Leica's view on film

[Austerby]

This is from the introduction to the M7 on the Leica website:

"Silver halide photography with a Leica M has a special appeal: the understandable process of exposing the film and the chemical processing of the same piece of material create an emotional relationship with the subject and the camera. The concentration when taking the photograph, the keen anticipation of the literally tangible images and the excellent results are all arguments in favour of analog Leica M cameras. "

Sounds pretty spot-on to me.

[Roger Hicks]

Well, their web-master has a weakness for 8x10 inch cameras...

Cheers,

R.

[Teuthida]

Typical hyperbolic Leicaspeak. Anything to convince the huddled masses to spend ridiculous money to claim elitist status.

If I want to shoot film, my k1000 works just fine.

[Roger Hicks]

Typical hyperbolic Leicaspeak. Anything to convince the huddled masses to spend ridiculous money to claim elitist status.

If I want to shoot film, my k1000 works just fine.

Typical reverse snobbery. A cheap SLR is not a better camera than a Leica, just cheaper, and still more importantly, it isn't a rangefinder. Ridiculous money? A lot depends on your priorities. And on which cameras you like using. Are you saying that these remarks apply less to the MP than to your Pentax?

Cheers,

R.

[Teuthida]

Typical reverse snobbery. A cheap SLR is not a better camera than a Leica, just cheaper, and still more importantly, it isn't a rangefinder. Ridiculous money? A lot depends on your priorities. And on which cameras you like using. Are you saying that these remarks apply less to the MP than to your Pentax?

Cheers,

R.

LOL. I 've owned inunmerable Leicas since 1977. I own 3 now. I also have owned and used inunerable "lesser" cameras. The results between the two are minimal at best. Feel free to define this as "reverse snobbery." I call it being realistic. You are welcome to define your Art by the eqyuipment you use. I'll define mine by the images I produce, thank you.

[Austerby]

Let's edit then to try and focus on the important bit of the message rather than be distracted:

"Silver halide photography has a special appeal: the understandable process of exposing the film and the chemical processing of the same piece of material create an emotional relationship with the subject and the camera. The concentration when taking the photograph, the keen anticipation of the literally tangible images and the excellent results are all arguments in favour of analog cameras. "

[__hh]

Marketing fluff to me.

I still use film and have my own reasons for doing so. I don't need Leica's marketing department to tell me why I still need to buy M bodies to shoot film :)

[Austerby]

Marketing fluff to me.

I still use film and have my own reasons for doing so. I don't need Leica's marketing department to tell me why I still need to buy M bodies to shoot film :)

OK, may as well delete this entire thread if its going to be used to bash Leica rather than get an interesting discussion going :bang:

[Corto]

While I have no intention to spend the money on a new Leica, I do appreciate that they still make high end Film cameras.

While overpriced (IMHO) their presence is still "Good for the sport".

Would I use a M7 if i had one? Of course, It's a camera.

Would it make me a better photographer, Or change the way I do things?
Absolutely not.

[Neare]

So Leica film bodies aren't compatible with colour film. Typical.

[Wouter]

Better would it be if Leica invested in the development of something like digital film - that we are made to believe is technically impossible - so that we could continue to use all that equipment, not only the lenses.

[Roger Hicks]

Let's edit then to try and focus on the important bit of the message rather than be distracted:

"Silver halide photography has a special appeal: the understandable process of exposing the film and the chemical processing of the same piece of material create an emotional relationship with the subject and the camera. The concentration when taking the photograph, the keen anticipation of the literally tangible images and the excellent results are all arguments in favour of analog cameras. "

Quite. It's a nice description, equally applicable to all film cameras of course, but hey, Leica aren't going to say, "Go buy a second-hand Olympus." They're trying to promote their film cameras (surely not!) but there are those who can never resist a swipe at Leica.

