen Herbert]

and holds its value and goes on and on.

[george_b1]

From a practical standpoint, our M4, M6 (and our new M7) offer my wife and myself several more years of "good shooting." She's

76 and I'm 79. Our eyesight isn't getting any better, and the M series rangefinder focusing system and viewfinders are clearly

preferred to squinting into a ground glass while using wide angle lenses. Further, as we get older, we lose the ability to produce

decent pictures with a hand-held SLR, as the inherent vibrations and mirror slap become more difficult to control. I can still get

acceptable hand-held results (not great, but acceptable) at shutter speeds with our Ms that I couldn't possibly obtain with my son-in-

law's Nikon. What I can produce at 1/125 with an M series takes me 1/500 - - minimum - - with my s-i-l's SLR. No, and neither of us

has incipient Parkinson's < grin > - - just too many days on the calendar. The M series are godsends for the Old Fud crowd!

[art_karr]

LLux:

 

<p>

 

You clearly should have chosen a fully mec. Nikon. When an

archeologist digs you up in a few thousand years, it will still work

[particularly an F2; shutter on the F will probably rot]. ;<)

 

<p>

 

Art

[Spearhead]

Cameras are assemblages of metal, glass, plastic, and, the case of

some, wood. I could care less about them, especially after I am

gone. I would like to think that my photographs have lasting value,

touch people somewhere, or at least are remembrances of me. I told

my wife to give my cameras to a school system when I die, why should

they go to waste.

[art_karr]

Jeff:

 

<p>

 

<b> I told my wife to give my cameras to a school system when I

die, </b>

 

<p>

 

You <b> told</b> your wife! Wow! She must not be as good with

a 3 wood as mine. More seriously, my wife spent years as a

photojournalist. She uses this stuff as much as me. I couldn't

care less what happens to it. It is just "stuff".

 

<p>

 

Art

[Troll]

You guys want to go through eternity without a Leica?