Do Leicas make you inflexible? [Archive]

rxmd

10-09-2006, 14:40

Hi everybody,

again I've got a couple of thoughts that I'd like your comments on.

Everybody knows that Leica users tend to be conservative people. But after reading a lot over the last months I think some of them aren't really conservative so much as inflexible in their approach to photography, and I wonder how that comes about and what it means.

With the M8 there were all these discussions about in which ways it departed from the M line and what changes this meant for Leica photography. The kind of discussion about wind levers and smaller sensors. Some users apparently were quite inflexible about this, especially about field of view and the unacceptable 1.3 crop factor - the change from 50mm to apparent 65mm or from 35mm to apparent 47mm apparently was completely out of the question for many to compromise on. Now I understand that if you spend lots of money you have certain expectations, but what astonished me was how some people appeared quite entrenched that their style of photography was impossible under the new conditions. While there are some good arguments why a cropfactorless camera would be a good thing, I wonder why a 39 degrees FOV is so special vis-a-vis 32 degrees with the same lens? And how much of a difference the DOF really makes, in practice? And how much you really need an expensive fast superwide, when you can get a cheap marginally slower superwide and crank up ISO at the press of a button? I would presume that a good digital rangefinder would offer enough advantages and differences that people would be ready to brace themselves for some changes in their work, but apparently change can only be taken in very small amounts at a time. In other words, people have become entrenched in how their Summilux delivers a certain perspective that it is too much if the perspective changes by a very slight amount; they have become inflexible.

(Maybe the SLR crowd doesn't have this problem so much because they know better by now, or because they've got zooms, I don't know.)

There were other examples before the M8. A classic one is the M5. Packed with features in a convenient package, yet it fails catastrophically, largely because of two reasons: 12 mm extra length, 7 mm extra height. Apparently this was already too much for parts of the userbase, let alone to carry it vertically. Talk about being inflexible!

I wonder how this comes about. The only reason I can think of is that Leica users are very much emotionally invested in their gear, to the point when they really think that some perspectives are more natural than some other slightly different ones. Or where they really think they can take good pictures only at precisely the perspectives they are used to from their lenses. Or where they really think that the ideal rangefinder camera is 138x77x36 mm carried horizontally and everything else is a deviation. Have all these people forgotten what it was like when they got their first and second cameras and lenses, how they explored it with an open mind, tried it out and experimented with the possibilities? If a new camera offers you something unique and entirely new, does it really matter if the fields of view or the dimensions are exactly the ones you're used to or slightly different?

In my opinion being a good photographer should transcend the use of a particular device. I should be able to give a good photographer an arbitrary camera (say, a 1977 Praktica EE-2 (http://www.praktica-collector.de/197_Praktica_EE2.htm) SLR with a Biotar 58/2 lens) and he should be able to produce meaningful pictures in spite of the slightly odd focal length and the weird camera body after the second roll or so. Maybe not exactly the same as with other cameras, but good ones nevertheless. So why is it that people become so entrenched and inflexible? Is it only because Leicas are expensive? Because they are "a myth"? Because there are some hidden laws of nature which the M2 embodies and the M5 and M8 fail to embody? I would be interested to hear what you think about this, especially if you feel affected by this.

Philipp

Chris Lynch

10-09-2006, 14:49

i think you're making alot of good points here. I'm sure many of the heavey Leica users that are upset by the crop factor either haven't used DSLR's, or simply don't understand the tech/money constraints of a FF sensor.

I for one, am happy they went with a crop sensor at least for now: it keeps the camera almost affordable! If this was a FF camera (24x36mm), it would be closer to $10,000, if not more! Also, 1.3X is a good compromise!

smiling gecko

10-09-2006, 14:59

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.....ignition.

tick, tick, tick...

this shoud be interesting...

i have my own inflexibilities...like prefering med. format & over 35mm.

no responses yet @ 1755 hours -5 GMT ??

i'm outta here. :p :D :p

kenneth
NEVER FORGET BESLAN
www.neverforgetbeslan.com
kenneth@neverforgetbeslan.com

Gabriel M.A.

10-09-2006, 15:00

It would be interesting to have an arbitrary camera, you set the aperture to f/2 and it arbitrarily sets it to f/8, or the shutter to 1/100 sec, and it arbitrarily sets it to 1/777 sec. And when you want it to fire, it won't, or it'll fire when you don't want it to. An arbitrary camera, that'd be fun. :D

Todd.Hanz

10-09-2006, 15:44

Do Leicas make you inflexible?

Let's see, I used to be able to touch my toes without bending my knees, that was when I shot Nikons. I have a couple leicas now and I can't even see my toes much less touch them. So yes Leicas make you inflexible, inflexible and fat.

As far as the M8, most people probably figured that Leica took so long to come out with their first digi-rangefinder that it had to be perfect.

It's funny, all the hooplah about this camera and yet no sample images. Many people plunked down hefty deposits for something they haven't fondled, shot, or seen how it performs.

interesting thoughts though.

Todd

nightfly

10-09-2006, 15:45

I'm a relatively new and probably youngish Leica user but I think I can understand a little why people would be upset. I have no intention of ever buying an M8 so I have no emotional investment in the issue but from a sort of outsider perspective, I think it's fairly easy to understand:

Leica lenses are really expensive. If I buy a 28mm lens, I persumably didn't want a 35mm lens so the field of view is a big issue if you've just bought a $2000 lens. The wides are especially expensive and rangefinder photography's big advantage is really in the wide angle part of the game. I think I'd be pissed if my 35 just became a 50.

Part of the Leica's appeal is the way it looks and feels as well as functions. The M5 failed because it was bulky and ugly.

