john_van_rosendaal

The size of the negative will impress you. The camera will disappoint you, because of its limited viewfinder and its non-interchangeable back. Trust me, I've been there. I quickly traded the 645E for an older 645Pro and liked that much better. With so many good Mamiya systems for sale on eBay right now, it shouldn't be hard to find a relatively good deal.

To me, it looks like a boxy digicam with a Leica-like lens on it and the Leica logo adorning it. They seem to want to make us believe that this is getting closer to the digital M we all want, but since there's no word about the lack of shutter lag (the main problem with digicams), I assume the looks and the lens are really just a marketing ploy used to dress up a Panasonic camera. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Bee,<P>

You keep on drawing conclusions about Bas and me that you have no clue of knowing, just as you did with your article itself. Just stick with taking pictures and stop drawing wide-ranging conclusions based on very little fact.

Bee: "Bas, all I can conclude from those few messages is that my detractors identify too closely with the described. As the saying goes: "you know who you are"."<P>

 

Your previous answers to the comments on your writing from both Bas and me were fine, I thought. I might not agree with your writing and you might not have made it clear enough that your article focused on a perceived narrow section of the Dutch.<P>

Now, though, you're getting personal. Just because Bas and I probably have a much better and deeper understanding of the Dutch, doesn't mean we identify with that section of the population you think you are describing.

I first looked at the pictures, without reading the text. My reaction to the pictures was that they were interesting in a sense that they showed things in a way that only a foreigner could see, namely the ordinary lifted up to some higher meaning just because it was isolated from its surroundings in a photograph.<P>

After seeing Bas's comment, I decided to read the text as well. I have to agree with Bas. While the pictures show an eye for making the ordinary special, the text shows that you really don't have a clue about the Dutch overall, not even the ones in the suburbs.<P>

Maybe the fact that the pictures hardly contains any people explains the lack of real insight into the Dutch culture as shown in the text. A tacky garden doesn't necessarily lead to a narrow mind, or vice versa.<P>

Mind you, I've left Holland for the USA a long time ago, have no plans to return and I have plenty of criticism against the country and the Dutch. Still, your insights - if that's what they can be called - do the Dutch culture injustice.

I've flown a few times since 9/11, both domestic and international, with camera bags crammed with equipment, including a Bessa L. Only once had a guard take a cursory look at the stuff. Have actually been surprised that I've not been asked yet to show these are real cameras and lenses.

Thanks for all your responses and insights. A couple of observations:

<P>

- I did travel with family, including our two little children (2 and 5), which was the reason the Yashica was used so much (both the Leica and the 10D tend to bump against my kids' heads quite a bit)<P>

- to those who say I should give the Leica more time: I know it takes time to get used to a camera, but even though I prefer the Leica over the 10D for its sheer pleasure to use, I fear the pattern of actually picking up the 10D instead of the Leica will just continue, which also seems to be the experience of many dedicated Leica users since they have bought a DSLR<P>

- I don't buy into the notion that DSLRs are obsolete soon, esp not the 6MP ones, which are capable of prints large enough for my purposes. Yes, the newer ones might have more features, but apart from full frame, there's not much that would make me shell out money for a new DSLR (and certainly not the kind of money that the 1Ds commands).

Again, thanks for your answers.

Just before leaving for a two-week trip to Holland, I bought a M7

with a 50mm Summicron. The purpose was to use both the M7 and my

Canon 10D DSLR and decide which one was going to be the keeper.<P>

Upon receiving the M7, I loved it. It felt right, it's a beautiful

piece of machinery, it was faster in use than the M6 I previously

owned for a brief period. I fully intended to use it quite a bit in

Holland.<P>

Looking back at these two weeks, I found first of all that I didn't

get as much time for serious photography as I had hoped, which

actually made my Yashica T4 P&S the most used camera.<P>

But in the cases that I could have used both the Leica or the 10D, I

often found myself leaning toward the 10D, often with just a 28/2.8

lens (which makes it the equivalent of a 45mm lens). It was just

faster to use, gave me more flexibility and - if I felt like it - I

could easily add my 70-200/4 to a small bag and get tele

capabilities. In all, I only shot one roll with the Leica and about

500 shots with the 10D.<P>

So, other than the wankler/fondler argument, I can't find any reason

to keep the Leica. I still hesitate, though, in part also because it

would mean that I gave up on film for my serious photography and I

fear I'll keep coming back to film, scouring eBay for interesting

film-based cameras (cheaper than the M7). Am I missing something?