The fact that it's applicable to all film cameras seemed to me to be related to their web-master's weakness for 8x10 inch cameras and printing-out paper: the fact that you're dealing with tangible things, instead of patterns of electrical fields, does make halide photography different.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

LOL. I 've owned inunmerable Leicas since 1977. I own 3 now. I also have owned and used inunerable "lesser" cameras. The results between the two are minimal at best. Feel free to define this as "reverse snobbery." I call it being realistic. You are welcome to define your Art by the equipment you use. I'll define mine by the images I produce, thank you.

Hang on. You're trying to hunt with the dogs and run with the hare here. Leica advertising is designed to persuade stupid people to buy overpriced cameras -- and you have three of those overpriced cameras. Also, if your Pentax is just as good, why do you own the Leicas? What was your comment if not a gratuitous swipe?

As for "You are welcome to define your Art by the equipment you use. I'll define mine by the images I produce, thank you," that's a gratuitous insult. I don't "define my art" with reference to anything very much, except possibly earning a living with my cameras. You're the one who brought up that concept: you're the one who wants to spend the thread talking about your cameras, a Pentax and three Leicas so far. I've not even mentioned any of mine, because there's no need.

Finally, if you define your photograph by your pictures, why have you had 'innumerable' Leicas? Why not just use them to take pictures instead of constantly trading them?

Cheers,

R.

[Nikon Bob]

Personally, it is a good bit of advertising cool-aid.

Bob

[Roger Hicks]

Better would it be if Leica invested in the development of something like digital film - that we are made to believe is technically impossible - so that we could continue to use all that equipment, not only the lenses.

I think the reason we're 'made to believe' it is that it is, in fact, impossible; or at least, sufficiently difficult that no-one has ever succeeded in doing it. An M9 is jammed full of electronics. Try to fit that into the space available for film in a real Leica, and couple the 'wind-on', etc., and I suspect that it's very difficult indeed.

Also, from a crass commercial viewpoint, why bother? When you can sell M9s as fast as you can make 'em, why spend very large sums on developing something that you don't have enough staff to make?

IF it could be done, I'd have expected someone else to have done it by now. One apparently trivial problem that proved very difficult, for example, is that the space between the cassette and the film-gate varies from camera to camera.

Of course, Leica did offer a film/digital SLR, with a removable back, but look at the size. Also, the precision needed for locating the sensor means that 'digital film', casually stuffed into the gate, is unlikely to be precisely enough located.

Cheers,

R.

[AndySig]

I've often wondered if the abandonment of the Leica digital back idea occurred too quickly. The trend in electronics is to get smaller. It is not difficult to imagine a digital back which could be swapped for the back door on M cameras. I'm sure that, if developed, such a device would be a massive hit.

[Roger Hicks]

I've often wondered if the abandonment of the Leica digital back idea occurred too quickly. The trend in electronics is to get smaller. It is not difficult to imagine a digital back which could be swapped for the back door on M cameras. I'm sure that, if developed, such a device would be a massive hit.

They couldn't get the sensor any more, and it wasn't worth redesigning for a new sensor. At least, that's the Party Line, and I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Cheers,

R.

[dave lackey]

Typical hyperbolic Leicaspeak. Anything to convince the huddled masses to spend ridiculous money to claim elitist status.

If I want to shoot film, my k1000 works just fine.


Ah...dear mods, here is another Leica bashing post.:mad:

[_mark__]

I hate everything Leica cameras have come to represent I'm almost embarrased to carry one but I still use mine every day for the lenses. That Paragraph from Leica is very nostalgic.

[rogerzilla]

So Leica film bodies aren't compatible with colour film. Typical.
How do you think colour film works?

[Messsucherkamera]

LOL. I 've owned inunmerable Leicas since 1977. I own 3 now. I also have owned and used inunerable "lesser" cameras. The results between the two are minimal at best. Feel free to define this as "reverse snobbery." I call it being realistic. You are welcome to define your Art by the eqyuipment you use. I'll define mine by the images I produce, thank you.

"Minimal at best??"