If you are all about function, you're not going to buy a Leica and certainly not an M8 when you can get a much more functional DSLR for several thousand dollars less.

I don't think the problem is that Leica users are hamstrung by their equipment any more than any other camera users. They just have made some very specific choices about what they like in a camera and in many cases have spent a lot of money in pursuit of something that gives them the features that they want and probably more importantly leaves out a bunch of stuff they don't want.

It's probably no more fair to say that a Leica user couldn't take a good picture with another camera than that a race car driver couldn't drive a minivan.

AndyPiper

10-09-2006, 16:19

Inflexible, no - high-maintenance, yes.

"But I'd like the pie heated and I don't want the ice cream on top, I want it on the side, and I'd like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it, if not then no ice cream just whipped cream but only if it's real; if it's out of the can then nothing." - Sally Albright (Meg Ryan) in "When Harry met Sally"

bobkonos

10-09-2006, 16:26

Inflexible? Not at all: the feel, precision, accuracy, and sheer enjoyment from using my Leica, as with any fine tool, inspires me to see more, think more, act more on my creative instincts. Inflexible? That's what happens when you do not stretch, and a Leica makes you want to stretch your capabilities.

High maintenance? Hmmm...set aperture at f8, set corresponding shutter speed, see, feel, shoot, advance film, repeat as you like. Function and feel, that's it.

AndyPiper

10-09-2006, 16:53

Bob K.: Perhaps you avoid the high-maintenance trap. But there have been quite a few posts here along the lines of:

"But I want the M8 with a wind lever even though there's no film to wind, and I don't want the frame-counter LCD on the left, I want it on the right , and I'd like a .85x viewfinder instead of .68x, if you have it, if not then a .58x but only if there's no crop factor, if there's a crop factor then nothing."

-- to borrow from the movie again.

yammer, yammer, yammer, whine whine whine...

Trius

10-09-2006, 17:27

I pretty much agree. I certainly have my preferences and can be curmudgeonly when it comes to voicing those preferences. But having worked with 35mm, MF and LF cameras, each have their own strengths and charms. I certainly didn't dismiss my M3 because it didn't have swings, tilts & rise ... and the huge negative size of my Toyo. Nor did I dump the Toyo because it was larger than an M3.

That said, I find a lot of Leica users here on RFF are very flexible, and enjoy using other non-Leica RFF gear. Heck, some of them even really like the M5.

richard_l

10-09-2006, 18:36

The only reason I can think of is that Leica users are very much emotionally invested in their gear, to the point when they really think that some perspectives are more natural than some other slightly different ones.Who the hell cares? Jeeze!

heliographer

10-09-2006, 18:48

In the old days, when I was just getting started (1980s), I tried everything affordable, knowing that I probably wanted a Leica, because all of my favorite photos had been shot with them (Robert Frank, Winogrand, Helen Levitt, etc.). I was able to take OK pictures with Kodak Retinas, early point and shoots, Canonets, and even my Nikon F2 that went off like a thunderclap every time I took a picture. I even tried 4X5, hoping it would suit my style. I then tried a Mamiya TLR and took some nice portraits with Konica 750 when I could still get it.

Guess what? I finally knuckled down and got an M2 (I got an M3 first and sold it--didn't care for 50mm). I found out that the best possible camera for my particular style of shooting (street photography, for want of a better word) was an M2 with a 35mm Summaron 3.5. Once I got one, suddenly, with effort and practice, I came very close to taking the kinds of photos I wanted to take. I got used to the particular combination of a manual, mechanical camera (no batteries, no meter) with a 35mm lens. I could usually guess exposure with 85% accuracy or better, and could estimate the framing from my waist or chest with the same accuracy, and could place the plane of focus just so with the M2 at eye level. I could hand-hold exposures to 1/2 second. I could shoot without people noticing.

It was more than discipline, which is how some people describe Leica photography. It was simply an extension of my thought processes, but quicker and more spontaneous than any other camera/lens combination I have ever used. Feel the little shutter speed dial, I knew by touch what shutter speed was set (the old notch for the MR Meter). Click down the aperture to the right F stop. Scale focus already set. Fire. Advance silently. Fire again. And again.

Will I buy an M8? No way. It changes all the things that matter. Battery independence. A lens that sees what I am accustomed to seeing (no cropping please). Sane cost. (I paid $295 for the M2, and $100 for the Summaron back in the 1980s. Even with inflation I'm way ahead).

I put the Leicas aside and have only recently picked them up again. I have tried M6s, Bessas (L, R, T), and some Pentax SLRs. The M2 is absolutely the best camera I have ever owned or used (well, alright, I wish I still had use of that Sinar P2 8X10). No Leica (including the M4 I still own) can hold a candle to it. The M8 represents a completely different set of priorities.

Is this "inflexibility," or experience mixed with preference?

heliographer

akptc

10-09-2006, 20:41

Interesting discussion, even though I only bought the M7 'cause it is so darn cute! Being a newbie to quality rangefinders, I am quite flexible (and experimenting all over the place with my RF purchases) but find it incredibly fascinating how emotionally charged gear ownership can be. It would make for one heck of a disseration for a psych student :)

rvaubel

10-09-2006, 22:08

So how long do you guys think it will take until Leitz comes out with a new set of "digital only" lenses, say a 35/1.0 Noctilux, usable on the half format M8 only ?

I was just checking my Zuiko 42/1.2 and wondering how easy it would be to adapt :)

Roland.