Has anybody here gone through the same process?

I liked the back stage pictures.

Don't buy anything before you go to http://www.davebeckerman.com. And read it all the way. He first gushes about the Contax G (for all the right reasons), than switches to the Leica M and gushes about it (for all the right reasons) and then dumps the Leica for two Canon Elan 7s (and gushes about that too). All he does is street photography, so his observations apply to your questions.<P>

 

Having said that, I used to have both the Contax G2 and a Leica M6. I miss both. The Contax is great value and offers beautiful lenses at very affordable prices. The viewfinder sucks, though. The Leica is great when you like manual photography and has a great viewfinder, but unless you have a lot of money, you're going to have one Leica lens for a long time because you can't afford the others.<p>

 

Now, if you try the Leica first and don't like it, you can probably sell it for the same price. The Contax will probably lose value, since for some reason the Contax prices are under a lot of pressure.<p>

I've got a 4000 dpi Polariod Sprintscan that I bought for $500. It's good and fast. Note that this is not the Sprintscan Plus, which is the newer (and I guess improved) version.

I don't care where the shot was takes, as long as it's interesting. I'd like to see some good shots from suburbia, though. It seems to me that the strength of street photography is twofold: 1) creating 'beauty' out of the seemingly mundane 2) providing a glimpse of everyday history. Seeing most street shots, one would think that Americans spend 99% of their lives in a city. It thus runs counter to the creation of 'true' history, in that it ignores the real way most Americans live. Admittedly, shooting in the burbs is a lot harder than in the city. Still, it would be a good project to undertake with a bunch of street shooters over a week or so.

I think your pictures show that sharpness is not always that important. Great pictures!

Canon has already announced some special item that can be bought for its 1Ds DSLR that somehow identifies an image as a digital original and prevents image manipulation. I don't know the details, but it was announced specifically for law enforcement purposes.

I recently bought a used Profoto 1200WS kit, replacing two 160WS

monolights I had. I'm shooting with a Canon 1D, for which the lowest

ISO setting is 200. My 'studio' is our family room. Space is

limited.<P>

The lights work great, much better than the monolights. But, at 200

ISO, I find it hard to get a light setup that allows me to shoot with

an aperture of 2.8 or even 5.6, when I want little depth of field.<P>

I would appreciate any advice on how to lower the light hitting the

subject. Thanks.

So, Leica afficionados are complaining about the marketing tactics of the digital camera producers...? Sounds ironic to me, when the company many here are devoted to has made it into an art to dress up an old camera in some ostrich leather or stamp a little flag on it in order to boost sales. At least the digital camera makers improve the functionality of their products with each new one they roll out.

Yes, Peter. I'll definitely keep the 1D. That's an awesome camera for what's it meant to do. Use it once and you're hooked. Plus, I'll stick with SLRs and digital. They both have their advantages.<P>

I'm also not totally sure yet about the move away from the 10D to a Leica M. In the best of both worlds, I keep the 10D as well and buy the Leica anyway. The 10D is a great camera for the price and much more portable than the 1D. Plus having two bodies with my Canon lenses has its advantages.<P>

Thanks Marc. I understand the subjectivity of your observations. I'm one of those people who firmly believe Leica and Carl Zeiss make better lenses than Canon and Nikon, despite the fact that tests show barely any difference. That's a subtle feeling as well.<P>

And I used to have a M6 plus Summicron and a Contax G plus a whole bunch of lenses for a while. I traded it all in to go completely digital (Canon 1D and 10D) and find myself staring at some of the 'special' prints I made of Leica and Contax files and missing the manual nature of the Leica. Despite the fact that logically it doesn't make much sense, I'm considering getting rid of the 10D and going for either a M6 TTL or M7. Still debating that question. Your observation helps.

Marc, are you talking about wet prints versus inkjet prints or inkjet prints of Leica scans versus digicam files?

