o._i.

David, some things are definately better with analog. With the classic Leica M2 or M3, for example, you don't have to worry about bateries dying at a critical moment. But you have to know exposure and filmloading is more complex than say a Leica R. Yet once you mnaster the process of loading an M series Leica it can be soothing, like a Japanese tea ceremony. We need certain rituals I think, be they done mechanically or on a computer. Back in the 1980's car manufacturers went to all digital readouts on their dashes. After a few years they went back to analog because the human mind interprets analog information better since we are analog creatures.

Not enough incentive to pay for the dubious privelege of posting one's photos to this site, especially if said photos might be deemed "offensive" to someone and deleted. God forbid anyone should ever be "offended".

Brad, like I said, I have a life, and I've been living it. Simply lost the thread. I had some pics up but took them down. You even commented on some of them, remember? Sarcastic, and juvenile, as is to be expected from a wannabe like you, but you did see them. I didn't renew my membership, so no pics. Unlike you I did post pics here. You never have. You only come here to rant and rage against Leica. Typical wannabe.

Sorry for the lateness of the post, been off living life, shooting and selling and lost this thread. Brad is just another Leica wannabe with an axe to grind. It's not so much about deflating Leica's reputation as building his own ego. Looking back on his postings, he has not contributed anything really useful, just hatred of anything Leica.

I think it depends on what your definition of "is" is, as somebody said. Does "Leica" to you mean the early ones like the IIIf, the M2/3, the Leicaflex, the R series, or the digital? Leica has always had superior optics. That's the main reason. The optics are what matters, the rest is just a means of transporting film. The functionality of the equipment is another reason. Leica's reliability is as legendary as their optics.

" But then that's what you're about when you can't acknowledge the obvious."

What, that you are delibedrately trying to cloud the issue by fixating on the battery issue you keep bring up? The point is that manular SLRs don't need an artificial power source. It has nothing to do with an image capture medium, be that film or a card.

"Once more: A dSLR without a battery is useless. And a film camera without film is similarly useless."

I'm glad you finally realize that and admit that you can't play with your toy without a battery. When your toy gets bumped or dies from heat, cracked PC board, or just plain becomes obsolete, our M3's will still be working. I'm glad you have the foresight to carry a spare battery, though it will do no good if your camera ever breaks. That is why you carry a back up, to insure that you get the picture. I have a few DSLRs that people gave me to play with after they broke, said if I could fix 'em I could have 'em and use 'em. Haven't had the time to get into them yet. They're already dinosaurs in electronic terms anyway. One thing I don't think you've realized is that the new DSLRs aren't designed to be fixed if they're broken. The camera companies don't want to have to fix old cameras. they want to sell you new ones. It used to be called planned obsolescence, now it's forced obsolescence.

I'm not being nasty, just treating you the way any petualnt child should be treated. After all, it was you who decided to come on the Leica forum and critisize us for not seeing the light and jumping on board the newest digital fad. It is you who seems to have an axe to grind with Leica users.

 

"Why do you get so angry, or even care, about the way I like to shoot? No need to get nasty."

I don't care, until some self styled know-it-all starts preaching about something he obviously knows next to nothing about. Again I challenge you: Have you ever had or used a Leia, either M or SLR? If not, what are you doing here knocking Leicas???

 

"You clearly have an axe to grind with exaggerations and lies,"

Typical Marxist/Leftist defeated rhetoric. Now you're calling me a liar. Please be good enough to point out specific instances where I lied. You can't because you know I'm not lying.

"I won't bother to address the tangents you seem to enjoy going on when you get angry." Yes, when you can't mount a logical defense, retreat.

I'm not angry, though I could rightly be. In some parts of the world if you insult a man's family and call him a liar you'll get your face punched in or shot. I am mature enough to recognize the ingorance and arrogance of youth that has been educated beyond its' capacity and forgive you.

 

"I'm very sorry I caused you to get so emotional and act the way you do. In any event, peace, and have fun with your photography."

 

LOL! Kid, you haven't seen me emotional. You are just an amusing distraction between work and play, nothing more. I have acted in a rational, civilized manner. I did not go into a digital forum and start pontificating and running everybody else down as you have here.