Roland

Is that full frame? What kind of mount is it. Can I get an adapter for my "M" mount RD1? This sounds like a great lens for my crop factor RD1! It would be fun comparing bokah with my 40mm/1.4 Nokton. A great portrait focal length on a crop factor camera :cool:

Rex
....arf, arf

P.S. thanks for the repair. A shot of my wife with the Serenar ...1/10sec @ f4

RD1 @ISO 1600

Andy Aitken

10-09-2006, 22:18

Funny I was just thinking the same about the Zuiko 21mm f2.0 on the M8. I don't suppose they would be adaptable though.

rvaubel

10-09-2006, 22:25

Rex, glad the lens works. Pretty shot, too.

It's an Olympus PEN F mount lens.

But: the registration distance is very very close, 28.95mm for the Pen and 28.8 for LTM and 27.8mm for the M mount. Should be possible to build an adapter for this, no ? Of course, only if you don't care for RF coupling ....

Roland.

Well, the shot is a little out of focus. I quess I didn't slap the RD1 against my palm hard enough. Got to get that damn thing fixed.

Is the PEN F a baynet mount lens? The leica SM adapters are 1mm thick so it might work. Send a picture and I'll see if my machinist tninks its feasible. The real problem is the rangfinder coupling. That would make it a perfect match for my broken RD1 :rolleyes:

Rex

rvaubel

10-09-2006, 22:46

Funny I was just thinking the same about the Zuiko 21mm f2.0 on the M8. I don't suppose they would be adaptable though.

This is really strange because I been thinking of this lens. I think I can make an adapter. Since its for the OM SLR their is plenty of room.

I think Roland is right about the possibility of a "digital only" lens series for the M8. This would be similar to Canon's EF-S series of lenses for their 1.6X crop 30D, 350XT, etc. I think that Leica will wait a bit to see how the M8 does in the market but if it's a hit. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few fast, wides coming of the design board. Its so much easier to design a more compact lens for a reduced format camera.

I'm dreaming but still....:cool:

Rex

rvaubel

10-09-2006, 22:57

A little picture showing you two "normal" 1.2 lenses, a Zuiko on half format on the left and a Canon full format on the right. Lenses are roughly from the same period, the Zuiko is a bit younger. Registration distance is very similar,
left camera is an SLR.

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/101416072-O.jpg

The size difference is what you loose when you use full frame lenses on a format with a 1.4 crop factor; in addition to DOF changes, etc.

I have no problem with different cameras, etc. Sure the M8 will be great. I have a problem with propaganda, brand fanatism and marketing hype.

Cheers,

Roland.

PS: Rex, yes it is a specific Olympus PEN bayonett.

Are you saying that half frame is equvilant to what we would call 1.4 X crop factor today? I'd never thought about it until you mentioned it but the square root of 2 does = 1.414.

I quess it would vignette a little bit on the M8 but maybe you could code the lens to think it was a 21mm Elmarit and the M8 would automatically correct for it!!!

Oh man, talk about opening a can of speculative worms :eek:

Rex

rvaubel

10-09-2006, 23:38

Check this out, for instance:

http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/archives/2006/09/30/leica-d-summilux-25mmf14-asph-lens.html

I predict we won't have to wait long for a 35 D-Noctilux, much smaller than the current 50 Nocti, and with higher resolution.

Roland.

Roland

I hate to burst your bubble, but I believe the Leica "D" series is for the 4/3rds system. In my opinion, that sensor is way to small to ever have high ISO numbers. The other problem with 4/3's is that the standard insists on large backfocus distances to avoid vignetting. Thus the lenses have to be bulky, retrofocus designs that do not take advantage of the the smaller sensor's relaxed frame coverage. The M8, with its offset microlensing, can make possible compact, semi-symmetrical , true rangefinder designed lenses. Throw in a reduced coverage factor, and we could get some really cool fast wides in the near future.

Oh, by the way, Kodak developed the offset micro-lenses for the 4/3's standard. Thats why they had the idea developed for the M8 sensor. To bad Oly never took advantage of it. Oh well, Oly's lose is Leica's gain.

Rex

jaapv

10-09-2006, 23:50

So how long do you guys think it will take until Leitz comes out with a new set of "digital only" lenses, say a 35/1.0 Noctilux, usable on the half format M8 only ?
Roland.

The answer to this one is quite simple: never. They would be compatible with nor the film camera line, nor future larger sensor M camera's. That would run totally contrary to everything Leica stands for.

jaapv

10-09-2006, 23:57

You are totally correct Rex. Did you notice the size of that standard zoom on the Digilux3? Gargantuan is the right word for it. Any DSLR user would be proud to have it bouncing on his belly.

lubitel

10-10-2006, 00:14

Thats funny, this thread is turning into another tech-talk. 35mm 1.0 1,33 factor, half-full-frame.

rvaubel

10-10-2006, 00:19

No problem Rex, and you are right. The point was that it is easier to build
a faster lens for smaller format, and for the 4/3rd format (even though much
smaller) this has already been done.

Roland.

Ya, it's gonna happen eventially. Oh boy, I can hardly wait for the pissing and moaning about the betrayal "of everything that Leica stands for". Barnack, the greatest inovator of a revolutionary film format of all times, would be spinning in his grave if he could hear the naysayers and troglydytes wailing at the moon about something as simple as change.

Oh well, I'm going to bed..... and will be dreaming of new revolutionary lenses based on traditional principles and implimented on a reduced format, digital rangefinder :p

Rex
...arf, arf (sound of traitorous doggie) :angel:

rxmd

10-10-2006, 00:28

Hi Rex,
The M8, with its offset microlensing, can make possible compact, semi-symmetrical , true rangefinder designed lenses. Throw in a reduced coverage factor, and we could get some really cool fast wides in the near future.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think we can forget about that.

People were promised cool fast small APS-coverage wides in the DSLR world. Didn't happen either. Lens manufacturers tend to concentrate on zoom lenses (the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 macro being an exception). There are third-party lenses such as the Sigma 30/1.4, but many people complain about its build quality and an inaccurate AF. You can look at lenses for 4/3, as well; most of them aren't significantly smaller than their APS or full-frame counterparts.

