The Biq Question (or two)

[Bill Pierce]

In the thread preceding this, David Seelig wrote, "I use both dslrs and my m8 my lone 35 film camera left is an m6. Most of my own work is with an m8 most pro work with my canons dslr though after getting a canon 5d mk 11 leica needs to seriousily upgrade the m8 or come out with an m9 already."

I find this is pretty much the response of most of the professionals I know who use both DRF and DSLR. The film rangefinder was the dim light king offering accurate wide open focus with high speed normal and wide angles, the tools of the dim light trade - especially with films like Kodak's P3200.

Film Leicas were relatively quiet and small, often advantages in situations that called for you to work discreetly in the world of available darkeness.

The larger, noisier M8 still had the advantage of sometimes providing better wide open focusing accuracy in dim, low contrast situations. And it was still smaller than the big professional DSLR's.

But the remarkable high ISO performance of the new Canon and Nikon DSLR's makes shooting in the available darkness, and producing breathtaking results, even with relatively slow f/2.8 zooms, a piece of cake.

In the digital world of dim light, the Leica is no longer king. In the film world I think it is.

Two questions -

(1) Journalism is now essentially digital. Is the rangefinder, a major tool of photojournalists and documentarians in the past, going to survive as such in the digital world?

(2) Equally important - in what arenas does the digital M8 shine as brightly as its film predecessors?

[Jason Sprenger]

On the first question, should Leica remain an obscure novelty, I think it will be necessary to reinvent the wheel. One can see the hunger in the excitement over the micro-4/3rds format. Even so, Panasonic and Olympus seem to have only a faint glimmer of understanding of this excitement. Many photographers working for money have or used Leicas even if their main shooter was a reflex camera of some sort. The market is way bigger than the spreadsheet types imagine. It's just that no camera yet definitively delivers the goods.

However, the optical rangefinder camera might share the fate of the 4x5 press camera if Cosina doesn't make an updated offering soon in the digital realm. Focus confirmation and EVF may be seen as "good enough" by a younger generation accustomed to such things. And sadly, those of us used to a wider view bound by frame-lines might have to pick a wider lens, shoot looser and crop more.

[photomoof]

I think the M8 will continue to loom large in the Leica world... but that is a very small world. The entire M8 production probably represents about a day's production of almost any DSLR.

I would imagine that many pros will be like me, keeping a few RFs around for those times when they just seem right.

[tmfabian]

i hate to bring up the cliche of the discreetness of leica but this past weekend I ran into a situation where I was hired because of the less intimidating aspect of the m8. A child with cancer had been photographed numerous times for the client and every time the photographer rolled in with a big honking lens and the kid looked well aware of the photographer...I got the job simply because I had worked with the client before and they knew of my itty bitty rangefinder and it's lack of intimidation...I got the job and the paycheck other photographers didn't nab, and this is where it still shines like it's film predecessors.

I think though the main point of this thread is accurate. While I consistently tout the fact that the M8 is not even close to as bad a performer in low light as most folks make it out to be, the simple fact is that technology changes and changes quickly. If a new DRF could come out capable of the current crop of high ISO sensors I believe it still serves a purpose.

[Dogman]

My journalism days are long past. Yet my memory of most day-to-day news shooters of the 70's onward was that Nikon was king, Canon was a distant second and only a handful of shooters were using Leicas. This was based on working with Joe Sixpack daily newspaper shooters and wireservice photographers of the time. The only rangefinder shooters I knew were mostly older photographers who occasionally used their older Leicas or Contaxes for a feature story but did the daily work with the standard Nikon SLR of the day.

The reason was simple--newspapers didn't pay photographers very well and AP and UPI provided their photographers with pool equipment (almost always Nikon except for UPI's foray into the Olympus OM system for a time).

So the rangefinder hasn't really been a major tool of the average photojournalist for several decades. Leica still survived but the survival was based on a rich history rather than practicality. Only the better-paid photojournalists or poor but eccentric shooters like myself were using Leicas. I don't really see that as changing in the digital world. If Leica--the company--can survive, Leica--the camera--is likely to continue with a small niche within an already small market.

