PDA

View Full Version : How much is enough? Which Leica?


dave lackey
06-04-2016, 05:49
IIRC, it was Roger Hicks who first enlightened me on the wisdom of purchasing useful, but beautiful things. I forget the reference... But the idea of making one's functional purchases both useful and aesthetically pleasing strikes an enduring chord with me.

"The simple life" also strikes me as a wonderful way of living while giving one a lot of choices based on one's own desires and needs. Leica has a history of being able to fulfill both the functional/aesthetic values and the simpleness of living in the world of photography with a manual camera. At least the film Leicas but I am not so sure about the latest digital offerings. Still, to me, Leica has a draw that is counter to the high-tech contemporary environment around us.

Each morning, I spend a couple of hours of quiet time before the chaos of each day begins. Relaxing, meditating, praying, cursing, writing, or observing the darkness and dawning of the new day, and sometimes simply going with the thought of the moment. Today, I wondered... is there someone out there actually happy with enough? What is enough? What would that person's life look like? A single scenario of many possibilities:

A person living from one day to the next with few assets or possessions and no permanent home of his own, possibly driving a modest means of transportation, retired or working a part-time job, has what would be considered a simple life. Not that this scenario is recommended for self-enlightenment, but as an example, this person may be a fellow photographer. One who enjoys the passion of photography and enjoys the use of a Leica... his only camera in a bag with a couple of lenses.

Pure reduction to the basics of life with just enough? This may be a life with few stresses from the complex society around him but one filled with a passion for capturing the beauty of the world he lives in and sharing with other people just to see them smile.

Which Leica would he most likely use? Please note that I have reduced the gear of choice to Leica only for a reason. No need to bring in other brands for this discussion.

What do you think of a one-Leica life and the gear of choice while living on quite modest means? Would he/she shoot film or digital? M2, M3, or newer? M8, M9 or a later digital camera?:confused:

Rob-F
06-04-2016, 06:04
Sounds like a description of me when I was 21 years old! I had bought an M2 with a 35/2.8 Summaron and 90mm Elmarit. I had a Weston meter, and I was all set, with no need for anything more. My outfit was small and portable, though limited. But by the time I was 30, I added a Nikkormat and a Hasselblad. And with time, more Nikons, more Leicas, more Hasselblads, more lenses.

Would I go back? Well, no, but when flying or traveling light in the car, I might just take two Leicas (last time it was an M6 & M7) with 5 lenses, plus a D-Lux 6 and an X20. Oh, I almost forgot: I had the SWC along. The digitals were for a wedding, and the film gear was for Gettysburg.

Honest, I am trying to lighten up. But first, I must purchase some more lenses . . .

splitimageview
06-04-2016, 06:10
Seriously?

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 06:10
Oh, to be clear, the simple life can range from a very modest life to one that I imagine every time I listen to one of my favorites by Stephen Stills, "Southern Cross"...

Clearly, I see the simple life as what goes on between one's ears, not based on the size of the wallet. One man's ability to simplify life may be easier with wealth while another man may be overwhelmed with it. I sometimes just wonder about how much is enough gear while making aesthetic choices.

As I get older, my needs are changing. AF is slowly replacing MF to a degree. But Leica has no affordable AF system. Then life gets less simple living with Leica.

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 06:12
Seriously?

Quite...;)

Larry Cloetta
06-04-2016, 06:21
Dave,

Beautiful thoughts in a world which increasingly works against this kind of thinking, in which we find ourselves not only distracted, but distracted from our distractions.
The man who can say he has "enough", has something which few people will ever have. He has peace.

Thanks for the musings.

Larry

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 06:32
Sounds like a description of me when I was 21 years old! I had bought an M2 with a 35/2.8 Summaron and 90mm Elmarit. I had a Weston meter, and I was all set, with no need for anything more. My outfit was small and portable, though limited. But by the time I was 30, I added a Nikkormat and a Hasselblad. And with time, more Nikons, more Leicas, more Hasselblads, more lenses.

Would I go back? Well, no, but when flying or traveling light in the car, I might just take two Leicas (last time it was an M6 & M7) with 5 lenses, plus a D-Lux 6 and an X20. Oh, I almost forgot: I had the SWC along. The digitals were for a wedding, and the film gear was for Gettysburg.

Honest, I am trying to lighten up. But first, I must purchase some more lenses . . .

Rob,

You are absolutely correct, when I was 21, I was working as an engineer, having been out of university for a couple of years and newly married. Living in an apartment and using an old P&S camera. Life was simple. Life was all passion.

Life is no longer simple and passion has pretty much taken the last train for the coast. The station is empty and the shadows grow long.

Truly a life without passion is unbearable... perhaps it is a good thing to simplify life and focus on the important things. If photography is an art of reduction, then maybe life should reflect the same.

It seems to me that the Leica M-A fits the requirements for a simple life and is just enough. Lenses are another matter altogether.

nobbylon
06-04-2016, 07:02
Dave,
asking this question here is going to get the usual same recommendations. Why would a man living a simple life use an expensive camera anyway? It all sounds a bit contradictive and confused to me. I agree that a person with no goals, no wish for material goods is probably less stressed than his counterpart however if you wish to have choice then you lead a different kind of life. The romantic idea of being happy with just one camera and lens is Imho exactly that. Seriously the comment that the M-A fits the requirements for a simple life could have been written by an ad man wearing rose tints!
I've got nothing against living simply but talking Leica in the same sentence is just not going to fly,
regards john

NeeZee
06-04-2016, 07:26
How about this one?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.de/images/6/6e/AF-C1.jpg

For a simple life without having to think about stressful things like lenses or metering ;)

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 07:49
How about this one?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.de/images/6/6e/AF-C1.jpg

For a simple life without having to think about stressful things like lenses or metering ;)

Interesting, but the aesthetics do not meet the criteria for selecting a Leica in the first place...for me, anyway.:rolleyes:

Larry Cloetta
06-04-2016, 07:52
<snip> Why would a man living a simple life use an expensive camera anyway? <snip>....Seriously the comment that the M-A fits the requirements for a simple life could have been written by an ad man wearing rose tints!
I've got nothing against living simply but talking Leica in the same sentence is just not going to fly

Inexpensive does not mean simple. Expensive does not mean not simple. Simplicity has absolutely nothing to do with cost.

Someone who has permanently limited himself, with the difficult-for-most-of-us mindset, to an M-A with one lens, with the frame of mind Dave has described, has a simple photographic/life experience. (Or, can have if he is centered enough as a person.....that's the hard part)

Someone who has 12 YashicaMats, 9 Spotmatics with 18 m42 lenses, and 45 Zorkis, 5 of which are working and 40 of which he needs to repair when he has time, who is forever trying to decide which one he needs to take with him today (See: favorite rff anxiety question---"I am going into the next room, which camera should I take???)---- this person has less money tied up in gear, but his experience is anything but simple.

True, someone with the wherewithal to purchase an M-A likely has the money to buy more lenses, and the problem of succumbing to temptation, and loss of the benefits of simplicity creeps in.
Someone who only owns and shoots with one Olympus XA soon discovers he can easily own 8 more, and does. Simple becomes not simple.

It's like the people you find along rural roads in America, living in a trailer with 8 rusted Volkswagons in the yard. They might have been happy with the one, but, no, they now have 8 to deal with.
It's how people are. Most of us understand, on some level, that we would be happier if life were simpler, as Dave alluded to, but we don't have the courage to let go. Mt 19:22 "And when the young man heard that saying he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions." :)

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 08:01
Dave,
asking this question here is going to get the usual same recommendations. Why would a man living a simple life use an expensive camera anyway? It all sounds a bit contradictive and confused to me. I agree that a person with no goals, no wish for material goods is probably less stressed than his counterpart however if you wish to have choice then you lead a different kind of life. The romantic idea of being happy with just one camera and lens is Imho exactly that. Seriously the comment that the M-A fits the requirements for a simple life could have been written by an ad man wearing rose tints!
I've got nothing against living simply but talking Leica in the same sentence is just not going to fly,
regards john

Why would a man living a simple life use an expensive camera?:p
It depends on your definition of a simple life as I mentioned above. A wealthy person can live a simple life and can certainly afford a Leica. A poor man, like me, can own a Leica or two... what is wrong with that? Are you saying that simple and poor excludes Leica ownership?

My question, as mentioned above, is what Leica would a simple person use for less stress whether it be computers, initial cost, software, chemicals for film devloping, space, etc.

Yes, it is a contrast! But equating a simple life with wealth (money) is not quite the direction I would choose. I apologize if the OP is confusing because it is not a mainstream topic, people just don't think of living simply or passionately, it is much different than that.... but there is no reason a passionate photographer living modestly cannot buy a Leica to use because he feels it is aesthetically appealing, ergonomically satisfying, and lasts a lifetime (debatable).

It is a struggle for me to buy film or even develop my own.Yet, I shoot my M6 and my Nikon F6 and give the images away to people who appreciate them. I have not had a paycheck since 2008. Nor do I own real property. Does that mean I should not use a nice M6? Does it mean I do not have goals? Passion is my number one personal goal at the moment whether it be just getting out of the house to shoot, or to donate a piece of art to the hospital.