Leica won't make any lenses for reduced coverage. Leica users are typically concerned about protecting their investment. If Leica produced such a series of lenses, it would be a statement that there will be no full-frame digital M9, because the lens would be unusable on such a body. I guess a not insignificant portion of those users who are now disappointed that the M8 isn't full-frame would complain about Leica going down the drain, producing disposable rubbish, and they would probably desert Leica in droves. Instant bad publicity. M5 all over again. Which brings us back to the inflexibility question.

Philipp

Marc-A.

10-10-2006, 00:32

In my opinion being a good photographer should transcend the use of a particular device. I should be able to give a good photographer an arbitrary camera (say, a 1977 Praktica EE-2 (http://www.praktica-collector.de/197_Praktica_EE2.htm) SLR with a Biotar 58/2 lens) and he should be able to produce meaningful pictures in spite of the slightly odd focal length and the weird camera body after the second roll or so.
Philipp

You're absolutely right Philipp. As said Willy Ronis: "Photography: it's seing. You've either got it or you haven't. Given the cricumstances, it can be refined, but it's clear from the start even with the cheapest camera".
Now, that being said, it doesn't mean you're not supposed to have a favorite camera to shoot with. I mean it's like choosing a pencil for writing or a pair of shoes for walking ... you can be more or less comfortable with a pair of shoes; so can you with a camera. IMHO there's no problem in choosing the camera that fits you, even if you're not HCB (God, is there any other photographer? :rolleyes: ) ... let say Dorothea Lange.
For instance, I'm trying all the cameras I can afford (and I know most people here do the same ... yes GAS it is), but the more I acquire cameras, the more I realize that my M2 is the one. Others realize that THE camera is a Contax IIa, or a Nikon SP, or being disappointed by RF (pure hypothesis, cuz it's impossible :D ) they find that only SLRs fit them ...etc.
It's only a matter of taste, not a matter of photography.
Best,
Marc

PS: if you have a Praktica you don't use, send it to me; I would love to test that one ;)

jaapv

10-10-2006, 00:34

What a wonderful example of marketing/branding success. Like the Hermes special edition MP, you mean ? :)

Not at all. Maybe I did not formulate my post clearly enough.As a Leica customer I think it part of the quality of the system that I can use LTM lenses fully functionally on the M8, or the newest 28 mm on the M2, or the Visoflex on all M camera's etc.
Try that with an old Canon lens, or let Olympus tell you the OM system is "no longer supported" etc.
That is what I meant.

rvaubel

10-10-2006, 01:05

Hi Rex,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think we can forget about that.

People were promised cool fast small APS-coverage wides in the DSLR world. Didn't happen either.

Leica won't make any lenses for reduced coverage. Leica users are typically concerned about protecting their investment. If Leica produced such a series of lenses, it would be a statement that there will be no full-frame digital M9, because the lens would be unusable on such a body. I guess a not insignificant portion of those users who are now disappointed that the M8 isn't full-frame would complain about Leica going down the drain, producing disposable rubbish, and they would probably desert Leica in droves. Instant bad publicity. M5 all over again. Which brings us back to the inflexibility question.

Philipp

Very good points. I agree that the more traditional Leica fans would scream bloody murder if a reduced coverage lens was produced. And I would agree that a reduced civerage lens was a dead end if a believed that the M8 was a transitional model to eventually be replaced by a full frame M9. And I'm not so sure about that. There is a distinct possibility that a full frame Leica will never be produced.

I await the death squad.

On your point that the manufacures never delivered on the promise of compact APS digital lenses, that's not entirely true. Given the constraints of retrofocus lens design and the consumers need for zooms of every increasing magnification factor, they have actually done a fair job of delivering more lens in less bulk.

In most cases, the APS lens has a one stop advantage on its full frame rquivalent. An example would be the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 vs the EF 24-105/4.0 These two lenses are about the same size and weight but the advantage in speed goes to the "S" lens. There are similar stories across the board.

In addition, rangefinder specific lenses don't need to be of a retrofocus design. This in itself leads to a more compact product.

Add in the additional benifit of a reduced coverage design, and you could imagine a 24mm/F1,4 that would be 1/3 the size and 1/2 the weight of the Canon 24/1.4

Well that's my hope anyway.

What I really want to know is why do people get mad? Aren't we just trying to take pretty pictures? I mean its not life or death or anything. :confused:

Rex

jaapv

10-10-2006, 01:08

Can we suppose a reduced coverage lens would sell? I doubt it. A significant number of M8 buyers will be retaining their film camera's. What sense would it make to buy a lens with limited use?

rvaubel

10-10-2006, 01:36

Can we suppose a reduced coverage lens would sell? I doubt it. A significant number of M8 buyers will be retaining their film camera's. What sense would it make to buy a lens with limited use?

I plan on keeping and using my film cameras. In fact, I have set up my darkroom for the first timein 35 years because it is such a pain to get film developed and impossible to get real fiber prints. Howver, I use my RD1 more (much more) than my film cameras

I would buy a reduced coverage lens, especially in the range that is ill served by the current product line. Specifically, the fast wides come to mind. I could really use a 24mm/f1.4 on my RD1 . It would be a good choice on the upcoming M8 also. I can think of plenty of lenses that would be useful on the M8 that would be of little interest to me on my R3a or T

Rex

hth

10-10-2006, 01:40

No, I was inflexible before I started using Leicas.

/Håkan

ZeissFan

10-10-2006, 03:05

With current technology, I don't believe Leica can produce a full-frame sensor camera that can accept all of the older lenses without severe vignetting.

