R goes hybrid

[roger_michel]

i guess this is the "shrieking din" to which dante referred.

 

kevin -- i cannot speak to your ability to operate something as "complex" as a digital camera. however, your ravings sound a little like the remote control sketches the comics wore out ten years ago. kids use these cameras; old ladies use them. it can be done.

 

as for obscene battery use, the g5 will take about 400 shots on a single battery and replacement batteries are smaller than a single roll of film (let alone the eleven rolls of film tha would = 400 shots). yes you can carry batteries like you carry film!!

 

the shutter lag is just not there any more in the good cameras.

 

prefocus/preset exposure is how many people use leica Ms for candids.

 

the digitals are far quieter than the M.

 

you can preview your shots and toss the bad ones. this lets you know ON THE SPOT when you have to reshoot to get the pic you want/need.

 

yes, the cameras keep improving which affects resale value. however, a g5 costs the same as 50 rolls of film with processing. you'll recoup your cost in a few weeks. then it won't matter if you can resell it. i should also point out that the constant improvement is ACTUALLY NOT A BAD THING.

 

you are right about the manual control to some degree. but automation of the sort offered by the g5 is very useful in a camera designed for street candids.

 

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS. we have always justified leica m as a street shooting camera, especially in view of its heritage. we argued -- i argued -- that things like AF and matrix and fancy gizmos were not relevant to street shooting. the compactness, stealth, and reliability made up for any shortfall in features. unfortunaely, these 5MP p&s cameras seem custom built to better the leica in all of its areas of strength. there is nothing left to hang onto -- except mystique.

 

if i can embrace digital, anyone can. there was no bigger naysayer anywhere in the world!!

[fotografz]

In some way or another I disagee with every post on this thread.

 

I've extensively used just about every camera mentioned here

and then some. Adapting to them is the fun of it, and after awhile

you realize they are more similar than different. Once that sinks

in, operation of any digital camera becomes almost intuitively

simple. Just like film cameras, there are commonalities that

breed familiarity. Where I had to live with the manual for my first

digital, I only had to read one page of the Canon S-50 manual,

and I haven't looked at it since. I never took the manual out of the

plastic bag for the Canon 10D, the menu controls are so clear.

For the Canon 1Ds, I only had to read the proceedure for sensor

cleaning...the rest came as no suprize.

 

Most agree that it takes most people some time to become

adept at using a rangefinder, yet we're deciding after one or two

sessions with a digital? I had many of the problems others have

experienced at first. I do not anymore (still, there are some

drawbacks to be sure). However, it is each person's decision to

make...just like many folks find that a rangefinder is not for them.

But empirically voicing limited experience as fact seems a

bit...well, empirical...and the "hand on a hot object" quote could

be applied to any beginning experience...including the inability to

win a Grand Prix and blaming the car because it requires

different skill sets than the family mini van.

 

IMO, to say that the G3s or G5s zoom lens is the equal to a fixed

focal length Leica M lens, casts doubt on the remaining opinions

of the poster which actually have merit. I urge running a test, and

check the corners before stating such a sweeping notion. I have,

and you will see what I'm talking about. Even the Contax TVS

Digital verses the Canon S-50 showed the Canon with visably

softer edges even at a 5X7 size. That a Leica M prime blows

both of them away can be easily varified.

 

Frankly, I'm not emotionally attached to any of this gear. So the

nostalgia argument is lost on me. I do however feel attached to

the results. In practical application there are visable differences

from brand to brand, format to format, digital to film. I'll stop using

anyone of them the minute those differences disappear to my

eye.

[roger_michel]

i don't think anyone would seriously contend that ANY p&s zoom can equal the finest primes made in terms of correction, contrast, or any objective criterion you want to name. however, the last degree of optical quality is often irrelvant in the context of street photography where shooter and subject are moving, exposure must be approximated, and there is little or no opportunity to do more than trap focus. i already stated that for many types of photography, including static shots, digital is still in second place. my only contention is that for what the leica M arguably does best, impromptu street photography, digital may ALREADY be better.

 

is supreme sharpness really what set's HCB's/winogrand's/eisenstadt's work apart??

[bjarke_vejby]

Roger, i think you misquote me. I was talking about the quality of a wetprint

compared to a inkjetprint. My eyes tells me that this type of output is much better,

than any output coming from a digital camera, this includes streetphotos, but again

thats my opinion. I'm not talking about internetpicts; nobody can se the differents

between a digital camera and a largeformat camera.

[pcg]

I second Roger's last few posts. So many of the anti-digital arguments thrown out

here are written in ignorance. Too bad. The G5 is simply a precurser of what's rolling

down on us all. Shutter lag is gone; film quality is there in the digital chip; the G5

camera --- & there will be many like it in the next couple years -- is wonderful.