Brad, your personal attacks are childish, rude and uncalled for, like when a toddler throws a tantrum when he has loses an argument. I was making a joke about the wife and kids which I can see you weren't smart enough to get. Sorry. I'll speak slowly and use small words. Your digitoy will not work without a memory card/chip AND a battery. My M3 WILL work without a battery. Remember that when you go on vacation and forget your charger, or it breaks and you don't have a backup. Even pros who use the Hasselblad H1 have backups. Any cop who has been on the force awhile will carry a backup gun. Or is your DSLR so expensive you can't afford a backup? NO camera is any good without a medium for recording the photos, be it film or a memory card, so yes, you were comparing apples to oranges to obscure the facts. Dishonesty is not a very becoming trait. The less complex any machine is, the more reliable it is. Adding printed circuits, computers, memory chips, auto focus motors and bells and whistles amy give it a "gee whiz!" factor, but doesn't make it more robust or reliable. It's just more stuff to break further down the road. You come here with some kind of chip on you shoulder about film cameras, proclaiming that new technology is superior to old technology. It is not. It's just different, that's all. Different does not always mean better. In the 1970's auto makers started going to all digital dash readouts. They forgot humans are not digital, silicon-based life forms but carbon-based analog ones. the digital dashes failed and they went back to analog readouts. The point is that new isn't always better. You have provided no proof that you have a Leica or ever had one. You cop an attitude that Leica owners are elitist, then prove yourself to be super elitist by bragging that your new toy can do things our beat up old toys can't. Who cares? Nobody here is trying to sell you a M class rengefinder, and you sure haven't convinced me to buy a DSLR. (though if I did it would be a Leica because of the lens, not the techno wizardry.) I contribute for a local magazine where the editor prefers digital. I still shoot film but I have the photos developed and put on CD which I give to her.

You gave it to me when I visited you in April, remember? (I should have had you autograph it.)

If we think Leicas are too high priced now, wait until they fold, God forbid. The prices will at least triple. I wish they would come out with low and medium priced cameras and lenses to compliment their high priced ones.

Al and Francois, you have both made some good observations. Thank you. Al, do you think the R lenses had the same look as the M type? Do you agree with Francois that the older lenses are generally better or do the new Leica lenses exhibit the same qualities? (Enjoying my coffee in my genuine Al Kaplan coffee cup ;-)

Boris, no I just chose to ignore the irony and exploit your original comment. Backatcha. ;-)

Peter A, some nice points. I mentioned before that the "Leica look" seems to be primarily applied to Leica rangefinders and not so much the SLRs, even though such notables as Ernst Haas have used Leica SLRs. Anybody care to speculate on the differences and/or similaraties between photos taken with Leica M and R cameras? Do you think that using a rangefinder significantly alters of affects the way we see pictures? (Al, I know you got rid of your R bodies and stayed with the Ms. Care to comment what made you take that path?)

Boris, I'm glad you see the point I wanted to make. Any camera that doesn't work is useless, even the latest hi tech one, even if it's a Leica or Nikon. Any tool that is battery dependent is bound to fail eventually, probably from electrical related problems. In that case even an old FED or Zorki is better than nothing, or something that won't work. It is good to know different cameras and how to use them, just as it is good to know more than one language. Or how to field strip and use an AK74 as well as an M16.

Dennis, the only problems I have with digital photography are the astronomical prices of the equipment I lust after. Try as I might, I can't convince the better half I really need them more than the kids need college funds. And yes, most of them are Leica ;-)

Brad, you are comparing apples to oranges. My point is that without a power source a DSLR is useless. You can't even see your subject without the right batteries, which are proprietary with some of the new cameras, making them and their dedicated chargers more expensive. A completely manual camera like the M3 or even a FED 3 (or Zorki or Kiev) does not need a power source.

"How much film do you usually carry around with you?"

Way too much. If you don't believe me, ask my wife. I frequently use her and the kids as pack mules. Changing ISO on your digital? Big whoop. I carry a second body with a different type of film and lens within easy reach. Same thing, plus it gives me a backup. For the price of a new DSLR, I can carry several used bodies and lenses, and I usually do. When I visited Al in April I had about 6 bodies and over a dozen lenses with me. And lots of film. I shot about 30 rolls of 36 exposure on vacation and about half a dozen 120.