Leica has to cater to the base of users who expect ALL of their lenses to function as intended on a full-frame camera.

Carl Zeiss probably has a better shot at producing a full-frame camera because they have produced their lenses to be digital compatible from the start (supposedly, no vignetting). From a marketing point of view, a full-frame camera that works best with Zeiss lenses would give the prospective buyer another reason to stay with Zeiss bodies and lenses, which would benefit Zeiss but not Leica.

At some point, computer technology will evolve again that will allow the use of wide angle lenses, and Leica will be able to produce a successor model.

The question is how long will this take before the technology matches the demands? Two years? Five years? 10 years? And will such a market then exist by the time a product is developed? Or will most users have migrated to a digital SLR?

Trius

10-10-2006, 03:15

Funny I was just thinking the same about the Zuiko 21mm f2.0 on the M8. I don't suppose they would be adaptable though.
There is an OM/M adapter; Stephen Gandy has them listed on his website, though they are not stocked so are special order. I have toyed with the idea of getting one so as to use with a Bessa T. It is RF coupled:

"You focus normally with your rangefinder, and then transfer the focus distance to the distance scale on your SLR lens. OK, so it's not as convenient as a RF coupled M mount lens, but it is a lot more convenient than guessing the focus distance when you use SLR lenses on your M."

Having a variety of Zuikos, it would be a way of getting back into the M series without having to buy a M glass right away. Naturally I would eventually get "native" M-mount lenses.

Trius

10-10-2006, 03:20

Ben Z

10-10-2006, 06:13

Do Leicas make you inflexible?

No. Insolvent maybe :D

Sparrow

10-10-2006, 07:12

I’m not sure about inflexible, but one thing the reactionary elements within Leica's customer base must do is restrict their designers and engineers ability to innovate. Now that may not necessarily be a bad thing but traditional materials and operation may not compatible with “uncompromising design”

In the 1930s brass and rubberised silk were state of the art materials; their day’s equivalent of magnesium alloy and carbon fibre, those and modern engineering plastics I suspect would be vetoed by the marketing men in fear of breaking with tradition.

jaapv

10-10-2006, 07:23

boilerdoc2

10-10-2006, 07:29

Inflexible. He-- no! I want the M8. I have it on order sight unseen. If there is any company that can be counted on to design and produce a quality product it is Leitz - altho they almost went bankrupt doing it. And dare I say it: When will we have autofocus? Don't throw stones please! Tired old eyes - well not that old- sure could use a little help sometime.
Steve

ywenz

10-10-2006, 07:30

Leica film M, like all film cameras are less flexible than digital cameras.

Sparrow

10-10-2006, 07:35

You think so? Jaguar for instance, offers a choice of wood veneers for their dasboard - and carbon-fibre composite. When I visited the Morgan factory, twenty years ago, I noticed a aluminium-layered lightweigt bonded chassis in the development department (I wandered in thinking it was the garderner's canteen) Unfortunately I got booted out before I could take a photograph.:(

Yes and in the 50’s they were running D type Jags with the first multi-point injection systems and no choice of dash trim as performance came first not tradition.

Turtle

10-10-2006, 07:37

I also largely agree. Some IMO seem to make photography fit their leicas rather than be flexible. I have just bought an MP along with mainly zeiss lenses and hope I dont go the same way. Mind you, I shoot most formats and so the MP is to fill a niche which cannot be filled any other way.

I agree, some are not the most open minded bunch tho many do indeed have a healthy approach. I have just joined the leica forum and done some reading. Like most forums it appears that the same old fanatics do most of the crowing so it is hard to see what the real consensus is.

I would also venture so far as to say that there are 35mm Cartier Bresson chasing Leicaphiles who are comparable in their inflexibility and lack of imagination to the unoriginal LF Adams copying inflexible zonies. polar opposites, but both extreme camps tend to display the same asonishing technical prowess accompanied by utterly uninspiring photograhy.

As you say, the camera is just a tool. For some Leica owners though it is a toy, an investment, something to polish and make themselves feel better about themselves. In such cases they appear to be discussing 'real' photographic issues on these forums but with about as much likely practical application as discussing ice fishing techniques in the Namib desert.

Again, my experience in the Leica world as an owner- non-worshipper has been positive. The forum has been friendly and people helpful. Many seem to share my views and are as amused as the rest when it comes to the more militant lot!

jaapv

10-10-2006, 08:00

Yes and in the 50’s they were running D type Jags with the first multi-point injection systems and no choice of dash trim as performance came first not tradition.

True - the Japanese and to some extent the Germans seem to have taken over the lead in that respect. Nostalgia: First performance four-wheel drive: Dutch (Spijker) First six-cylinder: Dutch (Spijker) First disc brakes: Britain (Morgan) First rear-window wiper: British (Jensen) etc....

Sparrow

10-10-2006, 08:14

True - the Japanese and to some extent the Germans seem to have taken over the lead in that respect. Nostalgia: First performance four-wheel drive: Dutch (Spijker) First six-cylinder: Dutch (Spijker) First disc brakes: Britain (Morgan) First rear-window wiper: British (Jensen) etc....

Yes but at issue here is weather the engineer was able to use magnesium alloy, like they make rally car wheels from, or had to stick with brass, the stuff they use in a carriage clock, because it looked better when the paint wore off.

Jaguar had the first disk brake on the track, and one of the Triumph TRs on the road; I had a TR6 in 1974 now that was a victory of tradition over common sense!

steve garza

10-10-2006, 08:14

jaapv

10-10-2006, 08:31

Yes but at issue here is weather the engineer was able to use magnesium alloy, like they make rally car wheels from, or had to stick with brass, the stuff they use in a carriage clock, because it looked better when the paint wore off.