[gwilburn]

My favourite kit (today) is a small bag packed with a Leica CL and a couple extra lenses for B&W, and a Canon G2 for colour. Light enough I don't mind carrying it around. Good enough for most purposes. The G2 lens is pretty decent, but not as good as the primes for my Olympus OM-1 if I can judge accurately from scanned OM-1 slides. I don't think the G2 lens is Leica quality, but the camera covers a lot ground and I like it. I'd like a DSLR even more, but am unable to cost justify one at this time. For now I'll stick to this lightweight kit.

[gwilburn]

My favourite kit (today) is a small bag packed with a Leica CL and a couple extra lenses for B&W, and a Canon G2 for colour. Light enough I don't mind carrying it around. Good enough for most purposes. The G2 lens is pretty decent, but not as good as the primes for my Olympus OM-1 if I can judge accurately from scanned OM-1 slides. I don't think the G2 lens is Leica quality, but the camera covers a lot ground and I like it. I'd like a DSLR even more, but am unable to cost justify one at this time. For now I'll stick to this lightweight kit.

[kevin m.]

Cool, Roger, now Dante's on your side, too! (Insert emoticon for 'sarcasm' here.) Here's a tip for you in future arguments: Don't resort to smug condescension when trying to make your point. Just because someone is making a vigorous counter-argument doesn't mean they're "raving." If we all agreed about everything, then what's the point of having a forum?

 

The digital point and shoots (which are the closest to the M in size) aren't there in function yet. (Digital Black and White looks weird, too, BTW.) And the digital cameras that are - the Big Canons and Nikons - are, well, BIG. Really BIG. Every time I see one of those things in public I have to stifle a laugh. Big as half a loaf of bread, 77mm front lens element thrusting boldly into space. Jeez. You SCARE people with those things. Not so's most pros would notice, though. They're too busy-navel gazing into their LCD screens to check their results.

[kevin m.]

Cool, Roger, now Dante's on your side, too! (Insert emoticon for 'sarcasm' here.) Here's a tip for you in future arguments: Don't resort to smug condescension when trying to make your point. Just because someone is making a vigorous counter-argument doesn't mean they're "raving." If we all agreed about everything, then what's the point of having a forum?

 

The digital point and shoots (which are the closest to the M in size) aren't there in function yet. (Digital Black and White looks weird, too, BTW.) And the digital cameras that are - the Big Canons and Nikons - are, well, BIG. Really BIG. Every time I see one of those things in public I have to stifle a laugh. Big as half a loaf of bread, 77mm front lens element thrusting boldly into space. Jeez. You SCARE people with those things. Not so's most pros would notice, though. They're too busy-navel gazing into their LCD screens to check their results.

 

You'll have to excuse me now, but I have to go squeegee some prints and put them on the drying rack.

[fotografz]

So, the argument is...that because some street photography

need not be sharp, that it is okay to use a camera that shoots

that way all of the time whether you want it or not? And whether

you want a 35mm to 105 perspective or not? (the W/A and Tele

adapters for these P&SD cameras are beyond bad...they are

awful).

 

I'm using this digital P&S stuff all the time, IMHO it's a pipe

dream to think that it is superior to shooting with a stepless

focusing lens with markings on it to set exactly the hyper-focal

distance you want to work with, where you can control DOF and a

many other creative functions with little effort and a lot of

precision.

 

I do believe new techniques can be mastered to produce some

pretty nice digital P&S street work, but it requires work

arounds...stuff that limits your options.

 

Hey, following the logic of this argument by narrowing the criteria

down a little further, and a strong case can be made for a Holga

verses a Leica.

 

However, in the end, if a person can't see the difference, no

argument will prevail on them. So, more power to those who

seriously believe all this. Photography that satisifies them just

got a lot cheaper, and to them, better.

[roger_michel]

marc -- with all due respect, if you are shooting using hyperfocal

distance preset, you are certainly not going to notice small

differences (or even medium sized differences) in lens quality.

couple that with a moving target and a moving handheld target

and sharpness is not going to depend on measured bench

resolution.

 

and i DO believe that technical attributes, like perfect exposure or

sharpness, has much to do with candid street photography. it is

NOT fine art photography. HCB never even printed his own stuff.

it is far more about the image.

 

of course you don't want to use a digital p&s for posed

portraiture. i've said repeatedly in this thread that the g5 -- or any

digital capture device -- is better than film for allor even most

applications. i'm merely suggesting that we are really at the

point now where, for what the LEICA does best, a digital camera

may do it better. that does leave leica in an awkward spot, no

doubt.

[roger_michel]

kevin -- i apologize if i misjudged the thickness of your hide. i will

only say that YOU SIR clearly resorted to sarcasm first.

 

i also understand and accept that sarcasm is available in no

short supply here at the LPF, and do not give it a second thought

when i get a whiff (or am enveloped by the occasional choking

cloud).

