Using Leica Camera = getting great pictures?

[billangel]

Leica recently put out a new promotional video

publicizing the opening of their Leica Academy in

London:

 

 

One of the people interviewed in this video (a

musician, not a photographer) makes the

following statement:

"If you have a Leica camera, even if you're not a

great photographer, you are going to get great

pictures."

So much for "truth in advertising" :-)

It's an ad campaign where as they say they are

"selling the sizzle rather than the steak".

[Alex_Es]

<p>And I suppose if I managed to get ahold of s Stradivarius I'd be able to make great music.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I'd sure like to see if that Ferrari would improve my driving :)</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Thank you for this. I have ordered the best paint brushes money can buy, and expect to have my work in the Museum of Modern Art shortly after they arrive. And to think I wasted all those years fooling around with discipline and hard work!</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Steve, don't forget the best paint: Windsor Newton and Rembrandt.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I hope the musician remembers to take the lens cap off! I suspect the statement is actually the opposite of the reality. I

know it is much easier for non photographers to get acceptable images when I hand them a Canon DSLR than when I

hand them a Leica (I think focusing, frame lines and exposure setting confuse them - some even ask if it has a program

mode and then tell me their P&S does). Now what are the best tools for open heart surgery - I might need a bit of practice

but with the right tools how hard can it be!

[Robin Smith]

<p>Well, in some ways there is some truth in the statement. Other camera manufacturers make the same claim in different words. Most people would probably say that a photo of scene X taken with a Leica was "better" than the same shot taken with an old Kodak Box Brownie.</p>

<p>I don't really think the analogy with Windsor Newton and Rembrandt is really valid. I think a vanishingly small number of us have the skill and technique necessary to paint like Rembrandt, whereas pretty well anyone can pick a camera and take a great shot, at least in principle.</p>

[prendy]

This is exactly the concept that gives Leica it's mystique and Leica, as well as its afficionados, do a lot to maintain the

mystique.

In another discussion people are commenting on the quality of Hasselblad products, which do not appear to be able to

prevent its demise hence, Hasselblad have done a Leica and rebranded a Sony. Good luck to all of them.

[Alex_Es]

<p>Actually, my respect for Windsor Newton and Rembrandt oil paints is what made me stop painting. They were too good for what I was doing.</p>

[walter_degroot]

if I had only kept up with my piano lessons.

Possibly I might have created the next great color film

( sorry guys " colour" )

Too late I have arthritis in that hand now..

[jeff_schraeder1]

On the other hand, using good tools and good materials will remove many impediments to achieving your best at

whatever you are doing. There is a difference in the experience of watercolor painting with good brushes and good

paints, doesn't make you a great painter, just helps you to be the best painter you can be, even if your best efforts will

never hang in the Louvre, or your best photographs will never be on MOMA's walls.

[fotografz]

<p>+ for Jeff.</p>

<p>The assumption that the "musician" can't take a picture is the flaw in the argument. Maybe he is also really good photographer and appreciates a better tool when he sees one, whether it be a musical instrument or a camera?</p>

<p>Comparing Leica to Hasselblad's recent foray into using a NEX7 disguised in a new wardrobe is nonsense. Unlike Hasselblad, Leica is an optics company that makes cameras, and when offering a gussied up camera at a huge mark-up, it is their camera not someone else's. The Panasonic rebadged offerings aren't priced at 6X mark-up, and are not a major factor in Leica's Brand image.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I hope the musician remembers to take the lens cap off!</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I assume you mean this musician: <a href="http://nosolodepanviveelhombre.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/ericclapton.jpg">http://nosolodepanviveelhombre.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/ericclapton.jpg</a></p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Maybe the musician said it wrong. Or was misquoted.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_2019667]

<p>Steve, Now don't jump to conclusions. Maybe Eric Clapton had a tiny pinhole in the lens cap and he was trying his "pin hole" photography. :-))</p>

[sfcole]

<p>The comparison to a Stradivari violin is quite apt. As a professional violinist and Leica user, I'd actually say that both require practice. I've used many other types of cameras, but using a rangefinder needs practice. Leicas, at least in my hands, are not ergonomically the best cameras, and require getting used to.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

I see it as a combination of technology, ergonomics, talent, and experience. These days the camera DOES matter

because in digital, it's no longer a box holding film, it's the sensor and the processing software. And the lenses matter too.