Jaguar had the first disk brake on the track, and one of the Triumph TRs on the road; I had a TR6 in 1974 now that was a victory of tradition over common sense! Sorry to be so OT everybody... It is because I am a flexible Leica user :D Yes I was talking road cars :) Afaik Triumph was the first to adopt the technology for road use but Morgan, using Triumph mechanicals (Except the front suspension of course;weird and wonderful ;)) at the time actually scored the "first" by a few weeks. I have had my 1963 TR4 for 15 years now:):)(Morgan 4/4-2 before that)

Sparrow

10-10-2006, 08:41

You clearly have a deeper knowledge of motorcars than I

kbg32

10-10-2006, 08:47

When is a camera not a camera? Film or otherwise? Rangefinder, DSLR, SLR, etc.? When it just sits in your closet, on your shelf, etc., not being used. I'm very flexibale to grab the camera choice that is going to help me produce the imagery I want.

jaapv

10-10-2006, 09:02

You clearly have a deeper knowledge of motorcars than I I doubt it- You knew about Jaguar - I wouldn't have :)

Peter Klein

10-10-2006, 09:07

For me at least, there are three key M8 issues.

1. Price. For most of us, it's a lot of money.

2. We will lose a stop shooting at 35mm equivalent and wider. That can be worked around if the high ISO is reasonably good.

3. Digital is a different medium. Digital gives us convenience, can produce output faster, and relieves us of the time and trouble of scanning. Film has a different look, and is more forgiving in the exposure and dynamic range departments. Pick your poison.

None of these issues are deal-breakers for me, with the possible exception of the price.

The M8 appears to have good image quality on at least par with the DMR. People I know and respect who have shot Canon 5D or 20D plus the M8 seem to like the M8. The M8 may lead to the purchase of one additional wider lens, and most of what we already have will work fine.

I tend to photograph mostly with a 35 and a 50. The 50 is my favorite focal length. Trust me, the advantages of a rangefinder apply very much to normal lenses, not just wides. With the M8, my 35mm lenses will become, effectively, almost-50mm lenses. My 50 will become a little "longer." I can experiment, and I think it will be OK. If I want a fast 35mm equivalent, I can pick up a VC 28 Ultron. Leica and VC both have 28mm lenses, and there are other old lenses to try as well.

And my 90 Summicron will become and effective 120mm f/2. Can't wait to try that in a concert hall or theater.

If you're really into very wide lenses, then the crop factor might be an issue. If you are absolutely into a specific focal length other than 50mm, there might be some adjustments. You either deal with it or you don't.

All the quibbles pale when I consider that the M8 is a digital rangefinder that looks, feels and handles much like my film M cameras, and takes Leica lenses. It will allow me to shoot digital the way I like to shoot film--with rangefinder viewing and focusing, using a small, light, unobtrusive camera and fast, high-quality optics. The M8 looks like a winner.

Basically, the M8 bumps each lens up one "notch" in equivalent magnification. My opinion is that the minor focal length differences won't matter. Yes, your 28 will become a 37mm lens instead of a 35. But it's just not all that significant in practical shooting. You'll get used to it in a day.

And if price is an object, there is the R-D1 alternative, albeit with some other issues and risks.

--Peter

35mmdelux

10-10-2006, 09:31

"Everybody knows that Leica users tend to be conservative people. But after reading a lot over the last months I think some of them aren't really conservative so much as inflexible in their approach to photography"

Huh?

15 years a Leica M shooter. My credentials include growing up in San Francisco and a degree from UC Berkeley - Land of Free Speech. I hang in Venice Beach. If this is conservative, what is liberal?

Because we choose Leicas we are inflexible? This rash sounds like dogma to me.

Best - Paul

Turtle

10-10-2006, 09:34

Leica film M, like all film cameras are less flexible than digital cameras.

Yes, but if your area of concern is in only the 50% of SLR capability that is done a touch better with a film RF, then the film RF may be the better camera for you, even tho overall it is less flexible. An example would be film shooters who like short lenses and like wet printing;)

I for one and sure that wet prints will never die, just as platinum did not. Many people I have spoken to whilst exhibiting (a rare thing) find the personal touch of wet process captivting as do I.

I hope the m8 is a huge hit so my new Leica MP is supported for as long as required!

DMG

10-10-2006, 09:34

who cares what you shoot with as long as you shoot...it's all about the pictures isn't it? that's why I came here from p*net...

rxmd

10-10-2006, 10:27

Hi Paul,
Because we choose Leicas we are inflexible? This rash sounds like dogma to me.
I don't think you've read my post to the end. Firstly, I wasn't talking about all Leicaites, only about an attitude that appears to be prevalent in a rather vocal subgroup. Secondly, take a look at some of the recent crop factor threads such as this one (after post #40 or so) (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29363), where you get posts such as "lens X at 40 degrees across the frame is heaven, and taking a step back would spoil the picture for me". That's a valid attitude towards photography, of course, but I don't see anything special about 40 vs. 35 or 45 degrees, and to my mind it seems rather rigid and inflexible.

If you get a device that provides something entirely new and unique and you feel like it could help you move your photography forward, shunning it because it would force you to adapt to a minor change in perspective of one of your lenses seems pretty inflexible to me. And I think this kind of inflexibility is more common among Leica users. I think this is partly because over the years many of them have come to regard a certain small set of focal lengths and perspectives (mainly 28, 35, 50, 75, 90) as natural constants that dominate their photography, to an extent where they have trouble thinking about picture-taking more freely. Maybe you are an exception, but then I don't know you.

