travis1 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Sure. I think a lot of people in this forum already know that. The photographer is the most important factor...blah...blah blah.. Paul was just happy with his new gear, what's wrong? nvm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 nothings wrong Travis. I'm not bashing Pual, glad he likes his new equipment. Just every time this subject comes up, the hardware fanatics come out of the wood work, extolling the virtues of some sort of hardware....and talk about blah, blah, blah...sheesh. Well, anyhow, I just have to voice my opinion that it is the photographer not the equipment. That (economically) poor person sitting down there with a used Pentax K-1000 because thats all he can afford is thinking, if only I had a Leica, because they are always hearing about this piece of gear doing this and that this is so much better than this. Well, they should be given the advice that is true..........it is your skill, not the equipment. If you want to spend money to improve.....skip the gear, and take some lessons.............or spend it on film and shoot, shoot, shoot. Its the only way to really get better. Equipment aint gonna do it for ya. I truely am happy for those that can afford the best gear. I love it myself when I get something that is an exceptional piece of gear. But, it is still ability that wins out in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Thomas, nothing personal and I agree with you mostly. The thing I see is everytime someone makes a post about his new found(Leica) gear and tell us how great it is and how happy he/she is because of that, people will start telling that person "the gear don't matter..blahblah..."..."you can shoot with anything blah blah..". Of course you can! But this is the Leica forum, no? SO what's wrong with some Leica gear talk and praises of such? Of course, at the end of the day, it's how one uses the equipment. Just that we don't need to be told everytime such threads surface. It's not something new (the photographer is the most important brain behind this...blah..). Im sure most of us here can shoot well with a Minolta 7000 or a holga too, but then we would be posting in the Minolta forum...or the upcoming Holga forum..? what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Good point, Travis. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_merrill Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 I have to agree with Travis, every thread that I see about somebody getting a new piece of equipment and actually liking it has numerous people jumping all over the thread about how its not the equipment, its the photographer. Well, no sh*t, of course the photographers vision is what drives the photograph, but liking a piece of equipment and thinking that there actually is a quality difference is not wrong. Why even move beyond shooting a holga? Why even change to different films? Just because someone dares to say how happy they are with a certain piece of equipment doesn't justify a flame war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 <p><i>"Sounds like you've joined the ranks of the fundamentalist Leica bashers. Shooting wide open, the difference between the Summicron and a Canon EF 50, say, is easily apparent with 400 speed film and a 4x6 print. Whether the difference is one your eyes can see, or your wallet can afford, is another matter."</i> <p>I'm going to send you a bill for cleaning a mouthful of coffee off my monitor, keyboard, and speakers. 400 speed film and a 4x6 print? What happened to that poor Canon EF 50, did it get run over by a truck? Gimme a break. I've pretty much used them all, in every conceivable situation (except war). The only difference I can see, with any consistency, is in the enlargements from any of my 35mm gear vs the ones from my Hassy 503CW. Projected, enlarged, you name it, 99.9% of the primes I've used, and currently use, are uniformly excellent, as excellent as 35mm can be... the 0.1% being that POS $1500 50/1.4-M Summilux that I gladly got rid of. Yes, rangefinders offer a different way of seeing. Yes, the Leica lenses are built to a higher standard than most others (too bad I can't say the same for the bodies). But "seeing a difference" on 400 speed film on a 4x6 print leads me to believe that there is something seriously wrong with your photographic process, and I don't think it's the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Of course it's the photographer and not the equipment. That's the first thing they teach you in Photo 101. The problem I have (and yes, I acknowledge that it's my problem) is with people who harp on about how great their equipment is, <u>and how much better it is than anything else</u>, as if anyone who can't afford or justify the ownership of such equipment is missing the biggest deal in the history of the world. <p>Well, as a person who can afford, has owned, and still owns some of the most expensive equipment available, I can say that Leicas are nice cameras, but I don't think you're missing anything AT ALL if you're resigned to a $200 Nikon FM2 and a $100 50/1.8 AF-D. If anything, the latter combo is far tougher and more reliable than any Leica ever made, can easily be serviced by just about any repair shop should the need ever arise, and can be replaced for the cost of a single Leica CLA. I use my FM2s way more often than the Leica Ms, especially when I know I have to bring the pictures home. Those Nikons are TOUGH. Beer, champage, Pepsi, dog slobber, direct hits from a picket sign and a couple of rocks during a demonstration gone haywire, you name it. Never needed a single service, and the lenses are just as good as my Leicas to boot (and in the case of the 50/1.4 AF-D, way better). <p>I really don't see what the big deal is with Leica, and I've been shooting them alongside other makes for a very long time. It's a cult thing, I imagine. I shoot Leicas because the M offers a different experience, I can afford it, and the quiet "snick" of the shutter is nice. But I'm not obsessed enough to convince myself that I "see" any superiority in the lenses. I used to think that another advantage was that the Leica M caused less intimidation to subjects vs SLRs, but after seeing James Nachtwey in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000C825I" target="_blank">War Photographer</a>, I have to toss that hypothesis in the trash bin, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 It is not a 'cult thing', but an aesthetic experience. Either one understands or one does not. I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Wow, Paul, you landed in the middle of the Leica bashing post of the week! </p> Regardless of what other people think, I it what YOU (and your wife) believe, see and experience. I too believe that a Leica M and a 50/2 produces images that are noticelby sharper, more contrasty, more pleasing and flattering than any of the other gear I've used so far (mainly Canon and Nikon SLRs). On top of that, it will last you a life time and if very portable. Ignore the