Why Leica- Trying to explain the illogical

[._._z]

"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.

[ray .]

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

 

Answers

 

Totally.

 

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

[chris c]

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.

[jschweigl]

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 ...

[richard_srienz]

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.

[Tony Rowlett]

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.

[tony_brookes]

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.

[nesrani]

"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.

[james_.1]

Cuz Big Daddy likes the Leica.

[bobflores]

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

[marc_bergman1]

"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.

[michael_kastner]

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.

[jake_tauber]

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.

[chris c]

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.

[lee_shively]

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".

[Tony Rowlett]

Not to pick on Scott Eaton, but let me pick on Scott Eaton, or, actually, take a bite right out of his leg:

<blockquote>

<i>"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. "</i>

<p>

<i>"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."</i><p>

</blockquote>

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.

<p>

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 shit, 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!?!?!?!?

<p>

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.

[john15]

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.

[tony_brookes]

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.

[dan_brown4]

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

snicker-snicker).

 

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

better.

 

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

oblique)).

 

Ciao!

[._._z]

"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.

[douglas_green1]

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.

[._._z]

"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.

[douglas_green1]

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.

[ray .]

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. ;)

[lou_mcclellan]

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.