If that is truly your opinion, it would seem to me to be the result of one of four scenarios (or a combination thereof) -

1: Your technique is slipshod, inept and/or erratic;
2: You have an eye that is undiscerning in the extreme;
3: You have the visual acuity of an Indonesian Short Nosed Fruit Bat;
4: You are a writer for that bastion of the avaricious and tightfisted known as Consumer Reports.

[Trius]

The degree of emotion surrounding Leica-centred threads must surely keep any psychologists on this forum quite entertained. Or despairing.

[digitalintrigue]

That's it. I'm going digital now.

[ajuk]

So I wonder what would Leica call the M7 replacement now?

[mojobebop]

i've used a few leicas; m2-4-6-7. my favourite was the 7, next the 4. i alternate between the 4, & nikons, f-2-3-5.

i'm better w/nikons percentage wise. might be because i've never gotten a diopter for the leica. i also shoot mostly 28mm, so i'm using a external viewfinder which also needs a diopter.
i love both but the leica is special. i hope to one day feel as comfortable with it. it's more of a learning process. i think they are worth the money

[wolves3012]

This is from the introduction to the M7 on the Leica website:

"Silver halide photography with a Leica M has a special appeal: the understandable process of exposing the film and the chemical processing of the same piece of material create an emotional relationship with the subject and the camera. The concentration when taking the photograph, the keen anticipation of the literally tangible images and the excellent results are all arguments in favour of analog Leica M cameras. "

Sounds pretty spot-on to me.
Spot on or not, I don't see anything out of the ordinary there. A manufacturer trying to push a product by trying to create a justification for something expensive that most won't actually *need*. Typical marketing waffle that says nothing of substance.

[kokoshawnuff]

For me, looking through a rangefinder and composing is a different experience than looking through a slr. When you see what your eyes see (rangefinders) not what the lens sees (slr) there is more mystery—and therefore anticipation—as to the final result (when considering d.o.f. and focus).

I think in this statement leica is pretending that only Leica M cameras can use Leica M glass (which is the one thing that doesn't need marketing help these days), which would be enough for me to buy a leica without question if I was an entry level consumer that had never heard of the other options out there. Knowing better, I could of course get the same quality results from a voigtlander R4A and leica lenses as I would from an M7 and leica glass, but I'm not going to enjoy shooting the Voigtlander as much the Leica because of feel alone (thats me though).

[f6andBthere]

If you're going to quote a piece of Leica marketing fluff as the premise for a thread about why film is wonderful you're asking for an argument IMO.

Film is great and has it's place firmly cemented in photography for numerous reasons but I'd prefer to read such nostalgic hyperbole from Kodak to be truthful.

But if this sort of misty eyed stuff makes a few more deep pocketed souls pony up for a new M7 or MP good luck to Leica I say!

[RAnder4370]

I've always felt that the aesthetics of the particular camera that I'm using at the time affect the way I approach the image I'm going to make. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you use, it could be an iPhone for example. But they all bring something to the shot with them. I love shooting with Liecas because of the aesthetics of them for sure.

[philosomatographer]

"Minimal at best??"

If that is truly your opinion, it would seem to me to be the result of one of four scenarios (or a combination thereof) -

1: Your technique is slipshod, inept and/or erratic;
2: You have an eye that is undiscerning in the extreme;
3: You have the visual acuity of an Indonesian Short Nosed Fruit Bat;
4: You are a writer for that bastion of the avaricious and tightfisted known as Consumer Reports.

As a user of several 35mm and larger camera systems here, including likely the highest-performance M-mount lens of them all - the Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5 - I have to chime in here and say that the differences are indeed minimal.

I really like the Leica M-mount system, but automatically and blindly believing that every single photo produced with this system is of superior quality is hogwash, and a little bit sad.

There are many lenses and cameras (35mm) from other manufacturers that equal and exceed the performance of Leica gear - open your eyes man! This has been documented over and over, and my experience certainly supports this.

Pretty much all good 35mm systems are alike - live wit it.