So, yes, you are correct, it isn't going to fly on RFF.... or maybe it will, who knows unless the question is asked?:angel:

What Leica is enough?

nobbylon
06-04-2016, 08:14
Agreed on most of what you say Larry. My Dad always asks why I have multiple cameras when all he needed was one with a 50. My reply is usually 'because I can', not because of wealth but because film cameras are in general cheap compaired to what they used to be. This allows gear heads like myself and plenty here to experiment and find what suits best but sometimes one gets carried away. I've simplified myself to a large extent by selling nearly everything I don't use however I still have half a dozen film cameras I rarely use and a D700 that hasn't shot a frame since my M9P purchase. I've been out with the FM2 today just for fun and do like having a choice but in the end none of it is needed. My Dad's old Tl electro and 50 would get pretty similar results.

Hern
06-04-2016, 08:16
It's a very simple choice for me.

I'm a 50mm shooter, with very little 28mm work as a way of catching a breather, so the M3 is the only Leica body I own. I have two lenses, a compact 50mm Elmar, and the fast 50mm f1.5 Nokton. I'm hoping on replacing both with a compromise of the two, a V4 cron.

One body one lens, that is my final goal with my gear.

nobbylon
06-04-2016, 08:19
In that case Dave get an M4 and an M9 for less than the price of an M-A. One film, one digital or would that be too complicated? :)

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 08:30
In that case Dave get an M4 and an M9 for less than the price of an M-A. One film, one digital or would that be too complicated? :)

Wonderful! A recommendation and worthy of consideration! I do fancy a single camera ownership again...for some reason, I never thought of an M4. Hmmm. An M9...I dunno...always wanted one of those.

As much as I love my mint M6 with Big Logo, I can't see myself throwing it in a bag for a couple of hard weeks shooting in all kinds of environments. But, maybe it is enough in itself.

Then again, a brass black body Leica M camera... might be cool to put some character marks on it.:angel:

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 08:32
It's a very simple choice for me.

I'm a 50mm shooter, with very little 28mm work as a way of catching a breather, so the M3 is the only Leica body I own. I have two lenses, a compact 50mm Elmar, and the fast 50mm f1.5 Nokton. I'm hoping on replacing both with a compromise of the two, a V4 cron.

One body one lens, that is my final goal with my gear.

Dang, I wish I were that resolute... sounds cool like when I got my first Nikon FM 36 years ago... no thinking, just grab and go.

Larry Cloetta
06-04-2016, 08:36
My Dad always asks why I have multiple cameras when all he needed was one with a 50.

Not listening to our dads, that's where most of our problems start!

It was ever thus.

splitimageview
06-04-2016, 08:36
Quite...;)


A person living from one day to the next with few assets or possessions and no permanent home of his own, possibly driving a modest means of transportation, retired or working a part-time job, has what would be considered a simple life. Not that this scenario is recommended for self-enlightenment, but as an example, this person may be a fellow photographer. One who enjoys the passion of photography and enjoys the use of a Leica... his only camera in a bag with a couple of lenses.

Sounds contrived. No home, but a Leica with a couple of lenses?

Enjoying a simple life doesn't require any particular brand of anything...more than likely it's the absence of branding that enhances the simplicity...

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 08:38
Inexpensive does not mean simple. Expensive does not mean not simple. Simplicity has absolutely nothing to do with cost.

Someone who has permanently limited himself, with the difficult-for-most-of-us mindset, to an M-A with one lens, with the frame of mind Dave has described, has a simple photographic/life experience. (Or, can have if he is centered enough as a person.....that's the hard part)

Someone who has 12 YashicaMats, 9 Spotmatics with 18 m42 lenses, and 45 Zorkis, 5 of which are working and 40 of which he needs to repair when he has time, who is forever trying to decide which one he needs to take with him today (See: favorite rff anxiety question---"I am going into the next room, which camera should I take???)---- this person has less money tied up in gear, but his experience is anything but simple.

True, someone with the wherewithal to purchase an M-A likely has the money to buy more lenses, and the problem of succumbing to temptation, and loss of the benefits of simplicity creeps in.
Someone who only owns and shoots with one Olympus XA soon discovers he can easily own 8 more, and does. Simple becomes not simple.

It's like the people you find along rural roads in America, living in a trailer with 8 rusted Volkswagons in the yard. They might have been happy with the one, but, no, they now have 8 to deal with.
It's how people are. Most of us understand, on some level, that we would be happier if life were simpler, as Dave alluded to, but we don't have the courage to let go. Mt 19:22 "And when the young man heard that saying he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions." :)


Larry, I love your analogy.:cool:

My first car was a 62 Beetle. Loving symmetry in life, and contrasts, I would love to have another vintage VW. But only ONE!:p

David Hughes
06-04-2016, 08:46
Hi,

Simple life to me doesn't mean cameras or just a camera. It's all the baggage that comes with it that's the problem. You know, computers, printers, ink cartridges, or labs, transport to labs and so on and so forth.

Regards, David

splitimageview
06-04-2016, 08:49
Perhaps reply to the thoughts about simplicity rather than resort to accusations....

farlymac
06-04-2016, 08:50
Cost is relative when simplifying things.

You can buy an inexpensive camera, only to have it break down all the time, costing money in either repairs or replacement.

You can also buy an expensive camera and two or three equally expensive lenses, or buy twenty pieces of lesser cost gear for the same money.

Simplification is also relative to the type of photography one does. It might be simpler for someone who is interested in taking all sorts of photos to have the gear that will help them accomplish their vision, which one camera and two or three lenses just isn't going to get it.

I'm simplifying by returning to my roots, and getting back to using mostly one camera brand for each format (Nikon for 35mm, Rollei for 6x6, Zeiss for larger MF folders), though I will admit to a recent purchase of a Leica R3 because I want to be able to use the lenses. More of a boutique brand to me, as I'm not a pro by any definition (I was having a "Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz" moment).

Some day I see myself going the one camera, two or three lens route. But hopefully not too soon. I do have a day bag with just that set-up though.

PF

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 08:57
Perhaps reply to the thoughts about simplicity rather than resort to accusations....

OK, I posted two positive well-meaning threads and you have brought up arguments and negativity on both of them. You may start your own thread. Your negativity is NOT welcome on this one.

Nowhereman
06-04-2016, 08:58
Absurd premise for the consumerism that shines through this.

Simplicity? Almost any good digital P&S — look at Moriyama. You obviously already have a computer on which you can post process.

Once you start talking about an M-A or an M4, you have to decide on where you buy film and its availability when you travel, whether you develop it or have it done, and how you print it (digitally or nor). And even just to show it on the web you have to scan; if you won't have expensive darkroom prints made you also have to scan — and today there simply is no good scanning solution for prints over 4x6 or 5x7 inches without serious complications or extensive costs. So there's no simplicity in this solution.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine (http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2016/05/mitch-alland-alone-in-bangkok/)

Ko.Fe.
06-04-2016, 09:06
Where I live cost of living on retirement and othewr factors leaves no choice, but digital P&S.
I see it happening even with George Zimbel and Fred Herzog. Lecia and film shooters in the past, non Leica digital P&S users as of now.

splitimageview
06-04-2016, 09:10
Thank you.

Any P&S can provide great images and is the definition of simplicity, if that's the goal.

If you want an M-A just buy one and be done with it. No need for the unicorn and rainbow wrapping paper. :)

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 09:15
Thank you.

Any P&S can provide great images and is the definition of simplicity, if that's the goal.

If you want an M-A just buy one and be done with it. No need for the unicorn and rainbow wrapping paper. :)

And thank you for a more "on-point" response... hopefully we can move forward with more civility and respect. I will do my part!

agricola
06-04-2016, 09:18
Dave, love your approach to the early morning.
Your thoughts made me think of Jack Reacher with a camera ...
I think he'd select the M4 - nothing to go wrong barring mechanical failure - framlines for the 35 lenses - so no need for external finders.
He'd shoot any film he could get cheap - including expired and 2nd hand.
And he'd develop in coffee to save cash.
As for scanning or printing - well ... there are options open to a guy like Jack.

P.S. my location right now is Bordeaux, and I've just finished reading a Jack Reacher novel - that should explain a lot ;-)

dave lackey
06-04-2016, 09:25
Where I live cost of living on retirement and othewr factors leaves no choice, but digital P&S.
I see it happening even with George Zimbel and Fred Herzog. Lecia and film shooters in the past, non Leica digital P&S users as of now.

I understand your point. It also should be mentioned that AF and the aging factor are connected. I have no problem with developing my own film. I have a year supply of film in the freezer and tons of chemicals. My latest documentary is being done with the M6 and the F6. The best results have been with the F6 and I just donated a canvas to Emory Rehab Hospital. That piece of artwork was not possible with the M6, as much as I love it.

So, in a few years, I expect to be more/all/ AF than MF. But for awhile, I hope to use the LTM lenses because they are good, and the M body is more pleasing to use. Aesthetics, feel, etc., all part of the experience.

David is correct about the lack of simplicity in photography these days but with my buddy's lab, I can shoot, drop off the film and obtain what I need with no computer work. He can easily make minor adjustments if I ask.

So, yes, simplicity becomes a necessity, not just a luxury with each passing year. It is rather poignant that they will intersect at about the same time in life for me. All that is left is my bucket list of enjoying various gear before I settle on that one camera for the rest of the way.

mfogiel
06-04-2016, 09:54
First, you need to decide what your game is: what do you want to specialise in, photographically. Leica can be great for some types of photography, and not so great for others, plus if you stick to film, there is the issue of negative size. So, for example, if your game is street or generic people photography, including half body portraits, and you are happy with 30x45cm max output, I would stick to a film camera. If it is portraits only, then an M3 appears the logical choice, if it is mainly street, then M7 wins in my book. If you however like colour landscapes, then perhaps one of the latest digital versions would be much more practical. The key is to work from back to front: 1 - what type of output, 2- what style of photography, 3- given the previous two points, what type of camera.