"Then, in an attempt to bolster your argument, you brought up value (which is very subjective)"

Wrong again, obtuse one. I said nothing about cost or value. All my Leicas were bought used. I'm a cheap old so-and-so. The point I intended to make is about product longevity, which you either missed completely or ignored because you know your plastic digitoy won't be around in 50 or 25 years. The point is that purely mechanical cameras work under all conditions and will probably be working long after we're dead and gone. Example: Last month we had a power failure. All our cordless phones died because there was no power source for them. What did work? The antique rotary dial cord-in-the-wall phone. We were the only house on the block with a working phone. Get it? I'm not putting down digital, as you seem to be putting down Leica and film in general. Digital has its' place, and there are some advantages to it, but it hasn't yet and probably never will replace film completely. Film become obsolete? I seriously doubt it. Take 8X10 and 4X5 view cameras for instance. They are still being produced, you can still get film for them, and digital doesn't come anywhere near the results you get with one of those babies.

Sorry, that should have been 1958 M3. It's my IIIf that's the '52.

"my dSLR battery lasts more than 1K exposures" That all depends on the temperature , climate and type of environment you use it in, doesn't it? I had a manual wind Rolex that worked when LCD watches stopped displaying because of the cold, around -30F. Some of us would rather have something purely mechanical, as when you're in a part of the world where there are no spare batteries available or when there is no wall to plug your charger into. My 1952 M3DS is still working and still smooth as new after more than half a century of use. I hope to pass it on to my childrena dngrandchildren. How long will a DSLR "live"? Even if you keep one for 25 years, will you be able to get parts and service for it? A comment re: film would have been better compared to the cost of a memory card. In 25 years will the current crop of memory cards be replaced by something better?

DLSR's are great until their batteries fail, and I suppose the same point could be made for the new M7. I think we all realize that the body is just a medium for holding the lens and transporting film, and the lens, along with the user's talent (or lack of) is primarily what gives a photo it's uniqueness. It's interesting that the majority of Leica owners here seem to be rangefinder users, even though Leica is, to my knowledge, the only company that has designed their new SLR bodies to accept a digital back, thereby allowing the best of both worlds. Al, glad you're protecting your M bodies with a Bessa cap, and I see nothing wrong with collecting women's underwear as long as you have a woman to put 'em on. I've shot several nudes with my Leicaflex, though whether or not it was the fact that they were being photographed by a Leica that convinced them to disrobe is debatable .

Claudia %, if I may toss in my tuppence, there are some people who, as my dear late father once said, are like lightening bugs; they can't set the world on fire, but they dearly love to show their behinds. These people like to drop by the Leica forum and pontificate about how Leicas are overpriced, the mystique attached to them is so much balderdash, how they can take "Leica like" pictures without a Leica (or even without a camera), etc. I find they usually fall into the same class of people who think that if they turn their "outie" into an "innie" they will stop being boys and magically become girls. I suggest you do as I do and ignore them. (Remember when visiting the Magic Forest dear, "Don't feed The Trolls".) BTW, if your offer is still good, my M3 needs a new WA lens and a CLA ;-) I suppose we shouldn't be too harsh on them, as we let Al post here and he uses a Bessa (ugh!).

This photo, as many of the others posted by Mr. laurel, have an almost 3D effect, which IMO is what is frequently referred to as the "Leica look". The Noctilux? Probably, though other Leica lenses often exhibit the same effect when their sweet spot is found. If Sony is getting anything close to this, it is because of the Zeiss designed lenses.

Al, I agree. It's too easy nowadays for a photographer to look at an image the size of a postage stamp and decide that he/she doesn't like it and erase it. You don't learn from your mistakes that way, and often you can see things in an enlargement that you can't see in a 35mm size frame. Lots of people seem to think that digital can replace or equal Leica or Hasselblad. They're wrong. The "perfect" wedding camera? I don't think there will ever be such a thing, just as there will never be a "perfect" camera for all situations. View cameras, rangefinders, SLRs, TLRs, pinhole, all have their place and their applications. Digital will never be able to replace all of them. Look at how many people still like rangefinders. Now they're even making digital rangefinders. To me it's kind of like fishing; is there one "perfect" lure that will catch all kinds of fish under all conditions? No. The equipment must be adapted to the specific type of fish you want to catch. So it is with cameras. You wouldn't use the same kind of lure, line, pole, etc for bass that you would use for marlin or tuna, right? BTW, happy Father's Day guys.