The M8 may be a fine tool for some shooters but I don't see it as being the Leica camera that will hold that tiny niche market.

[photogdave]

My experience is similar to Dogman, except I worked for weekly papers in the 90s. We had to purchase our own gear and all I could afford was a used Nikon and Tamron lenses so a Leica was well beyond my range!
I remember one or two of my contemporaries would show up to events with a Leica around the neck and I would think "what is the point of that little bitty thing?". Don't remember seeing any of them actually use it though.
Now into my fourth year of shooting Leica, I get it, but I don't see it hold any ground as a major tool of PJs. Documentarians perhaps, but they will be just as likely to use a film M.
As to the second question, I don't think the M8 shines as brightly as a film M in any aspect but it can certainly be more convenient for giving you adjustable ISO on the fly and the ability to make fantastic color or B&W images from the same file.

[Al Kaplan]

I think that the biggest advantage of shooting Leica M's at things like political or corporate events is that I often hear people remark that they never saw me taking any photos other than perhaps a few set-up shots, yet I have a pocket full of exposed film. It's pretty difficult to shoot discretely when you're working with a pair of DSLR's, each equipped with a huge zoom lens. With M Leicas it's easy, and a lot easier on your shoulders.

[dcsang]

To answer the two questions:
1) No
2) No

Both questions are closed ended so they get the "closed ended" answer ;)

That said, I know that this is meant to spur on discussion so I would point out this particular statement:
Film Leicas were relatively quiet and small, often advantages in situations that called for you to work discreetly in the world of available darkeness.
Yes, this was true (and if you still use film, then it still holds true with respect to being able to work in relatively available darkness) but the concept of the camera being the thing that allowed you to "work discretely" is long gone the way of the dodo.

You can blame that on any number of things: 9/11, police cameras, technology (miniaturization), the advent of neo conservatives, general fear, etc. etc. etc.

The only way to be discrete now is to use either a cell phone or a small P&S digicam - no one pays that much attention to those types of cameras however, the moment you stop, hold the camera (be it a Leica M or a honking DSLR) to your eye, everyone makes note of you - like it or not - so much for the concept of being discrete.

In the past it was just different - cameras, in general, weren't so ubiquitous. Now, when there's a camera in seemingly every electronic device, you would think that it would be even easier to be discrete but the mere fact that you are using either something too big (a DSLR) or a camera that most of the general public have a tough time comprehending (Leica M's or, perish the thought, a LTM camera) draws attention to you the photographer.

Cheers,
Dave

[Bill Pierce]

Focus confirmation and EVF may be seen as "good enough" by a younger generation accustomed to such things. And sadly, those of us used to a wider view bound by frame-lines might have to pick a wider lens, shoot looser and crop more.

Jason -

I started using Leica bright line finders on top of SLR's in the '70's covering N. Ireland. By moving my eye just a few millimeters I could choose between the groundglass for focusing and contemplative composition or the bright line for a little "action" shooting. I'm now using Cosina and Leica birght line finders in some situations with cameras like the Canon G10. As cameras like that get better, I'm seriously thinking about a major investment in bright line finders.

Bill

[Bill Pierce]

My journalism days are long past. Yet my memory of most day-to-day news shooters of the 70's onward was that Nikon was king, Canon was a distant second and only a handful of shooters were using Leicas. This was based on working with Joe Sixpack daily newspaper shooters and wireservice photographers of the time. The only rangefinder shooters I knew were mostly older photographers who occasionally used their older Leicas or Contaxes for a feature story but did the daily work with the standard Nikon SLR of the day.

The reason was simple--newspapers didn't pay photographers very well and AP and UPI provided their photographers with pool equipment (almost always Nikon except for UPI's foray into the Olympus OM system for a time).

I would occasionally get dragged down to Washington when a crisis or a big event would strain Time, Inc's D.C. photographers. I wasn't that keen on shooting there at normal times because you photographed set ups of people talking about the issues rather than the issues themselves. But, when Washington and it's people were the story, it was fun.