David Hughes
06-05-2016, 02:19
Hi,

It's beginning to look like the M2 and a Weston (and an SLR and a compact P&S) for me but perhaps not for you. I picked the M2 because it doesn't need batteries and the framelines I use are built in.

Thinking about batteries leads me to something like the Olympus OM-1(N) which is mechanical but takes two SR44's for the metering but it's manual focus... OTOH, there's a lot of people out there who can repair it but I can't speak for other cameras.

My worry about AF is that it's electronic and electronics fail and that means death as no one seems able to repair them. I also wonder if the eyepiece and screens of MF cameras cause the problems some of us have. I've SLR's that are easy to focus and some that seem to be but are not.

I'll add that another advantage of SLR's is that you can stick one lens on them and never bother about another for most of your shooting; that means something like a 28-90mm with close up ability.

And, of course, for real simplicity I'd stick to B&W but that still means a darkroom or some super expensive scanner, or else B&W slides but that's starting to get complicated again.

I don't think there's a simple answer to what seems a simple problem and I've not even gone down the Trip35, XA1 & XA2 path yet but they have advantages.

Regards, David

michaelwj
06-05-2016, 02:42
The simple life would not involve photography. Of all the pastimes to choose, there is so much extra stuff to go with it. One camera and lens? A film camera and we add in all the developing and printing equipment plus a darkroom. Don't forget mountains of negatives. Digital and we add in a computer and printer, and mountains of hard drives, batteries and whatever.
Simple life?
Try running. A pair of shoes* and a pair of shorts and the ground.

*shoes are optional.

dave lackey
06-05-2016, 04:21
The simple life would not involve photography. Of all the pastimes to choose, there is so much extra stuff to go with it. One camera and lens? A film camera and we add in all the developing and printing equipment plus a darkroom. Don't forget mountains of negatives. Digital and we add in a computer and printer, and mountains of hard drives, batteries and whatever.
Simple life?
Try running. A pair of shoes* and a pair of shorts and the ground.

*shoes are optional.

Yep, did the running thing then after years that evolved to walking 5miles a day and cycling another hour. Great thing to do! But not so much for art...

Simplicity, as Larry says is not reduction to nothing or as close as possible to nothing... It means, to me at least, reduction of anything that complicates life, duplicates existing things or processes, or otherwise makes focus on life and the important things difficult.

I cannot think of anything more along the lines of simplicity and elegance than my good friend, Boris with his M2. He carries the M2 to the jungles of Malaysia and to the streets of Europe with ease. His results are amazing. His interaction with the people is enviable and I am forever impressed with his sharing and helping those whom he befriends along the way.

Truly, shooting film is pretty simple. Then he develops and makes his own prints in a darkroom. Complex? Yes. Simple? Not for me but it is for him with a perfected workflow. He is very efficient on top of being very creative. So, simplicity does not have to be void of complexity or even technology.

The M2/3/MP/M-A approach seems to be the preferred route for me.

Digital... never say never. So, I won't.

RFF is such a wonderful place to be, meeting interesting and learning from their wealth of knowledge. Thanks to all.:)

tunalegs
06-05-2016, 04:43
If one truly appreciated simplicity, I doubt a Leica would be the camera of their choice.

dave lackey
06-05-2016, 04:57
If one truly appreciated simplicity, I doubt a Leica would be the camera of their choice.

Ah... Back to work for me so I must go...maybe tomorrow we can delve further. However, the reason Leica is the only brand selection, subjective, yes, with the original premise of simplicity with... Aesthetics and elegance. I have owned six Leicas over the years and I find that Leica M bodies fit the premise of simple and beautiful better than any other camera.

Truth be known... My favorite all-time camera is the black FM3a I had to sell. It is my favorite for reasons that are hard to quantify. I am excluding that selection from this discussion for my own reasons unrelated to this discussion.

Which Leica? It is an interesting question isn't it?:p

jojoman2
06-05-2016, 05:05
I find that when I'm the least creative, I'm the most interested in acquiring more gear. When I'm making photographs I'm pleased with on a fairly consistent basis, I couldn't care less about buying more cameras. That said, I already have an mp with .58 vf and a 28mm summicron--the only upgrade I could possibly make from that is to sell the old summicron and pick up the newly redesigned one. I'm not that fanatical about leica to do that. I never take more than one camera and one lens with me anyway.

I don't buy the 1 camera 1 lens thing. I'm lucky enough to have been able to have afford a medium format camera as well. There are days when I feel like shooting at a more relaxed pace, and medium format, for me at least, is more about letting the picture come to you. Smaller cameras, for me, are more about capturing spontaneity. In the words of Bruce Gilden, "Using a small camera makes you a sneak." If you are more into the meditation of photography, why not look into medium format? Fuji knocked it out of the park with the gf670w, and a wide angle rolleiflex is a beautiful, functional creature. Does your kind of photography really require the extra mobility a leica provides? Think about the perks of medium format, too.

To answer your initial question though, "which one." My vote goes for the M2 or M4. Both are extremely well built, feel just SO satisfying in your hand.

jojoman2
06-05-2016, 06:26
As a personal aside, I admire your morning routine, and I think your quest to simplify is admirable, as well.

MikeDimit
06-05-2016, 06:42
Simple life starts when you realize that you are no longer in position to have to prove anything to anybody. And that means to yourself also. So after that point life is simple and careless. Before it you will keep searching and satisfying needs that are not really yours.So K.I.S.S. :-)

zerobuttons
06-05-2016, 07:09
Dave,

I probably haven´t got an adequate answer to the last question in your first posting. I believe that both choices - digital and film - sooner and later would make the choice of gear less than simple to work with. Film, because of ever fewer places selling film and developing equipment (including chemicals). Digital, because of the hassle with white balance, making sure you have spare batteries and that they are charged, etc.

Until recently, I used only a Leica MP (2003) with Summicron 35 and 90. Because of the hassle of traveling with film, I bought an M-P 240 when I got the opportunity, financially. I found that because of that choice a lot of unexpected needs arose: backup harddrives, white balancing equipment, spare charger, etc.

The reason I post a reply, even though I lack a qualified answer, is your reference to useful, but beautiful things. Call it wisdom or not, I have the urge to acquire such things. I usually think of them as useful AND beautiful things. Furthermore, these things often tend to be over-engineered to a degree where you have no doubt that the manufacturer actually wanted it to last - and not only until the next iteration of the product emerges. So, here you may have a kind of an answer anyway: the kind of gear that would suit your imagined user, would probably be gear of this kind. Gear that doesn´t break down while on the road, or when you don´t have money for repair. Gear that just works as expected. If you add to that the specification that the gear also has to be design-wise pleasing to look at, I would say that any Leica M, whether film or digital, would fit the bill. Oh, and to that previous answer from another member, who claimed that using a Leica camera is the opposite of simplicity, I can only say that I completely disagree.

Steve M.
06-05-2016, 08:23
Tough question on this forum where there's collectors and lots of camera and lens hoarders, but since I am not that enthusiastic about rangefinders (like to take flower shots and portraits) my camera of choice would not even be a Leica. It would be either a Nikon N8008s or a Nikkormat, BUT w/ a Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit on it.

A little heavy, true, but my last setup was probably the best thing I will ever own for taking knock out gorgeous shots. The N8008s was especially nice, as a motorized AE camera w/ exposure lock is silly fast to shoot in stop down mode, and the 1/8000 top shutter speed was good for wide open head shots in sun even w/ Tri-X. The Nikkormat was a little slower to use and had a slower 1/1000 top speed, but Nikkormats are such cool cameras. That shutter sounds as good as a Leica, and they seem to be built just as solidly. Both can be purchased for peanuts. Still, what I like, you may not.

It doesn't matter which camera you use in the end, the lens is the thing, but having a fast-to-use camera w/ a bright, accurate viewfinder is a pleasure, and means you can get shots that other cameras can't deliver. I live a very simple, intentional life as a Zen practitioner, and last year sold all my cameras to go back to painting and drawing. The other driving force was to focus on darkroom printing these thousands of negs that have accumulated over the years. Might even have 10 or 15 keepers in there! There's been too much emphasis on image taking, now it's time to make the images.

nongfuspring
06-05-2016, 09:08
A little ironic that when talking about someone that is living the simple life unanchored by material trappings that we're talking about which high end boutique rangefinder they'd be most likely to own. Someone living one day to the next is not going to own a Leica at all.

Surely they'd just have whattever was given to them/inherited/picked up at a good price. Something that delivers without hassles, cheap to repair, cheaper to replace. Realistically today probably a digital, a 5d or similar, a Nikon FM if film.

Gregm61
06-05-2016, 09:33
Ah... Back to work for me so I must go...maybe tomorrow we can delve further. However, the reason Leica is the only brand selection, subjective, yes, with the original premise of simplicity with... Aesthetics and elegance. I have owned six Leicas over the years and I find that Leica M bodies fit the premise of simple and beautiful better than any other camera.

Truth be known... My favorite all-time camera is the black FM3a I had to sell. It is my favorite for reasons that are hard to quantify. I am excluding that selection from this discussion for my own reasons unrelated to this discussion.

Which Leica? It is an interesting question isn't it?:p

Currently owning an M262, an M9 that just received the new sensor and two film M's, an M4 and M6, if I had to live with just one, it's be the M262. No need or want for video/live view, etc and the menus are simple. There are few things one can mess up, assuming decent knowledge of centerweighted metering and what the user has to do to make it work in less than ideal light. It's basically a digital M6, at least as close to an M6 as a digital camera's going to get. After 4 months use, If there's bad image capture it's on me, not the camera.