And the ergonomics (user interfaace) matters. But it doesn't give you talent or experience, and it also doesn't mean that

the Leica is designed for your kind of photography (say sports photography).

 

 

High amounts of talent and/or experience can compensate for poor equipment, and to a lesser extent, great equipment

can compensate for talent or experience. You need good (or at least decent) equipment AND skill. A Leica won't give you

great pictures, but combine it with talent and experience and watch out.

[philip_wilson]

I am actually fine with Hassleblad re-branding Sony as long as the also keep making great cameras for photographers.

Leica does the same - the rebrand Panasonic and also make the Unicorn skin CoCo Channel editions. So long as these

forays allow the. To keep making great products for photographers I am fine with it. It is just like sports car makers

rebadging SUVs (I hear Maseratti is about to re-badge the Jeep!). I think one of the things that has been happening over

the last 10 years is that features and technology are selling much more than quality. Unfortunately this makes life difficult

for firm that make significant investments for a small increase in quality (like Leica and Hassleblad). As someone who

has ordered a new M I have already taken some abuse in another forum for being "an idiot". I actually find it fascinating

how eager people are to criticize products they have not used. If people are happy paying a lot of money for a wood

bodies Sony with a Hassy badge why should we criticize them?

[ed_avis2]

<p>If you are rich enough to own a Leica you are likely to also be in the presence of sports cars and motorcycles, yachts, beautiful women and landscapes... which means you are more likely to get good photographs, even if you're not a skilled photographer?</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>I think Ed has nailed it.</p>

<p>I, on the other hand, could use a supertelephoto to capture the rats cavorting in the alley outside my office window.</p>

[william_vickers1]

<p>Leicas are legendary because they started the revolution in 35mm photography and also because of their exceptional build quality and optical excellence. However, many other brands of 35mm cameras followed Leica and were also capable of making great photographs. Today there is a new revolution with digital imaging and brands other than Leica are leading the charge.</p>

[anthony_brookes5]

Alex - you wouldn't necessarily make good music with a Stradivarius but it would be great 'sound'

[r22eng]

Interesting promotional. My project for the year has been to attempt to take good photographs using only Voigtlander lenses. I already have years if experience making mediocre photographs with Leica lenses.

[nicolas_renon]

<p>"If you have a Leica camera, even if you're not a great photographer, you are going to get great pictures."</p>

<p>This is a silly statement. Since when a camera gives you inspiration? Translated into the musical world, is a Stradivarius violin an guarantee for a great performance?</p>

<p>If it were so simple, everyone would use Leica (for the Stradi, I don't have the solution, sorry for our musical friends, you will have to share a limited number of instruments...).</p>

 

[billangel]

I figured out a way to channel my own irritation

at that musician's statement in the Leica

promotional video into a constructive

photographic activity. I was able to purchase in a

thrift store an entry level film SLR with zoom lens

for 10 dollars. It's a Minolta Maxxum GT with a

35 to 80 mm zoom lens. I believe that's the prime

focal length region suitable for taking pictures

with the rangefinder camera like the Leica. For

"inspiration" I'm going to search the photo

databases for images taken with the a Leica

rangefinder, and try my hand at making similar

compositions. As someone who's been involved in

photography for over 50 years, I expect that I can

make better compositions than some rich

dilettante can with a Leica M series, but what I'm

uncertain about is whether a difference in image

technical quality will be apparent on images that

are displayed on the internet, and whether any

such difference will impact the perceived value/

quality of the images in a side by side comparison

of a Leica image with an image taken with a $10

thrift store camera.