Philipp

rxmd

10-10-2006, 10:48

Does driving Ferraris make you less flexible in how to get from A to B?
If, as the result of driving a Ferrari for a while, you come to think that the only sensible way that you personally can get from A to B is a red sports car, then I think it does. Especially if the new Ferrari is available only in blue.

Philipp

rxmd

10-10-2006, 11:10

But even though you use the S Bahn every day, you might cherish your collection of red sports cars at home that you take out only on the week-end, right?
Right. But if all users had this attitude, there would be less complaints about how the new blue car is insufficient as a means of transportation ;)

Philipp

CJP6008

10-10-2006, 11:24

Surely the most important factor will be the image quality it delivers. Will that sensor be able to do justice to the lenses? Will they have depth and sparkle or will they be flat with dodgy colours like some much digital stuff? If the latter, save your money folks (unless you really cannot tell the difference between rubbish and good stuff - in which case you woulf be better off sticking with a camera 'phone in any event!)

For this we will have to wait and see. All I have seen is the BJP report in which the images were underwhelming and the person who had ben using it was underwhelmed - but it was a pre-production model being used.

Wait and see!

DoxLeica

10-10-2006, 11:25

Philipp,
This is pure wisdom on your part: "In my opinion being a good photographer should transcend the use of a particular device." The device is a tool and the image is the vision. When the tool, any tool, overwhelms vision there is a form of inflexibility. What made/makes my work interesting is the vision I can bring to a scene. When I am playful, if one understands that as being free to take risks and think as one young, then my images are far better. It doesn't matter what/who the subject is as it's my image that counts. Some of my environmental portraits of "everyday folk" are as meaningful as a US president caught in a revealing mood...and I have imaged both many times. Right now I am semi-retired from professional shooting and can take a Leica body and the VC 40mm or a Rolleiflex 2.8 and shoot away, or not take a single image, happily all day long. Maybe what creates inflexibility is the belief in one's Kit" when it's really the connection between eye-heart-shutter finger that counts as "kit." I agree, Philipp, photographers are often imobilized by many things but it is one's vision that must prevail.
Thanks for being provocative!
John

thurows

10-10-2006, 18:26

[QUOTE=richard_l]Who the hell cares? Jeeze![/QUOTE

Buy a camera, use a camera and if your prints stink work on your craft, don't bad mouth the camera.

icebear

10-12-2006, 16:54

Hi Phillipp,

first: like your ...nuts :D.
To the question : I like my stuff with the red dot and also the CV lens. I’m not fixed on Leica but it is just great engineering and this is something that in general is very rare today. This stuff is as good as it gets (as expensive too,therefore I bought everything used). Everything else is optimized down for profit. "How far can we lower the quality w/o getting too many complaints …?" That’s nowdays principle everywhere and people who value quality have fun with something so old fashinoned and quality obsessed. Of course when you pay some hefty cash for wide lenses that are flat into the corner and have “beautiful MTF’s” which Puts is raving about you’re gonna be pissed if some new camera giving you "finally" access to the digital game :rolleyes:, isn’t taking advantage of that and cropping the important and expensive edge off :bang:. So why have you been paying so much in the first place? The answer will be designated D lenses sooner or later, depending if Leica is already working on the FF M9 or not.
There are always a lot of reasons why anything you bought for a lot of cash is worth it. If it just for the fun of it, the better.
I started out with a Canon AE1 and 2 Simga zooms (3.5 - 5.6/whatever), later just by chance a FD1.4/50 and that got me into fast lenses at all. A 1.2/85L, a T90, another T90 and a 2.8/200 followed. Once I got into theater and concert photography (mostly Jazz) the SLR was just too loud and that’s how I got into Leica. Every tool for it’s purpose and a lot of great shots have been taken with other than Leica cameras. You just have to know your stuff and be there. Keeping that in mind should prevent most folks from getting into the lever discussion on the M8.
There is an old ad from Leica in the 80's maybe [Wer sehen kann, kann auch photographieren. Aber auch sehen will gelernt sein] Who can see, can take pictures. But also seeing needs to be learned.
Once you have learned to visualize the picture you can take a picture with any camera - unless you got stuck in a menue ...:D.

Gabriel M.A.

10-12-2006, 17:09

I Had One Of Those......
It would be interesting to have an arbitrary camera, you set the aperture to f/2 and it arbitrarily sets it to f/8, or the shutter to 1/100 sec, and it arbitrarily sets it to 1/777 sec. And when you want it to fire, it won't, or it'll fire when you don't want it to. An arbitrary camera, that'd be fun.
it was a G2!!!!!!
LOL -- Really? So, arbitrary cameras do exist! ;)

Gabriel M.A.

10-12-2006, 17:16

Thats funny, this thread is turning into another tech-talk. 35mm 1.0 1,33 factor, half-full-frame.
Funny weird, or funny ha-ha? :angel:

Gabriel M.A.

10-12-2006, 17:19

Does driving Ferraris make you less flexible in how to get from A to B ?To somebody who doesn't own one, yes. To somebody who owns one, hell no: they have a backup Corvette, Lamborghini, and a few spare Mercedes. Different colors to match what they're wearing that day -- I say that's very flexible.

richard_l

10-12-2006, 18:10

...And I think this kind of inflexibility is more common among Leica users...Maybe this inflexibility just seems more common among Leica users. It may be only a tiny minority of Leica users who exhibit this tendency, but if they are a highly vocal minority, it can easily appear that most Leica folks are this way. This is not an uncommon phenomenon on the internet, where things are often not as they seem to be. It is not hard to spot highly opinionated Leica users, and I really think they are not as numerous as you seem to suppose.