Larry Cloetta
06-05-2016, 09:41
A little ironic that when talking about someone that is living the simple life unanchored by material trappings that we're talking about which high end boutique rangefinder they'd be most likely to own.


Simplicity still has nothing to do with cost. The equating of the two things, which has happened several times on this thread, and could probably have been avoided if one had read the OP with a little more understanding, is a form of logical non sequitur. People "living day to day" out of poverty and the lack of life's necessities....anyone who has ever been there will tell you that there is nothing simple about that.

Thoreau at Walden, on the other hand, was in no way impoverished, he had just chosen to live simply. If he had had an M-A with one lens with him to while away the time, instead of spending it planting corn, it would not have necessarily been any less simple a life. More so, as anyone who has ever tended a garden will understand.

The idea that two things, poverty and simplicity, can be found together does not mean that the first is a requisite for the second. Having one camera and one lens is simpler than having 4 cameras and 6 lenses. The cost of the cameras is immaterial.
Being "unanchored by material trappings" is related to the number of things one is forced to deal with on a daily basis, not what they cost originally.

robert blu
06-05-2016, 09:49
Hi Dave, interesting question in this thread, not "simple" to answer...I have to think more about...

I'm just back from a trip where i used my M7 and the 50 cron. It was simple enough.

robert
PS: but that was not the only camera I had with me...

hendriphile
06-05-2016, 11:45
If one truly appreciated simplicity, I doubt a Leica would be the camera of their choice.

Just sticking to photography… One of today's best known DSLRs has an instruction manual over 400 pages long (404 to be exact).

The Leica M3 manual is eight pages long.

BTW My first car was also a 62 beetle…loved it. The first beetle, I believe, to have a gas gauge! Talk about simplicity!

robert blu
06-05-2016, 12:08
BTW another beetle driver here, not first but my second car, I guess about '72/'73 ...hmmm I have to look in my archives for a photo...
robert

aizan
06-05-2016, 12:10
the image of the nomad is very romantic, and it appeals more to the wealthy or the aspirants of wealth these days. to truly challenge oneself, you must choose a camera with very low status and social currency, and commit to the everyday problems where you live, or else it is just a delusion of transformation and liberation.

*strokes beard thoughtfully*

megido
06-05-2016, 12:14
http://fotografiamagazine.com/letter-by-sergio-larrain-to-his-nephew/

nongfuspring
06-05-2016, 13:21
Simplicity still has nothing to do with cost. The equating of the two things, which has happened several times on this thread, and could probably have been avoided if one had read the OP with a little more understanding, is a form of logical non sequitur. People "living day to day" out of poverty and the lack of life's necessities....anyone who has ever been there will tell you that there is nothing simple about that.

Thoreau at Walden, on the other hand, was in no way impoverished, he had just chosen to live simply. If he had had an M-A with one lens with him to while away the time, instead of spending it planting corn, it would not have necessarily been any less simple a life. More so, as anyone who has ever tended a garden will understand.

The idea that two things, poverty and simplicity, can be found together does not mean that the first is a requisite for the second. Having one camera and one lens is simpler than having 4 cameras and 6 lenses. The cost of the cameras is immaterial.
Being "unanchored by material trappings" is related to the number of things one is forced to deal with on a daily basis, not what they cost originally.

Not sure how you understood "living day to day" then.

You might recall in Walden the first half of the book or so was devoted to economics; to Thoreau living simply meant spending a minimum of money so one would work less and live more "deliberately", he even goes as far as breaking down his monthly expenditures. Frugality to him was contiguous with freedom, because it meant less dependence on the world around him and more opportunity to take control of his own time. Perhaps if he were into photography he might have made his own pinhole or traded his excess potatoes for a broken camera that he would learn to fix himself, but to say Thoreau would wear rags, tilling dirt with a new M-A around his neck seems to miss the point of his writing entirely. The idea that the cost of one's possessions are "immaterial" could hardly be further from Thoreau's philosophy.

I've lived for 5 years on the road, living "simply" and traveling nearly non-stop. I enjoyed shooting Ms, but owning one as a primary camera was simply not practical; first there is the up front costs, then there's the potential repairs which would mean weeks if not months of not having a camera, let alone the unexpected expense of the repair. It may have a simple interface but any M is a mechanically complicated camera and neither is it easily replaceable. In a pinch I've repaired SLRs with a pocket knife, I'd never do that with a Leica.

FrozenInTime
06-05-2016, 14:55
The simplified life - minimal possessions and simple living does not need to be a all or nothing choice.

Taking a couple of days, a week, a month and traveling with everything you need in a backpack is equally liberating.
I've done this in the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand - generally just taking one camera.

A British writer Alistair Humprey - is a proponent of the micro-adventure ; taking a evening , day or weekend to travel light and explore. http://www.alastairhumphreys.com/category/blog/microadventures/
Just walking up a hill at night and camping under the stars works in Britain.

However in the USA, at least in California where I currently stay, society makes ad-hoc exploration impractical. Anyone over student age with a backpack is viewed with suspicion as a vagrant. Backpackers Hostels few, public transport difficult; vagrancy, cannabis cultivators and land trespass culture effectively prohibit free camping.

I look forward to going back into the Scottish hills:
I will jump on a train from Edinburgh and in a couple of hours will be in the highlands.
I will take a small backpack, my Leica M-A with a 35mm lens and some Tmax400.
I will camp where ever I want or stay in mountain bothies ( free to use open huts ).

A few days of escapism then back to reality.

Larry Cloetta
06-05-2016, 15:26
Not sure how you understood "living day to day" then.



Okay.

But, back to the subject of simplification and whether or not it has anything to do with how much your limited items of equipment cost---

It still doesn't.

From the OED:
Simplify:
1. verb trans. Make into a single form or structure; unify.
2. a verb trans. Make simple or less complex or elaborate; make easy or more understandable. b. verb intrans. Become (more) simple.


That's it, that's all that's in there. That's the definition of simplify. Nothing in there about cost. Simplicity has to do with complexity not cost, that's all I was saying.

Words have meanings. If people want to make up their own meanings, or argue with the OED, I guess that's their business, but it's a slippery slope.
I'll stick with the definition of the word "simplify", personally. I'm just that way.

Dave, good luck with your quest if you choose to embark on it. I wish I had the mental resolve to pare things down myself.

Keith
06-05-2016, 15:48
Fifteen years ago I was living in a very small house at the edge of the rain forest next to a creek. It was a small one room A-frame with a loft for sleeping and a verandah on the side. I had no TV, no internet access, no hot water just cold and a very good garden where I grew a lot of my own food and gave to others what i couldn't use myself. I did have the luxury of electricity!

I lived like this for nearly eight years ... it was the happiest I have ever been in my life and I constantly marvel at why I walked away from it to live the way I do now! To exist simply with a a minimum of assets gave me a joy that cannot be described and if I could go back there right now I would in a heartbeat!

tunalegs
06-05-2016, 16:27
Ah... Back to work for me so I must go...maybe tomorrow we can delve further. However, the reason Leica is the only brand selection, subjective, yes, with the original premise of simplicity with... Aesthetics and elegance. I have owned six Leicas over the years and I find that Leica M bodies fit the premise of simple and beautiful better than any other camera.

Truth be known... My favorite all-time camera is the black FM3a I had to sell. It is my favorite for reasons that are hard to quantify. I am excluding that selection from this discussion for my own reasons unrelated to this discussion.

Which Leica? It is an interesting question isn't it?:p

Simplicity + aesthetics would probably equal an Exa :)
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8450/8025601424_9bf3060f37_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/deciGm)exa (https://flic.kr/p/deciGm) by Berang Berang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/berangberang/), on Flickr

It's a camera which is even quite beautiful on the inside. Simple, robust, and elegant, both aesthetically and mechanically. The fact that it is well made simplicity is a large part of why it is so attractive. While there are many simpler cameras out there, there are few which are built to as high a standard, or which are as flexible in use. I could imagine somebody being into a Rollei B35 for example, but it wouldn't give them as much freedom as an exa (and it is rather more complex inside). A Rolleicord or any number of simpler TLRs might also fit the bill. Medium format itself is simpler than 35mm, and requires less exacting handling to get good results. Perhaps that would figure into one's choice?

dave lackey
06-05-2016, 18:07
Simplicity + aesthetics would probably equal an Exa :)
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8450/8025601424_9bf3060f37_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/deciGm)exa (https://flic.kr/p/deciGm) by Berang Berang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/berangberang/), on Flickr

It's a camera which is even quite beautiful on the inside. Simple, robust, and elegant, both aesthetically and mechanically. The fact that it is well made simplicity is a large part of why it is so attractive. While there are many simpler cameras out there, there are few which are built to as high a standard, or which are as flexible in use. I could imagine somebody being into a Rollei B35 for example, but it wouldn't give them as much freedom as an exa (and it is rather more complex inside). A Rolleicord or any number of simpler TLRs might also fit the bill. Medium format itself is simpler than 35mm, and requires less exacting handling to get good results. Perhaps that would figure into one's choice?

Hey, just turning in and checked the forum to see the photo of this beauty! Yes, that is a gorgeous machine! My CiroFlex is loaded and I have a lot of 120 film to shoot... so yeah, that beauty is both more functional and a knockout. I need to shoot a lot more 120 as it has occurred to me that a medium format could be a nice matchup... Thanks for posting that!

I will check back in a few hours, sleep beckons, and a nice cup of coffee or three will go great with catching up on this thread!