[Spearhead]

<i>You SCARE people with those things</i><p>

 

<b>Photographers</b> scare people, not cameras.<p>

 

It amazes me to read this kind of bullshit, since I shoot all the time. I get absolutely no difference in reaction from people on the street when I shoot with a Hexar or a Mamiya. <p>

 

I was out shooting last week in New York City with Grant Lamos. He had an enormous digital Nikon SLR. I shot with a Hexar. Nobody paid any more attention to him than me.<p>

 

It's <i>still</i> about the <b>photogapher</b>, no matter what some people (and where are all the street photos that show the incredible success of Kevin's small camera?) claim.

[Brad_]

> I get absolutely no difference in reaction from people on the

street when I shoot with a Hexar or a Mamiya.

 

 

Yes Jeff, but you've got that black tape covering the Hexar and

Mamiya logos...

[Spearhead]

Brad, I've pasted red dots on my cameras since you last saw me.

[Spearhead]

And here's a digital, me and Grant shooting the same victim, I mean subject, in New York last week...<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/girlandgrant.jpg"><br>

<i>Girl on the Street in New York City with Grant Behind Her,<br>

Copyright 2003 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

[Spearhead]

In response to an inquiry (or an attack, depends on how you want to view 9t), that was a shot of Grant taking a photo. I do shoot people dead-on...<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/unleashed.jpg"><br>

<i>Unleashed, Copyright 200003, Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

[Brad_]

So Jeff, what should I do? Every once in a while someone will

shoot me a smirk - like they're mocking my digicam, man.<P>

 

I know I shouldn't take it seriously, but hey... Red dot or black

tape - which would be better over the sony logo?<BR>

 

<P>

 

<center>

<IMG SRC=

"http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Web/image/bladgirls.jpg">

</center>

[Spearhead]

Brad, I've got an AP (Associated Press) tag on my bag. I can lend it to you for a few hundred dollars, everyone will go nuts when they see it, I promise you.

[travis1]

I think....argrggggg nevermind.

[cd thacker]

From a thread about the FM2n in the Nikon forum:<P>

 

<I>The camera interface is clean and simple, no menus, it�s always in the same mode, if film is loaded just put your thumb behind the advance lever and go. It�s just lovely.</I> -- David H. Hartman<P>

 

As usual David Hartman is the voice of reason. And as usual many of you it seems to me are getting all heated about digital to no account. Digital? So what? Doesn't your M and your film take the same images they always took? (Or, rather, don't you?) Does digital diminish the quality of Leica glass? Is the act of shooting with a film camera somehow corrupted by the advent of digital?<P>

 

No doubt digital is improving by quantum leaps. Even so I've yet to see an image produced by a digital camera - any digital camera - that didn't look digital. Which is not to say that high end digital doesn't look good . . . only that it doesn't look the same as film.<P>

 

Anyway, as of tomorrow you won't have reason to gripe that Leica doesn't offer a digital solution. And you won't have to spend $4000-$8000 on a digital suppliment to your M: if you own an R9, going Leica pro-digital will cost you about $2000. And if you don't own one you can arrive there by steps: R9 now, digital capability a bit later. I think it's a strong move for Leica. (By the way, as someone mentioned earlier a convincing explanation was given in the recent LFI for why the M can't be made digital in the near future.)

[fuck]

Brad,<p>

 

If the AP press tag for a few hundred is too steep, try this. And if you want that chick with the fancy camera to stop mocking you, you can get <a href="http://chiquitastore.lfsmail.com/chiquita/ACCESSORIES.asp?did=23&pid=45">

the Chiquita lapel pin</a> for $7.99. Grind off the sharp part, get yourself some super glue, and you'll have the high-falutin-ist digicam in the known universe.<div></div>

[fuck]

Hey, and you know what else? It's late, sort of, and that girl may be mocking you, but next time you see her, let her know that she missed every damn one of those loops that her belt is supposed to go through. And after that, see if you can get her number for me. I don't get out much.

[ray .]

"there are LOTS of things where digital is still catching up. but as a street shooter's camera, it's WAY ahead of the game."

 

"maybe we should admit that this is a nostalgia forum and just live with that . . . ."

 

Roger, you make some good points, but at times here you've gone a bit overboard, don't ya think?

 

People have their preferences, and use what's comfortable for them. I doubt that chasing the latest technological development has so much to do with creative output, any more than obsession with bokeh and lens tests. If you find the ability to preview images in the field an advantage, use it. There's no need to assume that every street shooter should work the same way you do.

 

If you admit to loss in image quality and find that of significance, then I assume your preference doesn't quite work out for someone who alternately shoots moving images while moving, moving images while stopping, and then stops and shoots a still life.

 

If somebody has trouble with the commands on a digicam and finds that a hinderance to their shooting, why shouldn't that be a legitimate argument for them to use a camera they find easier to operate?

 

People still use elemental tools the world over that have stood the test of time, even as advanced technology has found a place alongside.

You're like a kid that's found a new toy. That's fine. Calm down. People here know what digital can do. Even Alfie made the point a long time ago that you can shoot street shots with it. It's old news.

[fotografz]

Perfectly stated Ray.