But, you're right. Most of the White House guys used SLR's. One of the killer shooters was Frank Cancellari, the senior UPI photographer. The first time I walked into the press room, he looked up and said, "What do you know that these guys don't?" I had no idea what he was talking about until he waved the Leica around his neck at me. We were the only rangefinders in the room.

At times, when a lot of magazines were at the White House, you saw more rangefinders. For the set ups, which were what you were supposed to photograph, there was no need for a rangefinder. But when you looked outside of those for the little unexpected moments, that rangefinder paid off.

Bill

[Bill Pierce]

The only way to be discrete now is to use either a cell phone or a small P&S digicam - no one pays that much attention to those types of cameras however, the moment you stop, hold the camera (be it a Leica M or a honking DSLR) to your eye, everyone makes note of you - like it or not - so much for the concept of being discrete.

In the past it was just different - cameras, in general, weren't so ubiquitous. Now, when there's a camera in seemingly every electronic device, you would think that it would be even easier to be discrete but the mere fact that you are using either something too big (a DSLR) or a camera that most of the general public have a tough time comprehending (Leica M's or, perish the thought, a LTM camera) draws attention to you the photographer.

Cheers,
Dave

Dave -

I couldn't agree more. Although the hidden advantage of a Leica is that a goodly percentage of the people who spot you want to come over and talk about Leicas - that's much nicer than unbridled hostility.

I'm using point and pushes on the street and in a lot of situations. They're getting better. I sort of think of them as a Leica IIIc with an f/3.5 collapsible 50.

Bill

[pachuco]

This reminds me of the last paragraph from the M8 review Bruno Stevens (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/camera-corner-the-leica-m8-on-assignment.html) did for Digital Journalist:

When I was in Iran, one of President Ahmedinejad's bodyguards thought I was a writer, even though I had the M8 around my neck. Net result? I got permission (repeatedly) to shoot the prez from two feet while the rest of the press corps was tucked 10 meters away behind a fence. Sometimes I just LOVE looking like an amateur…

[Trius]

Fascinating thread, Bill, thank you for starting it. Lots of quotable stuff here, including most of what Dave said, but I especially like this:

The market is way bigger than the spreadsheet types imagine. It's just that no camera yet definitively delivers the goods.

Makes we want to have a gazillion dollars so I could buy a major share in a camera company, fire the marketing and "analyst" folks. Do you think a single one of those types has shot for a living, or shot anything other than holiday sunsets and aunt Millie's birth party?

[Jason Sprenger]

Jason -

I started using Leica bright line finders on top of SLR's in the '70's covering N. Ireland. By moving my eye just a few millimeters I could choose between the groundglass for focusing and contemplative composition or the bright line for a little "action" shooting. I'm now using Cosina and Leica birght line finders in some situations with cameras like the Canon G10. As cameras like that get better, I'm seriously thinking about a major investment in bright line finders.

Bill

I might give that bright-line finder idea a try. With decent auto-focus and the difference in DOF compared to 35mm film, it could be a way to go.

[Ronald M]

Time to press necessitates digital in many instances.

Leica was way late with digital and most newspapers were already set up with Nikon or Canon.

Now there is a cost issue. $3000 lenses can`t be daily grind PJ lenses. Bodies cost about the same as high end Nikon or Canon sort of, but Canon has D5 and Nikon has D700 and cheaper bodies are around.

Does the Leica make better avail light pics, why surely it does. Even compared to ISO 1600 and 2.8 Zooms. Does it show in print? Probably not. Leica`s education campaign is long gone as the last I saw in Chicago was Fred Maroon in the 1980`s. The loaner program available through major retailers like Calumet is almost secret. Two generations of photogs have gone by the way not knowing of Leica. It is going to be next to impossible to recover the market. Leica did manage to furnish RIT with a few Leicas to keep. That is a start. Leica has no digital reflex. I tired of waiting but still have a closet full of R glass.

Leica can shine in non rushed PJ work or documentary where you can get close to the subject. Security issues today have everyone back 40 feet requiring 300 2.8 lenses. I think this effectively kills RF for most news work.