Nowhereman
06-05-2016, 18:20
Fifteen years ago I was living in a very small house at the edge of the rain forest next to a creek. It was a small one room A-frame with a loft for sleeping and a verandah on the side. I had no TV, no internet access, no hot water just cold and a very good garden where I grew a lot of my own food and gave to others what i couldn't use myself. I did have the luxury of electricity!

I lived like this for nearly eight years ... it was the happiest I have ever been in my life and I constantly marvel at why I walked away from it to live the way I do now! To exist simply with a a minimum of assets gave me a joy that cannot be described and if I could go back there right now I would in a heartbeat!So, who's the "material girl" that pulled you away from this idyllic existence?

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine (http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2016/05/mitch-alland-alone-in-bangkok/)

David Hughes
06-06-2016, 01:59
Hi,

Back to the original topic (sorry); I was thinking about this last night and realised that this thread is very similar to a lot in the travel section (or elsewhere) along the lines of 'I am going to Paris/London/Strixton for a week... ' that then goes on to ask what camera to take and how many lenses etc. And like this thread the answers vary from 'go to Pisa instead' to two Hassies, Polaroid and Leaf back or an Olympus XA2.

Just thought I'd mention it.

BTW, I have the same problem daily as we like to take a walk in the woods or beside the river and so on every day. If I take a small wide angle (28mm) compact the deer come out of the woods and stare at us, or else a Kestrel will be bombed by the crows, and taking the 180 or 200mm lens on a SLR means nothing appears except I need the macro lens for some exotic butterfly and so on. It's a simple question with an ever changing and complicated answer and I've not mentioned the metering problems yet...

Regards, David

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 02:22
Wow, I have a lot of catching up to do...:)

David, your experience is what happens to me as well. Sometimes I wonder why I even carry a Leica to see the grandkids... they never sit still and when they do, I get cheesey smiles... But yes, choosing the proper gear for all moments anticipated or not, well, is most likely backwards but we can get close sometimes. An SLR with a 24-70 and a Leica M with fixed lenses is my thinking. Simple. Two small shoulder bags. One quite functional, the other certainly capable and lovely in every way.

That reminds me... William Morris:

"Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful."

Clearly some things can be both useful and beautiful.

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 02:27
Fifteen years ago I was living in a very small house at the edge of the rain forest next to a creek. It was a small one room A-frame with a loft for sleeping and a verandah on the side. I had no TV, no internet access, no hot water just cold and a very good garden where I grew a lot of my own food and gave to others what i couldn't use myself. I did have the luxury of electricity!

I lived like this for nearly eight years ... it was the happiest I have ever been in my life and I constantly marvel at why I walked away from it to live the way I do now! To exist simply with a a minimum of assets gave me a joy that cannot be described and if I could go back there right now I would in a heartbeat!

Yikes, Keith, I had no idea...

I presumed your moving forward was partly to put the simple things behind. My own experience was not of my own choosing but how could it be any other way?

In looking back, my years at university were kind of like that. Not only did I survive but I have fond memories and war stories, too.:) I am thinking that symmetry in my life has come full circle.

maitani
06-06-2016, 02:32
I haven't read the full replies yet but a minimalistic way to shoot leica is a plain chrome M4 with a 35 1.4 voigtlander (or any 35 summicron), ev. paired with a vintage hassy SWC.
bests
maitani

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 02:46
Okay.

But, back to the subject of simplification and whether or not it has anything to do with how much your limited items of equipment cost---

It still doesn't.

From the OED:
Simplify:
1. verb trans. Make into a single form or structure; unify.
2. a verb trans. Make simple or less complex or elaborate; make easy or more understandable. b. verb intrans. Become (more) simple.


That's it, that's all that's in there. That's the definition of simplify. Nothing in there about cost. Simplicity has to do with complexity not cost, that's all I was saying.

Words have meanings. If people want to make up their own meanings, or argue with the OED, I guess that's their business, but it's a slippery slope.
I'll stick with the definition of the word "simplify", personally. I'm just that way.

Dave, good luck with your quest if you choose to embark on it. I wish I had the mental resolve to pare things down myself.

Thank you, Larry... Your posts certainly cleared and validated some of my own thoughts, some of which were doubts of my own sanity. I could not agree with you more! It does seem that the concept of simple living to some folks is related to poverty or lack of money, ambition or goals, or any number of things, but your explanation could not be simpler, seriously.

As an artist, a photographer, or even a gear head, we gain a lot from self expression and if we choose a Leica or a Polaroid, it makes no difference. Our lives are enrichened by the simple release of a shutter. So, the personal choice of a Leica is just that, personal. Choosing a simple life after that is personal yet it appears to be elusive.

For me, it is not where I was heading ten years ago when working in real estate development. No, the Great Recession took care of the employment thing but only to prepare me for the tsunami of life. I am still swimming against the tide.

It is certainly anything but simple and I am weary of the pace. No, I am exhausted. That is what drives me to have a couple of hours of quiet time each morning. And that is why I must go with the flow towards simplification of everything I do... I find peace in that as I reflect on the past and the possibilities of the future, knowing full well that I have little, if any, control.

Peace. The center of it all?

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 02:51
I haven't read the full replies yet but a minimalistic way to shoot leica is a plain chrome M4 with a 35 1.4 voigtlander (or any 35 summicron), ev. paired with a vintage hassy SWC.
bests
maitani

Now, THAT is as concise and simple as it gets I suppose!:D

Mute-on
06-06-2016, 03:10
Yet another perspective might be to consider your equipment choices in the context of the era from which they came. So, an M2 and 35 Summaron, M4 and 50 Summilux, etc. If you notionally position yourself in that era, you can dismiss the option of a digital whatever, AF SLR, point and shoot compact camera (except say a Rollei or Minox ...). I imagine that might be somewhat satisfying.

Perhaps this is really an extension of the one camera one lens for a month/ year idea. No other choices, no more excuses. Just go out with what you have and shoot.

I'm feeling more relaxed just contemplating this simplification :)

Cheers,

J

robert blu
06-06-2016, 03:31
During my recent trip in Germany (10 days, not intended as a photo trip but as a relaxing experience to meet friends) I had three cameras in my car/hotel room: two Leica (M7 and x1) and one Impossible.

The idea was to shoot serious photos with the M7 (or the X1 if high iso were required) and the snaps with the Impossible.

I realized that the day I was shooting Impossible my brain, soul, body was "switched" in that mood, being aware of the limitations of the tool and the look of the final result. This made almost impossible (!) to shoot Leica in the same occasion.

I only shot Leica when I left in the hotel room (in the safe!) the Impossible.

This means for me that the concept of simplicity is related to having less choices to make: decided in the morning the "feel of the day" selecting once the appropriate tool and use it trying to get the maximum out of it. Even I selected which lens to use with the M7 and left the other in the safe.

Not sure this can answer or give a contribution to Dave original post but it was my recent experience.

robert

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 04:29
During my recent trip in Germany (10 days, not intended as a photo trip but as a relaxing experience to meet friends) I had three cameras in my car/hotel room: two Leica (M7 and x1) and one Impossible.

The idea was to shoot serious photos with the M7 (or the X1 if high iso were required) and the snaps with the Impossible.

I realized that the day I was shooting Impossible my brain, soul, body was "switched" in that mood, being aware of the limitations of the tool and the look of the final result. This made almost impossible (!) to shoot Leica in the same occasion.

I only shot Leica when I left in the hotel room (in the safe!) the Impossible.

This means for me that the concept of simplicity is related to having less choices to make: decided in the morning the "feel of the day" selecting once the appropriate tool and use it trying to get the maximum out of it. Even I selected which lens to use with the M7 and left the other in the safe.

Not sure this can answer or give a contribution to Dave original post but it was my recent experience.

robert

Hi, Robert,

Yes, perfect example of why even now I have a Leica bag with the M6 and the X1, both very similar in use. No Nikons ever in the same bag, they have their own bags. I find myself happier with less but I prefer to be quite selective of what I do have. So, I prefer Leica one day, the Nikon the next. Maybe I should do more MF...

I would much prefer a cabin like Keith mentioned or even a beach house but the complexities of actually owning either is too much financially for me. But I can see how a simple life could actually been attained in either case. Living in the 'burbs is a necessary complication at this stage in our lives... dang!

Hmmm... I wonder if anyone has an Imposdible as the one camera solution!

nickthetasmaniac
06-06-2016, 04:38
Yep, did the running thing then after years that evolved to walking 5miles a day and cycling another hour. Great thing to do! But not so much for art...

Aww I dunno, this reminds me of a quote from Laurene Vaughan (who I think may have been paraphrasing Francesco Careri's fantastic Walkscapes):

"By modifying the sense of space that is being crossed, walking becomes humankind’s first aesthetic act..."

I think motion can certainly be art. Perhaps art far more simple and pure than anything that requires a tool to create, including photography. Take for instance the free solo climbs of Dean Potter and Alex Honnold - when they're photographed on a wall, there's art in that, but is it the art of the photographer or the climber?

To be honest I find something unsettling about a discussion that begins with a premise of simplicity, and ends with a question of 'what gear?'...

To answer the question below, I don't think a pure reduction to the basics of life would include a Leica, or any other machine. Walk, observe, and move on. There's simplicity in that.

Pure reduction to the basics of life with just enough?

David Hughes
06-06-2016, 05:04
Hi,

"Aww I dunno, this reminds me of a quote from Laurene Vaughan (who I think may have been paraphrasing Francesco Careri's fantastic Walkscapes):

"By modifying the sense of space that is being crossed, walking becomes humankind’s first aesthetic act..."