Michael,

I'm one of the people writing that I don't consider all of HCB's work as great as some seem to believe (I think the same about Ansel Adam's work, by the way). I love some of his classics, but looking through some of his books, I've seen pictures that don't stand the test of time in my eyes.<P>

That said, though, your generalization about those who don't stand in absolute awe of HCB's work is merely a generalization and therefore falls flat. May it be proof enough that I'm not a product of that American education system you seem to blame for our lack of vision. I'm Dutch and a true product of the Dutch education system.

Not to put the master down, but I do think that some of the shots I've seen published of HCB would no longer get much attention nowadays. Many have become classics by the sheer fact that everybody recognizes them, not necessarily because they are so much better than any other street photograph out there.<P>

Also, taste varies wildly. I've seen some great stuff here, that others pan. And I've seen stuff here that seems for me to not have any redeeming value, but that others seem to like merely because it was posted on a Leica forum.

People are selling cameras, I assume, because they need money, they want to buy another camera, they don't use their camera, whatever. The real question seems to be why are prices dropping. These are dropping for digital cameras because they're old technology the moment they're leaving the store and for film cameras because people are switching to digital.<P>

I use film and digital. I don't understand the appeal of digital for the occassional shooter, since the price of entry is ridiculously high and the quality low at those prices. At the same time, I don't get the bitching at digital from some of the people on this forum. It's just the way the image is captured, just a medium between reality and the final print.<P>

I too would like a good digital camera with the simple beauty and reliability of a Leica M, but that has more to do with camera controls and build quality than the medium within the camera.

Today, two forum users put their relatively new Leica M7 up for

sale. As somebody who sometimes ponders buying a M6TTL or a M7, I'm

wondering about the reasons behind those sales.<P>

Anybody who recently sold a M7 or is planning to sell a M7 willing

to share his or her reason(s) for doing so? Thanks.

I actually agree with Jay that this comparison is not fair. It should compare fast DSLRs with the Leica Ms. It would be fairer to compare a Leica Minilux with a G5, if it comes to just comparing film and digital. Other than Jay, though, I like the idea of the shootout and regret I don't have the time this weekend to participate.<P>

 

And Mark, I felt some of the same trepidations last week when I did some street shooting for the first time in a long time, esp. since my Canon 10D is not as small as a digicam or a Leica M. I was shooting in Chicago and found that people were either to much in a hurry to bother with me, didn't notice me in time to even care or liked the idea of having their picture taken. I ended up chatting with a few people after they noticed me. Digital is actually nice for that, because you can show them the picture you just took. There was one girl with a cool t-shirt that I saw walking by. I went up to her to ask if I could take her picture. She was fine with that and turned out to have a great smile. I once read that street photography is basically no problem as long as you're not sneaky and smile a lot. That has worked for me in Chicago, Illinois and earlier in Damascus, Syria.

While I'm curious to see the results of this shootout, I think a comparison between digital P&S and Leica Ms is not a fair one, at least not for street photography. The digitals are weakest where the Ms are strongest, namely shutter lag, a critical element in street photography. The comparison would be better made between a DSLR and an M.<P>

FWIW, I was thinking in the past couple of weeks about getting a M6 or M7 to replace the Canon 10D I got a few weeks ago. But after spending an hour or so earlier this week shooting on the streets of Chicago with the 10D, I'm not so sure about the Leica anymore. Now, the 10D hardly has any shutterlag, esp. not if you use the same setup as you would with the Leica. I used a 28/2.8 lens (which becomes a 42mm on the D10), used hyperfocal focussing and set the camera for aperture priority (mostly around f8). I could shoot quickly and I had the added benefits of never having the change film, not having to worry about the enormous amount of bad shots inherent in (my) street photography and the ability to quickly switch from 200 to 400 ASA when needed. At night, I went to blues bars and shot at 1600 or even 3200 ASA (lots of noise at 3200, but I kind of like that for those kind of shots). Also, the 10D isn't too big or bulky if used with a relatively small prime lens, like the 28/2.8.<P>

Of course, this is just my personal experience. And I must admit, as an instrument I still cover the Leica. Maybe I will find a way to justify buying one... Hope you'll have fun with the shootout. Looking forward to the results.