[sonofdanang]

Bill,

Hope the season has found you and yours well. I apologize for the length of the post but you've made me think about this because I go back and forth with camera platforms, and formats, seemingly for different reasons, and I seek an understanding of why I do that. Pardon me if I do it out loud. My background is as a jack of all trades, certainly master of none. PJ to portraiture, I am an unknown by and large, but there it is. I do not collect, I use, and quite frequently, break things.

Journalism has indeed gone digital, and for the simple reason that it gets done faster. It's the reason it went to 35mm from medium and large formats, and it's the reason it will go to even smaller formats when the wonks can lick the photosite/signal to noise ratio problem. Journalism is, for the most part, not concerned with image quality after a certain threshold has been reached. Exceptions exist but the argument stands.

Journalism, of the day-to-day sort (and I'm leaving out long-term photo essays which, while most certainly journalism, may require a different approach), has also gone SLR. This may have been due to the fact that the agencies often supplied gear and, when looking to system cameras and cost, Japanese SLRs came out the winner. For the freelancer cost is always a factor.

Something else happened before all of this. When Leica built their beautiful Barnacks they established their flange-to-film distances. They optimized the form factor for portability without having to deal with a mirror. They built a peerless camera for film. Perhaps the fact that the long lenses of the day were astronomical instruments nearly always focused at what was, for all intents and purposes, infinity, and which came with their own putative viewfinders contributed to the embrasure of the rangefinder mechanism as a focus-confirmation device with its bias toward focal lengths of 50mm and less.

So Leica, with the best information available to them, and using the best materials and workmanship, made their design choices and stuck to them. The pinnacle of picture-taking machines in 35mm film is the result. They might have anticipated the arrival of electronic imaging back in the early part of the 20th century, but they can hardly be blamed for not having done so. That they chose an even shorter register when they changed their mount merely reflected their commitment to their customer's investment in Leitz legacy lenses.

SLR makers, and I'm really only familiar with Nikon from a professional user perspective, saw the opportunity to build true system cameras for less cost using optics that would meet the resolving power of 35mm film. A few Leicas have passed through my hands and if I only shot wide-to-standard lengths, I'd still have them. But working in macro, sports, covert documentation/surveillance with long lenses, just left the Leica system not necessarily behind but an awkward fit. Then again, there is an editor who is still laughing about my first use of a 250 exposure back on a Nikon. Factor the difference in cost and the availability of spares and it was a done deal. Yes, the SLR camera was a little bigger (a lot bigger, in some cases) and certainly noisier, but it did everything well from macro to telephoto. It was the jack of most trades and perhaps the master of the telephoto. Aesthetically, it was never a match for the beauty of the Wetzlar wonder.

So SLR manufacturers used a mirror and prism and thus a longer flange-to-film distance. This is where the evolutionary path forks, at least in my mind. Nikon in particular has had an amazing record of forward-engineering their gear. But did they anticipate the onset of electronic imaging? We may never know. They may have, as their decisions about form factor were made a lot later than Leica's were and squarely in the middle of the electronic age. Nevertheless, electronic imaging currently requires a light path that is closer to the perpendicular with reference to the film plane than film does. The SLR with its large register provided that. The Leica with the comparatively small flange-to-film distance does not. At least, not currently. Until sensors become as 'shallow' as film, accepting off-axis light paths to a greater degree than they do now, the 1.33 FOV remains a reality.

A lurking contextual factor in this discussion may be film format as well. In 35mm film and in standard to short focal lengths, Leica may well be king. But it doesn't do long focal lengths well or handle follow-focus in professional sports shooting. The SLR does. Aside from the aesthetic appeal of a Leica (film or digital), there are many manufacturers who build excellent cameras whose optics far outstrip the capabilities of 35mm film. However, small format (35mm, DX, FX etc), despite the efforts of Leitz and Nikkor et al, in squeezing out the best results from a very small film space, is not ultimately about image quality, it is about portability and speed with the best image quality available for the 35mm format. That plays to the journalistic usage. That said, photographers not directly concerned with deadlines or portability will use formats because of the very limitations or other attributes of those formats and use those in the creation of a work much the same way a painter might choose acrylic over oil or watercolor. Or a sketchbook. But unless the photographer (artist or not) is deliberately looking for image breakdown in the creation of large works, say prints 30 inches on a side and bigger, they will use, again generally speaking, larger formats - the production of which becomes less portable, less quick, and certainly more obtrusive.