Didn't Napoleon say something about marching or walking stops men thinking?

Regards, David

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 05:15
Aww I dunno, this reminds me of a quote from Laurene Vaughan (who I think may have been paraphrasing Francesco Careri's fantastic Walkscapes):

"By modifying the sense of space that is being crossed, walking becomes humankind’s first aesthetic act..."

I think motion can certainly be art. Perhaps art far more simple and pure than anything that requires a tool to create, including photography. Take for instance the free solo climbs of Dean Potter and Alex Honnold - when they're photographed on a wall, there's art in that, but is it the art of the photographer or the climber?

To be honest I find something unsettling about a discussion that begins with a premise of simplicity, and ends with a question of 'what gear?'...

To answer the question below, I don't think a pure reduction to the basics of life would include a Leica, or any other machine. Walk, observe, and move on. There's simplicity in that.

I agree...

However, my quote excluded the rest of the thinking: "with just enough". That phrase means just enough for one to be a photographer as it is my chosen art and works well with my main choice of self-expression, writing.

On a side note, I am housebound... now for six years. As a 24/7 sole spousal caregiver, I have freedom to leave now but I am limited to three days/week for less than hour to take care of personal things. Photography is quite limited but is good for the soul when the opportunities arise.

There is always reality that must be faced no matter how much intellectual or emotional pontification... so with the complexities of current life, simplification requires changing things while taking care of responsibilities but it requires self maintenance, too, which is what I found out the hard way.

jojoman2
06-06-2016, 05:21
To answer the question below, I don't think a pure reduction to the basics of life would include a Leica, or any other machine. Walk, observe, and move on. There's simplicity in that.

If I don't have a camera with me when I'm out in the world my anxiety level goes through the roof. I get worried I'll miss something. I'm constantly looking at gestures, the geometry of people before me. The guy isn't looking to join a monastery. We're here because making photographs is an important part of our lives, and this guy wants to express that with a leica.

David Hughes
06-06-2016, 05:26
Hi Dave,

You get up early; or are you working nights?

Anyway, if a Leica M series and a 35mm Summicron appeals then you could simplify that to an Olympus mju-II but a stop slower at f/2.8 or a Konica A4 at f/3.5 both are versatile and have good lenses on them. Or for the RF experience an Olympus XA at 35mm and f/2.8

Point being all are dirt cheap and you could sell the Leica's ERC for a lifetimes supply of the mju-II or A4; so no worries about repairs.

A lot of people won't think I'm serious but a year or two or more ago I realised the Leica M2 with the 35mm Summaron and the XA had a similar spec. So I opened a pack of three films and put one in each and then wandered about for a day or two taking pictures with the XA, noting the exposure and then repeating with the M2 and Summaron. Looking at the 5" x 7" prints (as I see it, simplicity doesn't mean printing posters) I wondered why I bothered with the M2 but we all know the answer to that...

Seriously and with hindsight, I'd make my outfit two identical SLR's with AF and MF and a 28-90 and a 90 to 200mm zoom. For my pocket an Olympus XA4 would do nicely as the close-up facility is simple and easy to use but fixed at 12" at closest; so useful at a pinch but the SLR might have so called macro in the zoom.

But I'd find it difficult despite being sensible to give up a lot of cameras I own and play with. I figure the fault lies in ourselves and not in our stars so I wonder if I'd ever do it. I might as well enjoy what time I have left. Perhaps I'll give up something else in the interests of simplicity.

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

Jerevan
06-06-2016, 06:46
Simplicity equates "fewer but better" to me. As to what is better, that is a personal choice.

As for the question of which Leica: an M4 with a Summaron 35/2.8. And perhaps a 90 for the occasional detail or portrait.

Godfrey
06-06-2016, 09:06
Conflating the notion of living simply with the decision making process concerned with which of several $5000-$8000 cameras to buy seems a poor juxtaposition of two very different thought processes.


Living simply can be done whether you're rich or poor, have a lot or a little. It's a philosophical state, a mental perspective, that varies for each individual.

Deciding which of several high-end photographic tools to buy is a complex decision.


I have an M-P and an M4-2. And if all the photography I want to do falls into the notion of one of those two bodies fitted with a 35, 75, or 16-18-21 mm lens, then that's all I'd need. But 'all the photography I want to do' doesn't quite fit so neatly into that little box, so my notion of the right equipment is a bit larger than that kit of two bodies and three lenses.

Separate from that discussion, I like to live pretty simply and think I achieve that in the broad perspective of my life.

G

jsrockit
06-06-2016, 09:09
A 50mm Leica Q would make me be able to get rid of a lot of gear.

Ko.Fe.
06-06-2016, 09:29
....
I have an M-P and an M4-2. .... 'all the photography I want to do' doesn't quite fit so neatly into that little box, so my notion of the right equipment is a bit larger than that kit of two bodies and three lenses....

I have exactly same cameras and situation...

Almost all of the valuable pictures I took and have as family possession are popping up as background slide show on family room computer screen. Honestly (100%), most simple way to take them by single camera and three available lenses was with plastic consumer DSLR... and still is :eek:

farlymac
06-06-2016, 09:34
As to which Leica, I've gotten an R3, because I already have other interchangeable lens rangefinders. Now to see if I can keep it to a simple three lens kit. It will be hard to do for an old gearhead like myself.

PF

Vince Lupo
06-06-2016, 10:12
I'd think if you want the absolute simplicity in a Leica, then a Leica I or Standard C would do the trick. If you must have the luxury(!) of rangefinder focusing, then look no further than a Leica II(D).

For M-series, the obvious choice for me would be an M2 or M3 (why would the simple life require any more than three framelines?).

And digital? That's easy -- the new M-D :)

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 10:26
I'd think if you want the absolute simplicity in a Leica, then a Leica I or Standard C would do the trick. If you must have the luxury(!) of rangefinder focusing, then look no further than a Leica II(D).

For M-series, the obvious choice for me would be an M2 or M3 (why would the simple life require any more than three framelines?).

And digital? That's easy -- the new M-D :)

Love it!!! Thanks, Vince!:D

Godfrey
06-06-2016, 10:38
I'd think if you want the absolute simplicity in a Leica, then a Leica I or Standard C would do the trick. If you must have the luxury(!) of rangefinder focusing, then look no further than a Leica II(D).

For M-series, the obvious choice for me would be an M2 or M3 (why would the simple life require any more than three framelines?).

And digital? That's easy -- the new M-D :)

(bolded) Luxury is not at odds with simplicity. Excess is at odds with simplicity.

Be that as it may ... :) ... every time I pick up my M-P now I wish it was the M-D. Because every time I pick up the M-P, I realize that my grip almost without fail puts a finger print on the LCD or viewfinder. The SL is not like that, and neither is the M4-2. It's a matter of handling ease. Sigh.

G

David Hughes
06-06-2016, 10:47
(bolded) Luxury is not at odds with simplicity. Excess is at odds with simplicity.

Be that as it may ... :) ... every time I pick up my M-P now I wish it was the M-D. Because every time I pick up the M-P, I realize that my grip almost without fail puts a finger print on the LCD or viewfinder. The SL is not like that, and neither is the M4-2. It's a matter of handling ease. Sigh.

G

Hi,

Surely, luxury is something added to simplicity? I can take notes with a pencil from a cheap chain store or with a gold mechanical pencil and I reckon I know which is simplicity and which is luxury...

But, OTOH, it would be nice to pick up the M-9 without having to stop and think and remember that the top RH corner is the only place for my fingers and thumb - or I could pick it up by the lens barrel I suppose...

Regards, David

nongfuspring
06-06-2016, 10:50
Okay.

But, back to the subject of simplification and whether or not it has anything to do with how much your limited items of equipment cost---

It still doesn't.

From the OED:
Simplify:
1. verb trans. Make into a single form or structure; unify.
2. a verb trans. Make simple or less complex or elaborate; make easy or more understandable. b. verb intrans. Become (more) simple.


That's it, that's all that's in there. That's the definition of simplify. Nothing in there about cost. Simplicity has to do with complexity not cost, that's all I was saying.

Words have meanings. If people want to make up their own meanings, or argue with the OED, I guess that's their business, but it's a slippery slope.
I'll stick with the definition of the word "simplify", personally. I'm just that way.


Who is arguing over what simplify means? You may have noticed there's more than one word in the OP, Dave specifically describes a nomadic lifestyle of few possessions. The "simple life" has as many definitions as there are people to live it.

For the average person, a free, untethered lifestyle as described is also one of economic precarity and general unpredictability. Unless one is independently wealthy or very comfortably retired then it obviously does not make much sense to tie up so much liquidity in something like an M-A.

Godfrey
06-06-2016, 11:07
Hi,

Surely, luxury is something added to simplicity? I can take notes with a pencil from a cheap chain store or with a gold mechanical pencil and I reckon I know which is simplicity and which is luxury...

But, OTOH, it would be nice to pick up the M-9 without having to stop and think and remember that the top RH corner is the only place for my fingers and thumb - or I could pick it up by the lens barrel I suppose...

Regards, David

A wooden pencil and a gold mechanical pencil are both simple tools with which to write a note.


The wooden pencil is complex in that you need to also carry something with which to sharpen its point; a penknife or sharpener. Of course, you also have to understand the system required to produce wooden pencils to fully appreciate their simplicity/complexity.


The gold mechanical pencil is complex in the design and construction of its mechanism, but allows simple use in that you use its mechanism to extend the lead as it wears. The fact that it has a gold skin neither adds nor subtracts from the simplicity or the complexity, although it adds to the price.