However, I can speak only with certainty for myself. I have a lovely M2 (and an M3 and an M6). Is it my favorite camera? I have an excellent set of Leica optics in focal lengths of 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm. Are these my favorite fields of view? No and no. My favorite camera is not even a rangefinder, and my favorite focal length is neither 35mm, 50mm, nor 90mm. My favorite camera is the incomparable Rollei 35 S (with the 40mm/2.8 Sonnar).

Am I interested in the digital Leica? No. 'Curious' would be a more appropriate term. I'm just not especially fond of digital images, even with artificial film grain tossed in by a photoshop plugin. The crop factor just is what it is. Better a crop factor of 1.33 with edge to edge image quality than a crop factor of 1.00 which you have to crop manually in PS to get a decent photo.

In a way, I can sympathize with those who don't like the idea of having to toss away part of the images produced by lenses which were carefully engineered (at great effort and expense) to be optimum for the 35mm format, but I would attribute this more to feelings of frugality (and possibly minimalism) than inflexibility.

Richard

Grober

10-13-2006, 08:56

Absolutely. And I'm glad they do too.

Gabriel M.A.

10-13-2006, 09:04

In a way, I can sympathize with those who don't like the idea of having to toss away part of the images produced by lenses which were carefully engineered (at great effort and expense) to be optimum for the 35mm format, but I would attribute this more to feelings of frugality (and possibly minimalism) than inflexibility.
Stealing a line from Fox Mulder: "Grrr - Richard, what are you wearing?" ;)

I agree also.

jan normandale

10-13-2006, 10:12

I don't mention it at RFF however I have a couple of Leica M4P's I don't use them any more than my other cameras. They are good tools. I also have other fine (in my opinion) cameras that cost a significant amount less. The Leica view finder is nicer than my fixed lens RF's like the Canonet , Yashica, or Konica.

Still I don't get as excited or effusive as some who do own them. I like them because I have a good sturdy reliable body to match to FSU glass! Go figure.

giellaleafapmu

10-13-2006, 12:31

raid

10-13-2006, 13:46

giellaleafapmu

10-13-2006, 14:02

When I first read the title of this thread, I was thinking of something different from what is being discussed here. I was more thinking of the collectible part of Leica photography. Would you treat a mintish $2000 M body more carefully than a beaten up $400 Bessa (say), and would you miss some good shots accordingly? I know that there many users of M bodies who do not pamper their M cameras, but there are also many M collectors who also take photos.

Raid

I wouldn't treat them differently, i.e. I would use them with as much care as it is allowed by the situation in which I am taking photographs but I would never miss a shot in order to protect the camera. I live in a rather dangerous part of South America where the possibility of being robbed is quite high, so I might lose my photographic gears any time I bring them out, for this reason the best thing I can do is to get as much profit from them (=take as much photographs) as I can. Collecting is not my game, so I am not completely sure, but I have the feeling that usually collectors don't take many shots with their collectibles. I even know a lad who lives in a small village of Italy who has a collection with something like 40 Leica bodies and about 60 lenses and who shots photograps for living with his...Nikon because he sais he doesn't trust reflex Leicas but has to use reflex because of long lenses et cettera... Apparently he uses a Leica (always the same one) only in his spare time...

Giella lea Fapmu

Bromo33333

10-13-2006, 14:42

In my opinion being a good photographer should transcend the use of a particular device.

I couldn't disagree more - you seem to fall into the "it is entirely the photographer, never the equipment" category.

Each camera type and brand is a slightly different tool - and it is optimized for a job in photogrpahy. A good photogrpaher will be able to select the right tool for the job to make it appear as if the camera and equipment is not present - leaving the effect desired.

To make an extreme example - if one were to outlaw all cameras except Instamatics and their pictures - there would be some good pictures still, but because a wide range fo tools aren't available (MF, LF, small format) many jobs would be awful.

Now, you main question - are Leica owners inflexible? The answer is - Yes, and they should be. A new Leics costs $3500 without a lens, $5000 if you include a 50mm/f2 lense, new. For that kind of money you can just about any type of camera in the world, new - Hasselblad 500 series, Rolleiflex, Mamiya 7ii, Leica, etc. You can and should deamnd exactly what you want and why - Leica is making their living by offering maual controls, little automation, and it is (somewhat ) successful.

Gabriel M.A.

10-13-2006, 19:13

Now, you main question - are Leica owners inflexible? The answer is - Yes, and they should be.
Your honor, this man does not represent me.

I'm inflexible only at certain joints, and I don't mean those smoked by certain people.

richard_l

10-13-2006, 20:25

If you pay a large amount of money for a piece of photographic equipment and are not picky about it, then you're a sucker.

Richard

JohnL

10-14-2006, 07:18

When I first saw the specs of the M8 with the 1.33 crop factor, and the available framelines, and figured out what they mean in terms of FOV, I was a bit concerned that my current lenses (28/3.5, 35/1.2, 50/2.5 and 90/3.5) would be inappropriate. To some extent, this is in fact so, but I now reckon I can get close to where I'd like to be with just two new lenses, which won't cost too much as I'll be staying with CV for the foreseeable future:
1) The 21/4 will give me the same FOV as my 28mm. I'll use the full area of the viewfinder for framing ... I've worked it out that the error is minuscule.
2) The 35/2.5 will give me a slow-and-small normal lens for daylight use.
I'll continue to use the 28/3.5 as a moderate wide-angle. I'll continue to use the 35/1.2 for low light - the narrower FOV will only be an issue indoors in small-to-average rooms, and I'll probably be able to use the higher ISO with the 21 or 28 to handle those situations.
I doubt I'll use the 50 or the 90 very much. Maybe someday I'll get a 75.
All this assuming I can summon up the courage for the M8 AND find one that's available.
For me personally I think a 0.58x viewfinder would be a better match for the M8, with 21+28, 24+35 and 50+75 framelines.