Even Nikon in their print ads uses medium format digital to do product shots. But that's not journalism.

The M8 - and to qualify, I don't own one, I've only played with one - will continue to shine where the sole concern is not image quality - a scanned 35mm neg will blow any current 24x36mm or smaller sensor away. It will continue to shine where its basic attributes allow it to function well: portability, the creation of images where the photographer desires the rangefinder compositional experience, works in-close, wants the small form factor, already owns or has access to fantastic lenses, needs the digital workflow, and, perhaps more importantly, where a genteel content/context is appreciated. tmfabian's post (#4) is an example. Though I would suggest that it was not solely the size of the camera that got him the job. Perhaps he was a kinder, more open individual than other photographers with whom the family recently had experience.

I know of a few PJs who have used digital point & shoots - Majoli comes to mind - because they are even quieter (= less obtrusive) than the M8 and offer fantastic depth of field with their small geometery. But again, his work is not in the obsessive pursuit of image quality. The distinguishing factor in his work is the content. Again, this small-sensor technology fails us in high ISO situations.

So, to the first question, I think yes, the rangefinder will survive in the photojournalist's world simply because there are photojournalists using them in some capacity whether it is because they have an investment in glass and bodies and see no reason to do sports or use very long lenses at less than infinity focus or because it is simply their preference to use a rangefinder-viewfinder compositional approach. There is irony of course in the fact that the widest lenses are not rangefinder coupled due to the massive DoF and auxiliary finders are as often used as not when composing very close to the subject. I regularly use the 17mm and 28mm lengths in rangefinder and SLR bodies and I know what those lenses 'see' without having to put the camera to my face. Or my face to the camera.

The M8 was the solution for Leica users who needed or wanted to transition to digital and wanted a body that was built to the same standards as previous M Leicas. Whether or not they achieved that is yet another debate but it was the only solution that didn't involve going to a different manufacturer. Decidedly a compromise, in my mind. Image quality and access to the shorter focal lengths is restricted.

Nevertheless, the rangefinder remains superior in close-in wide-angle work - until you get very close - and then it doesn't need to due to the massive DoF of wide-angle lenses . Or can't due to the whole macro issue. For anything that doesn't require the portability of the smaller format, and image quality is a prime requirement, use medium or large format. In film. A glance at what pro landscape shooters are using tells the story.

So, to the second question we may borrow from the first answer. The M8 will continue to shine for users who have the lenses, work in reasonable light, the medium-wide to normal focal lengths, and where content is paramount and a balance between portability and image quality may be struck and the best resolution from superb small-form optics and the rangefinder compositional experience coupled with the digital workflow is desired.

On a philosophy of design level, the M8 is yesterday's news due to the rapid depreciation of electronic technolgy. But on a very practical level, if you already own a film M, and if you already own Leitz lenses, and you have embraced the digital workflow, then it's the best camera in the world because it's the one you have at hand. Regardless of its perceived quirks, advantages, or shortcomings.

Best in the new year,

S

[digitalintrigue]

A big answer to the big question, but well worth the read....thanks...

[Al Kaplan]

Yes, a good read indeed. He covered it all. Thanks, sonofdanang.

[emraphoto]

well said sonofdanag.

if i might offer my experience... i shot daily press, wire service and documentary work on an m8 for a year and a half. when called upon the m8 produced very nice files and as a whole i was pleased with it. what i couldn't justify was having so much dough sunk into a system that was largely unsupported in my opinion. i had experienced a leicausa nightmare and i couldn't shake it. i am not entirely convinced the rangefinder is hindered solely by it's form... the company philosophy and approach to support seems to have a large roll to play in the feasibility of the rf as a tool for working photographers and somehow leica has lost sight of this.