It's important to segregate these notions clearly if you want to carry on a philosophic-semantic discussion of "what is simplicity?"

... Yes, that is what I miss the most in my M-P (or once-was M9) compared to the M4-2: the ease of picking it up and using it without laying fingerprints on the viewfinder or LCD, or hitting buttons I didn't intend to. That's why I just might sell the M-P and buy the M-D. ...

G

Larry Cloetta
06-06-2016, 11:43
Who is arguing over what simplify means? You may have noticed there's more than one word in the OP, ....

No I didn't notice that. But thanks for the help. Plus, now that I know there are as many definitions for things as there are people to dream them up, I feel very liberated. Think I will take my cheap camera out today instead of the expensive one, because it's simpler. Because it's cheaper. Because there is a relationship between simplicity and cost, as I just learned. Who knew?
Done here.

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 12:37
Nah, Larry, stick around for the final decision on which Leica is enough!! We haven't even gotten to the bucket list!;)

Speaking of which... I am getting close to a decision that surprises even me.

Ronald M
06-06-2016, 12:40
No digital is a lifetime purchase. If you think you can keep getting film/processing, a modern Leica will be a good bet.

Or spend the rest of your life scrounging for deals because yours can no longer be repaired.

Godfrey
06-06-2016, 13:06
No digital is a lifetime purchase. If you think you can keep getting film/processing, a modern Leica will be a good bet.

Or spend the rest of your life scrounging for deals because yours can no longer be repaired.

Minor edit:

No camera is a lifetime purchase. Any modern Leica will be a good bet.

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 13:09
No digital is a lifetime purchase. If you think you can keep getting film/processing, a modern Leica will be a good bet.

Or spend the rest of your life scrounging for deals because yours can no longer be repaired.

Interesting term "lifetime"... for me, it no longer has a real meaning whereas when I was in my thirties, it seemed about 50 years on average. Now... it could be a week, a year, or ten years.

Hence the bucket list!

Anyone reading this thread have a bucket list?

Is there a Leica on yours? Or something else?

nongfuspring
06-06-2016, 13:15
No I didn't notice that. But thanks for the help. Plus, now that I know there are as many definitions for things as there are people to dream them up, I feel very liberated. Think I will take my cheap camera out today instead of the expensive one, because it's simpler. Because it's cheaper. Because there is a relationship between simplicity and cost, as I just learned. Who knew?
Done here.

Seems your reading comprehension is on par with your attitude, which wouldn't surprise me considering your interpretation of Walden (providing you actually read it). Enjoy living day to day! :)

Gregm61
06-06-2016, 13:30
[QUOTE=dave lackey;2620422]Interesting term "lifetime"... for me, it no longer has a real meaning whereas when I was in my thirties, it seemed about 50 years on average. Now... it could be a week, a year, or ten years.QUOTE]

I think my M262 will get me a good ways down the road in terms of my own "lifetime", currently 54 and feeling more broken down all the time.

For a digital body with no live view or video features to worry about needing to be updated and a nice 24MP sensor like this M262, one should (and I do) expect at least 10 years.

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 13:36
No digital is a lifetime purchase. If you think you can keep getting film/processing, a modern Leica will be a good bet.

Or spend the rest of your life scrounging for deals because yours can no longer be repaired.

I agree about the film camera! Film no problem, developing and scanning my own. Actually, as far as digital goes, I really have no need with the two I have and use frequently.

So, film it is!

robert blu
06-06-2016, 13:53
...
So, film it is!

If it is film...hmm I love so much to shoot with my M7 ...but I never owned any other M...:)

robert

David Hughes
06-06-2016, 13:55
A wooden pencil and a gold mechanical pencil are both simple tools with which to write a note.

The wooden pencil is complex in that you need to also carry something with which to sharpen its point; a penknife or sharpener. Of course, you also have to understand the system required to produce wooden pencils to fully appreciate their simplicity/complexity.
The gold mechanical pencil is complex in the design and construction of its mechanism, but allows simple use in that you use its mechanism to extend the lead as it wears. The fact that it has a gold skin neither adds nor subtracts from the simplicity or the complexity, although it adds to the price.
It's important to segregate these notions clearly if you want to carry on a philosophic-semantic discussion of "what is simplicity?"

... Yes, that is what I miss the most in my M-P (or once-was M9) compared to the M4-2: the ease of picking it up and using it without laying fingerprints on the viewfinder or LCD, or hitting buttons I didn't intend to. That's why I just might sell the M-P and buy the M-D. ...

G

Hi,

Strange as it may seem I quoted the example of the pencil as I gave up today and threw the mechanical marvel into the bin. It had been playing up for a while (feed mechanism) and I expect pencils to be reliable. An old fashioned wooden one only has the lead to break...

As for their design and manufacture; I gave up designing and making my own pencils years ago. ;-) After learning that acquiring either sort is simple, choose, hand over cash and walk out of the shop.

As for the pick-up factor, do they test the things these days?

Regards, David

Vince Lupo
06-06-2016, 14:06
David you should maybe go here next time you're in NYC: http://cwpencils.com/

Godfrey
06-06-2016, 14:39
Hi,

Strange as it may seem I quoted the example of the pencil as I gave up today and threw the mechanical marvel into the bin. It had been playing up for a while (feed mechanism) and I expect pencils to be reliable. An old fashioned wooden one only has the lead to break...

As for their design and manufacture; I gave up designing and making my own pencils years ago. ;-) After learning that acquiring either sort is simple, choose, hand over cash and walk out of the shop.

As for the pick-up factor, do they test the things these days?

Regards, David

Um, if you threw a malfunctioning gold mechanical pencil into the bin, could you mail me your bin? ;)

I don't know how camera manufacturers test for human factors these days. Too many cameras are festooned with a couple of dozen buttons in weird places. Leica is better than most in this regard—the SL in particular is incredibly clean*of excess dial-and-button adornments; it's easy to handle as a result.

G

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 15:05
Well, after all the "back and forth" and considerations, I look closer at my mint M6 (Big Logo) and think, this camera does not need to be a shelf queen. It can do what I need, and it is beautiful.:angel:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=104365&stc=1&d=1465250659

So, for now, the M6 is my choice for simplification of my Leica gear. I am going to keep it! Although my bucket list has a black paint MP on it (or maybe an M-A or MD), that list is always subject to change. Or not.:D

Now to simplify my Nikon gear... and I think that has already been done but the other cameras don't know it yet....still a secret....

Now that all of that is settled, I can get back to shooting.

sojournerphoto
06-06-2016, 15:11
Well, after all the "back and forth" and considerations, I look closer at my mint M6 (Big Logo) and think, this camera does not need to be a shelf queen. It can do what I need, and it is beautiful.:angel:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=104365&stc=1&d=1465250659

So, for now, the M6 is my choice for simplification of my Leica gear. I am going to keep it! Although my bucket list has a black paint MP on it (or maybe an M-A or MD), that list is always subject to change. Or not.:D

Now to simplify my Nikon gear... and I think that has already been done but the other cameras don't know it yet....still a secret....

Now that all of that is settled, I can get back to shooting.


Was sort of hoping you'd just get an MDa instead;)

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 15:29
Was sort of hoping you'd just get an MDa instead;)

:D. I reckon the M6 is my wooden pencil...:p

it'sawhat?
06-06-2016, 15:50
Dave I was wondering how long it would take for you to realize the m6 was the one for you. :D And as for the nikon gear might I suggest maybe a n6006s body and swap a manual lens or 2 for auto focus. Simple, inexpensive straightforward. Trust me I understand the position you're in as primary caregiver. My sister was that for my father through 5 years of intense cancer care and treatment I was secondary caregiver there when I was off work. As a free piece of advice a simple life begins with your state of mind. The hard part is relearning how to unclutter your mind.perhaps try some zen meditation during your early morning routine.

dave lackey
06-06-2016, 19:23
Dave I was wondering how long it would take for you to realize the m6 was the one for you. :D And as for the nikon gear might I suggest maybe a n6006s body and swap a manual lens or 2 for auto focus. Simple, inexpensive straightforward. Trust me I understand the position you're in as primary caregiver. My sister was that for my father through 5 years of intense cancer care and treatment I was secondary caregiver there when I was off work. As a free piece of advice a simple life begins with your state of mind. The hard part is relearning how to unclutter your mind.perhaps try some zen meditation during your early morning routine.

Thank you for your kind words, and it is always somewhat fulfilling to meet others who have been down the same road. And yes, meditation is just one of the many things that are part of my daily quiet time. Without that slice of time, I would not be here. It is essential for my contraction and expansion as each day unfolds.

The M6 has been too nice to consider actually using until I went through the discussions of which Leica was good enough. I am quite comfortable with this M body and it is time to make it "mine" by using it a lot. No need to sell and complicate finances any more than necessary. Besides, this Big M6 has great memories attached to it.

David Hughes
06-07-2016, 05:27
David you should maybe go here next time you're in NYC: http://cwpencils.com/

Hi,

I doubt if I'll ever cross the pond but thanks for the sight of that lovely store. One thing I do appreciate about the USA is that a niche selling to just half of one per cent gets a lot of customers and can do the job properly. I just hope the postal people are up to it...

I like pencils and try to use them as often as possible, the collection dates back to the late 30's and includes some weird ones but I started selling them off or giving them away a while ago when I realised most would end up in a skip once my time comes. FWIW, the 30's and 40's ones (even the very basic war time standard ones) were properly made and smell like cigar boxes used to smell of the wood and they are easy to sharpen properly.