Marc I wasn't trying to be cynical, just realistic. Statistically over half of all new marriages in the US end in divorce, usually in less than 10 years. I don't like that any more than you do, but facts are facts. What I said was that when reltionships fail the parties involved often don't want to keep painful reminders. We've all seen photos of couples with one of the people in it cut or torn off, haven't we? Thrift stores and GoodWill are full of such castoffs. I believe this applies to marriages and relationships both with and without children. I think you have a valid point about people wanting a pictoral legacy of their ancestors, but if the parents choose to destroy that legacy either wilfully or through negligence, what then? The easier it is to dispose of our history, the less we will preserve our history and the less we will learn from it. A few CD's can hold as many photos as old trunks and shoeboxes once did, and are easier to dispose of or destroy accidentally. If the original CD is not backed up and stored somewhere, the data on it is lost forever, just as when an original negative is lost. How many digital photos never make it to CD? IMO it's too easy for people to look at a postage stamp size photo, decide they don't like it and erase it. When they do that how will they learn from their mistakes? How often have we taken a photo, not liked it, but later come back to find it had a hidden quality you didn't see at first? So what is our responsibility as photographers? Should we keep of all our photos, and if so, for how long? 60 years from now when the grandchildren of the people in the wedding photos want copies of grandma and grandpa, to whom should they go? Their relatives or the photographer? I have some old photos of my relatives that have photo shop names and addresses on their backs, but the stores, like the people in the photos are long gone. So the moral of this story? If anyone has photos that are important to them they should make copies, LOTS of copies, share them, and list names, dates, places, and include any info that is important.

Jena was originally the headquarters for Zeiss and Schott (currently B+W). After the WWII Jena was on the Communist side and most of the engineers for Zeiss got to the Western region as quickly as possible. East Germany continued to make optics under the Zeiss name until the fall of the wall. All lenses marked "Aus Jena", or "Carl Zeiss Jena", "Jena DDR", etc., were made in East Germany under Communist rule. Some of them are quite good, others are so-so. Quality control was always an issue with the Communists, and they didn't always put the same materials in their lenses as the West, using plastic or aluminum instead of stainless steel, for example, so while the lens design and glass may be excellent, (they often stole Western designs without paying copyright) each lens should be evaluated on an individual basis. Remember they were producing quotas, not quality. Generally a Jena lens will sell for far less than its' Western counterpart, even if the lens design is basically the same. The "gulag" labor was mostly in Russia, not East Germany. Stalin started this when he had the children of the officers and families he executed produce the FED cameras, named after "Iron Felix", Felix Edmundovitch Dzerzhinsky, head of the Cheka which later became the KGB. Never one to waste, Stalin decided the orphans should be taught a trade, like camera making. There will be a test tomorrow.

If people have the wedding CD, why should they go with your frame when they can buy one of their own? It would seem easier and cheaper just to go with a CD. That way you can include different formats. Also, since most marriages these days don't last more than 5-10 years max, (and those are the "good ones) is it any wonder the couples don't care how long the images last? I've seen cases where they care more about who gets the PS2 than the wedding photos. CD of a failed marriage? Throw it in a box with the Spice Girls and Vanilla Ice. Let's face it: we're a disposable society. At one point in our history stereo opticons were in every house, just like computers are today. By the 1940's the grandkids were throwing away trunks full of the "junk". Now they're sought after antiques. That said, I agree with Al: I have daugerreotypes of my great, great-grandparents on the mantle along with photos my Mom took from the 1940's and '50's and new prints that have been retouched with PS and printed out at my desk. The b&w shots my local "pro" lab has printed are done by a computer controlled machine on color paper, because that is "all they have". I can tell ya there is a world of difference in prints that have been made by light passing through silver crystals. I want to get my own darkroom and do my own b&w prints, as that seems to be becoming a lost art. "Real" b&w prints from a negative look a lot better than ones done on color paper, plus you don't need a $2,000 computer to view them. How long will prints made with an ink jet or laser printer last? Any ideas? I don't know if anyone is making true archival quality paper for them or not. As to how long images on CD's will last? CD's do have a redundant recording, but if the original CD is scratched or damaged and there is no backup, it's the same as losing the original negatives, isn't it? Kodachrome slides were supposed to be good for 99 years before there was any shift in color, but lose the slides and??? Times change and photography changes or "evolves" too, not always for the better. The only constants in life are death, taxes and old farts like us reminiscing about the "good old days"......

A for 99% of what I do, Digital if I put something on Ebay.