[photogdave]

i am not entirely convinced the rangefinder is hindered solely by it's form... the company philosophy and approach to support seems to have a large roll to play in the feasibility of the rf as a tool for working photographers and somehow leica has lost sight of this.

Good point.

[aizan]

1) yes, if the m9 is full frame and has a low noise sensor.
2) pretty much the same, except only when the light is bright.

in the most recent issue of "fashion magazine", lise sarfati has a photo of her m8 sporting the 35/2.5 summarit. a few pages later, there's a photo of her canon 1ds with the 50/1.2L. interesting, huh? :D

[furcafe]

On this side-topic, David Burnett was recently reminiscing about the attached photo from 1977 (which came up on the occasion of the Obama daughters's 1st day of school in DC). In response to the questions "Where are the Leicas? Were they out-of-date already?," Dave responded:

the Leicas werent really out of date, but they were slightly more INconvenient.. AP's Chick Harrity carried 4 M4s... and many of us had one M4 /35mm with tri x always handy.. we always had that one B/w camera no matter what happened with the color reflex cameras.



But, you're right. Most of the White House guys used SLR's. One of the killer shooters was Frank Cancellari, the senior UPI photographer. The first time I walked into the press room, he looked up and said, "What do you know that these guys don't?" I had no idea what he was talking about until he waved the Leica around his neck at me. We were the only rangefinders in the room.

At times, when a lot of magazines were at the White House, you saw more rangefinders. For the set ups, which were what you were supposed to photograph, there was no need for a rangefinder. But when you looked outside of those for the little unexpected moments, that rangefinder paid off.

Bill

[furcafe]

IMHO, this is an important point, putting aside the technical problems of making a full-frame digital RF. I agree that RFs excel for close-range (&, yes, discrete) documentary & PJ shooting, but since most working photographers have a limited equipment budget, unless a RF is relatively inexpensive (unlike Leica), that advantage isn't great enough that many will add 1 to their toolbox. Their existing SLR, which they need for the bulk of their work, is good enough.

The situation was different in the pre-digital era because many shooters either already had RF bodies & lenses or they could easily get affordable used equipment (e.g., if you couldn't afford even used Leica, you could pick up a Canon RF or fixed-lens RF). Currently, there is no affordable digital RF on the market, new or used, that would fill the niche. Makes me think that there is an opening for something like a digital Hexar AF.


Leica can shine in non rushed PJ work or documentary where you can get close to the subject. Security issues today have everyone back 40 feet requiring 300 2.8 lenses. I think this effectively kills RF for most news work.

[pachuco]

I can honestly say that in the past 3 years of PJ work, I have never seen a press photographer using a rangefinder camera. Even the old timers use the newest DSLR's that they can afford. I'm talking about at a press event, not long term doc work. That seems to be the dividing line. It is still acceptable and in some cases better received if long term projects are shot on film. And if shot with a Leica...well, you just bumped up the price of your book by 20% :cool:

IMHO, this is an important point, putting aside the technical problems of making a full-frame digital RF. I agree that RFs excel for close-range (&, yes, discrete) documentary & PJ shooting, but since most working photographers have a limited equipment budget, unless a RF is relatively inexpensive (unlike Leica), that advantage isn't great enough that many will add 1 to their toolbox. Their existing SLR, which they need for the bulk of their work, is good enough.

The situation was different in the pre-digital era because many shooters either already had RF bodies & lenses or they could easily get affordable used equipment (e.g., if you couldn't afford even used Leica, you could pick up a Canon RF or fixed-lens RF). Currently, there is no affordable digital RF on the market, new or used, that would fill the niche. Makes me think that there is an opening for something like a digital Hexar AF.

[Bill Pierce]

I want to thank everybody who is taking part in this thread. It is dealing with a subject that normally brings out the worst behavior and some of the most amazing displays of hostile ignorance on the internet. I see none of that, absolutely none. I see an intelligent and civil discussion that could actually inform. We all owe sonofdanang for his long and informative post.