nay-sayers, enjoy your new found photographic happiness and take LOTS of photos of your beautiful boy! </p> On top of that, people around here will almost always bash family/children photos because it isn't up to their definition of art/photography/street photography etc. Just filter it out! </p> <center><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1922709&size=md"></center> </p> <center><i>Leica M3, Trix and 50'lux<i/></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 On the last photo, I'm not saying that it is technically superior to anything that could have been taken with e.g. a brand-name SLR, but I highly doubt I could have hand-held it and shot of several frames w/o distratcting the ER doctor, my worried wife or the sick baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 I don't own a Leica, but I have touched a few, and I can definitely appreciate their mechanical and optical qualities. I would definitely love to own an M with a 50/2. I just can't justify the price. Oh, and the classic saying that "equipment doesn't matter" is only true to some extent. I get better pictures with a good shoe-mounted bounced flash than I do with a built-in pop-up flash, and better pictures with a 400mm prime than with a 75-300 zoom. I didn't get any better when I got that gear, my pictures were instantly better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_munch Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Paul, As someone mentions above, Minolta glass is sub-par at best, especially compared to Nikon and Leica. Now that we've established this *fact*, I'd be happy to take that 200mm APO AF off your hands when you come to your senses and decide to ditch it. --tom (a quite content Minolta AF user) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Italics off! </i> <p> If you like the Leica, that's dandy. But I agree with Al Feng and Jeff Spirer on the lens issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 <i>off</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 like that worked! help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Hmmm. italics?<br> </i></i></i></i> gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_anonymous Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 <p> <i><b>Warren Jackson , feb 22, 2004; 02:23 p.m. wrote:</b><br> Ditch the Nikon and especially the Minolta. If you can afford the M6, you can afford to shoot w/ it all the time. </i></p> <p> Given his various stated needs, an M6 is not going to be enough, no matter how good the lens is.</p> <p><i> Besides, eventually you'll get tired of toting those " tanks" once you get use to your rangefinder. </i></p> <p>SLRs are definitely bigger and often times heavier than a rangefinder. I carry my RF every day and only bring out the SLRs when needed. But when I need them, I much, much prefer to use them over the RF. The RF is a great slice-of-life camera but for accurate framing, fast focus, fast action, depth of field preview, ND GRAD and polarizer filter use, and focal length range, the AF SLR is the first choice. There are good reasons why RF cameras were superceded by the SLRs.</p> <p><i>OR, ... you can try the poor boy route...... I'm a camera salesman @ athe last Mom & Pop shop in Atlanta, GA. I can't afford Leica's myself, ( tho' I've shot w/ many), - so I bought a Voigtlander Bessa R, $250. I've also got a Leitz Summmaron 35 f/3.5 w/ </i><br> [snip]<br> <i>The Bessa is not as quiet as your M6, nor does it have the build quality - but it's the equal or better of your Nikon, and better than any Minolta. </i></p> <p> I also went the Bessa R route. Much less expensive yet it let me try the RF experience and gave me access to a huge range of lenses. As for the Nikon being better than the Minolta, I take exception to that. I've got two Nikon Fs, an F2, and had a 401 and 801s. Comparising cameras in similar price ranges, I find the Minoltas to be FAR better value for the money and they hold up just as well as their Nikon equivalents. Feature-wise and performance-wise, they're better than the equivalent Nikons. And there is nothing about the Bessa that makes me think it is any more durable or even AS durable as either my Minolta 7 or 7xi. The latter has been dropped on pavement twice and continues work function perfectly after over a decade of use.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Maybe they'll do what whey please whether you tell them or not, Stephen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_jones4 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Hey, I'm sure there are other nice places to play on the swings and feed the birds (and slag-off things that other people value). Anyway, it was only a "crazy idea". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 <b> I'm sure there are other nice places to play on the swings and feed the birds (and slag-off things that other people value) </b><p> as opposed to thios forum, where you feel you can personally attack people for expressing a negative opinion about a photograph, huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_jones4 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Why don't you leave us sad, deluded people to pretend that we're happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew_pulzer Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 The problem with people who don't use a Leica is: 1. They don't use a Leica 2. Regard themselves as Leica experts 3. They don't use a Leica 4. They have tiny brains 5. They don't use a Leica 6. They aren't potty trained 7. They don't use a Leica 8. Their eyes are too close together 9. They don't use a Leica 10. They don't know a great cult when they see it 11. They don't use a Leica 12. They have absolutely no sense of humour 13. They don't use a Leica 14. They think we give sh*t about their half-baked theories on why their wobbly, autofocus, plastic lenses are every bit as good as a piece of pecision engineering 15. They don't use a Leica MY CAMERA'S BETTER THAN YOURS - and you know it... ...so flame me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Al, if you can't see the difference between a Summicron 50 at f2.0 and a Canon EF 50 1.8 shooting at the same aperture then I don't know what to tell you. T400CN, wide-open, 4x6 prints I can spot the difference immediately. My Canon EF 100 f2.0 isn't as good as my Summicron 90 wide-open, either. I wish it were. The auto-focus is sweet on the Canon and the Summicron handles like a truck. I shoot wide-open alot so w/o performance is important to me. It's like everything else in life, though, you pay alot to get that last bit of performance, and only you can say if it's worth the money to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 <b> us sad, deluded people </b><p> See, we don't disagree on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 <b> They have absolutely no sense of humour ... They think we give sh*t about their half-baked theories ... </b><p> Yep, that post shows you don't care a whit, doesn't it. 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