As a rather trivial aside, the comparison between "sharpness" of 35mm film and digital cameras that imitate their film predecessors - it's a jungle out there. Some of us have a small idea of the many, many factors that contribute to a film image's sharpness at creation and on its way to becoming a viewable image. Now add pixels, aliasing, constant changes e.t.c. to the mix and "sharpness" becomes so complex that Leitz's old technique of puttting pictures up in the cafeteria and asking the employees to rate their quality begins to make real sense. One of the advantages of digital is that the midground resoluions that play such a big part in our impression of sharpness can be enhanced so that a variety of lenses will look very good. One of it's disadvantages is that it takes a very good system to preserve the extremely fine detail that some lenses can deliver. Right now, just looking at pictures, I would say that if you own top of the line digital gear, digital is going to be better than 35mm film at high ISO's down to 400. And below those speeds - well, I don't go there anymore. If I want more than 35mm HP5, XP2 or Tri give me, my tendency is to use medium format, 4x5 or 8x10. And, yes, the 8x10 is sharper than the M6, the M8, the 5D Mark II, e.t.c., e.tc.......

[sonofdanang]

Thank you, everybody, for the gracious comments regarding my post but, Bill, it is not I who am owed - It was you who posed the questions. That made those of us who are interested think. Always the best way to inform, I think. Er...

I don't know why I've never thought of putting a BL finder in the SLR hot shoe!! I discovered RF cameras in the 70s via a 4x5 with a Kalart(?). My preferred compositional experience is through a BL finder but I never thought of exporting it to the SLR. I guess I just gutted it out every time I stared down that tunnel at what can only be described, especially in less-than-full-frame dSLRs, as a tiny frustrating rectangle of something. Going back to a film SLR after using the digital was such a relief and going to the RF was even more so. But I never made the leap. I scale focus a lot already and after reading your post I started playing. Thank you.

Re the not-so-trivial aside: "...the many, many factors that contribute to a film image's sharpness at creation..." I couldn't agree with you more. In my work, most times I find sharpness compromised by me. Never the gear. The lenses are fine. The cameras are fine. Mis-applied technique or abject unpreparedness is usually the culprit. And, while content has always reigned over all else for me, there are some instances where one of the measures of an image's success will be its sharpness.

I'm curious about the Leitz Cafeteria technique. Am I to understand that most people, even the technocrats, responded to the content rather than the technical measurement of an image? Or am I missing the point?

Best,

S

[Bill Pierce]

I'm curious about the Leitz Cafeteria technique. Am I to understand that most people, even the technocrats, responded to the content rather than the technical measurement of an image? Or am I missing the point?

Best,

S

Leitz had some amazing laboratory tools for analyzing lens performance including a large optical bench that when a door in the lab that housed it was opened pointed out to the distant landscape. But the type of tests that you run in a lab tend to pinpoint specific aberrations to rapidly deliver information to a designer.

To judge the overall performance for a variety of picture situations a lot of the people there felt it was best to shoot a variety of pictures. That takes a lot of time and it doesn't really tell you why the lens is doing well in certain situations. But a lot of folks at the old Wetzlar plant felt it really told you whether you had made a good lens or not.

[sonofdanang]

The more that I hear of the methodology at Leitz, the greater my respect. A kind of truth/beauty quotient as a last check of a lens's aesthetic. I would like to see some of the photographs!

Metta,

S

[dseelig]

Hi Bill
Nice to be quoted. For me the major benefit of the M8 is people stay more natural then pointing a big old dslr at them, it is still less intimadating. The bad news the low light quality is a little rough. A rrangefinder digital will survive but the Leica needs a major upgrade and leica needs to upgrade there service for amatuer shooters, otherwise it might go away. If leica knows your a pro there service is fine.

[emraphoto]

Hi Bill
Nice to be quoted. For me the major benefit of the M8 is people stay more natural then pointing a big old dslr at them, it is still less intimadating. The bad news the low light quality is a little rough. A rrangefinder digital will survive but the Leica needs a major upgrade and leica needs to upgrade there service for amatuer shooters, otherwise it might go away. If leica knows your a pro there service is fine.

i am sorry to quibble but that was definately not my experience with leicausa...