Regards, David

dave lackey
06-07-2016, 05:30
Hi,

I doubt if I'll ever cross the pond but thanks for the sight of that lovely store. One thing I do appreciate about the USA is that a niche selling to just half of one per cent gets a lot of customers and can do the job properly. I just hope the postal people are up to it...

I like pencils and try to use them as often as possible, the collection dates back to the late 30's and includes some weird ones but I started selling them off or giving them away a while ago when I realised most would end up in a skip once my time comes. FWIW, the 30's and 40's ones (even the very basic war time standard ones) were properly made and smell like cigar boxes used to smell of the wood and they are easy to sharpen properly.

Regards, David

Pencils!! That is too cool! You are amazing...

I have some new watercolor pencils and mechanical/drafting from a previous life... I can understand your collection. Bravo!

robert blu
06-07-2016, 06:00
Cameras are cool, pencils are cool! Let's use them so much we can :)

robert

David Hughes
06-07-2016, 06:48
Hi,

What I find interesting is that W H Fox Talbot couldn't draw very well, when a sketch pad and a few pencils were in every tourists kit and so started looking for an alternative. The result was film photography as we know it although I doubt if he'd recognise our modern film as such.

I was at his house earlier this year and was fascinated to see what he used and handle some modern replicas. And I got a chance to take a famous one he did in 1834-ish but with my little toy digital camera.

Perhaps Dave, you'd better abandon the camera and start with an HB pencil and some cartridge paper. It doesn't get simpler...

Regards, David

dave lackey
06-07-2016, 10:00
Hi,

What I find interesting is that W H Fox Talbot couldn't draw very well, when a sketch pad and a few pencils were in every tourists kit and so started looking for an alternative. The result was film photography as we know it although I doubt if he'd recognise our modern film as such.

I was at his house earlier this year and was fascinated to see what he used and handle some modern replicas. And I got a chance to take a famous one he did in 1834-ish but with my little toy digital camera.

Perhaps Dave, you'd better abandon the camera and start with an HB pencil and some cartridge paper. It doesn't get simpler...

Regards, David

Hah... Already doing that. Thanks!
I learned sketching in Architectural school a very long time ago. I am just now sketching again but also I am using a fountain pen regularly.

All of it is relaxing and highly recommended.:)

raid
06-07-2016, 10:17
I haven't read the full replies yet but a minimalistic way to shoot leica is a plain chrome M4 with a 35 1.4 voigtlander (or any 35 summicron), ev. paired with a vintage hassy SWC.
bests
maitani

My current travel kit is a SWC and an M9 with 35/1.4. I don't need any other equipment.

Vince Lupo
06-07-2016, 10:48
(bolded) Luxury is not at odds with simplicity. Excess is at odds with simplicity.

G

So i've been wondering, if the same original question could be applied to cars, could you therefore then ask 'which Porsche?'

David Hughes
06-07-2016, 10:53
Hah... Already doing that. Thanks!
I learned sketching in Architectural school a very long time ago. I am just now sketching again but also I am using a fountain pen regularly.

All of it is relaxing and highly recommended.:)

Amazing, my background too and the reason I've this heap of pencils. Mostly acquired out of curiosity since most of them are rubbish. Same goes for the cameras only there's little rubbish but lots of curiosity and it's easy and cheap to acquire both. Thinking about it I mostly use the cameras as notebooks...

Regards, David

Jerevan
06-07-2016, 11:04
So i've been wondering, if the same original question could be applied to cars, could you therefore then ask 'which Porsche?'

Easy - a 1972 911s in metallic blue. :)

Vince Lupo
06-07-2016, 11:20
Why not? So let's make Porsche a requirement for a simple life, just as we did for the Leica.

So now our simple life includes a Leica and a Porsche and is shaping up nicely....

Oh, and we've got great pencils, too.

Yay! I think a simple 912 would work just fine (no need for the excess of a 911). Definitely would go well with a Leica M4 and an Albert Unger Black Diamond :)

dave lackey
06-07-2016, 11:47
Yay! I think a simple 912 would work just fine (no need for the excess of a 911). Definitely would go well with a Leica M4 and an Albert Unger Black Diamond :)

Dang, I like the way you guys think! Vince, the 912 is perfect... Think of all the money saved by keeping a 912 on the road for 40 years or more and foregoing new car purchases...

I did that with MG cars from a 51 TD to a 76 B... Six all together but only one at a time.

Vince Lupo
06-07-2016, 12:12
You know I'm also thinking Dave you might require a travel case of some kind - a simple one, mind you - to transport your simple, uncluttered Leica camera and your very nice (yet oh so simple!) pencil in that Porsche 912 (and a very frugal, minimalist Porsche it is too).

Perhaps a very straightforward, very simple, un-frilly Keepall Bandouliere in the most basic of basics - Monogram Canvas - by Louis Vuitton?

splitimageview
06-07-2016, 12:17
Wow. Back to this thread (I never get notifications) and all this time you were sitting on an M6...(!)

As far as Porsche goes, I'll do the same thing...keep the one I already have. ;) The new ones tickle the fancy, but ultimately won't give any more satisfaction. Plus, they aren't building any more 993s and never will.

Vince Lupo
06-07-2016, 12:18
As far as Porsche goes, I'll do the same thing...keep the one I already have. ;)

I am with you - we are completely content with the simple Cayman -- who needs a back seat anyways :)

Godfrey
06-07-2016, 12:23
So i've been wondering, if the same original question could be applied to cars, could you therefore then ask 'which Porsche?'

A Porsche is just as much a piece of a simple life as a Leica camera might be. If your simple life includes a car, why not make it a Porsche if you want one and can afford it?

Personally, I prefer my Mercedes SLK to a Porsche.

https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5111/6927412902_bebd20d07e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/by9Nvu)

G

splitimageview
06-07-2016, 12:41
I am with you - we are completely content with the simple Cayman -- who needs a back seat anyways :)

If it's a Porsche, though, it has to be air cooled. For simplicity, natch. :)

Vince Lupo
06-07-2016, 12:54
If it's a Porsche, though, it has to be air cooled. For simplicity, natch. :)

I'll admit, it would be simpler :)

You know, I'm also thinking that life is just too complex, cluttered and hustle-bustle where I live -- I think a much simpler and uncluttered life could be had in a basic, very simple beachfront home in the Cayman Islands.

dave lackey
06-07-2016, 13:08
You know I'm also thinking Dave you might require a travel case of some kind - a simple one, mind you - to transport your simple, uncluttered Leica camera and your very nice (yet oh so simple!) pencil in that Porsche 912 (and a very frugal, minimalist Porsche it is too).

Perhaps a very straightforward, very simple, un-frilly Keepall Bandouliere in the most basic of basics - Monogram Canvas - by Louis Vuitton?

Nah, it might clash with my seersucker suit here in The Deep South. :pActually, it just would not look right on the Road King. Black is the new color year round... even in the heat with the new high tech fabrics, preferably monogram free.

robert blu
06-07-2016, 13:18
So, now it's about Porsche or Mercedes Benz...let's listen Janis Joplin's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qev-i9-VKlY)suggestion...
robert

Vince Lupo
06-07-2016, 13:23
Nah, it might clash with my seersucker suit here in The Deep South. :pActually, it just would not look right on the Road King. Black is the new color year round... even in the heat with the new high tech fabrics, preferably monogram free.


Dave you're absolutely right - how foolish of me. They do also offer the Keepall in a simple - painfully simple - black Damier Infini Leather.

Vince Lupo
06-07-2016, 13:24
So, now it's about Porsche or Mercedes Benz...let's listen Janis Joplin's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qev-i9-VKlY)suggestion...
robert

Robert you left out Louis Vuitton :)

dave lackey
06-07-2016, 13:46
Robert you left out Louis Vuitton :)

In stealthy black leather... and most likely simple black electrical tape over the inevitable logo to prevent discussions of living simply with a few luxuries.

splitimageview
06-07-2016, 14:52
I think a much simpler and uncluttered life could be had in a basic, very simple beachfront home in the Cayman Islands.

I'd love this, except it's very flat. I like a few hills when I'm on my bike. So, maybe the Virgin Islands...

Vince Lupo
06-07-2016, 17:05
Dunno about them hills you speak of. Sounds more complex than the simple man can handle :)

dave lackey
06-07-2016, 18:58
Back to the bucket list..,

For me, it truly is real. No, you won't find wealth, fame or power on my list. Just a simple list of being me. The M6 is just enough without getting in the way. It is a beautiful thing as well, something that I can appreciate. It is simple to operate and very useful in my photographic work, mostly documentaries.

It will not be the only camera I keep because the F6 does everything else the M6 cannot and it has a mate with a free D3100 I resurrected. The M6 has a companion with the digital X1. Both similar sized and simple to use.

So there we have it... for the foreseeable future, a small Leica kit in a black Billingham, and a small Nikon kit in a larger Billingham. That's it! Just enough!

dave lackey
06-07-2016, 19:28
In explanation of this thread, it has been an exercise in developing my thoughts in moving forward both personally and in my chosen art. In other words, I am making a conscious choice to live a simple life, not one of asceticism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living

It can include "luxuries".

One of those luxuries is beauty in those things around me. It slightly complicates life but it is well worth it IMO. For instance, I can do all I need to do with my F6. But it hardly is a thing of beauty... The Leica M6 is a thing of beauty and fulfills my need to enjoy beautiful things. Therefore, I have the luxury of two camera kits. Very little cost has gone into the assembly of these two kits and most of it was paid for by the sale of other personal items.

Like Raid, I don't need any more gear. I am happy to continue my photographic journey the rest of the way. I can only hope to pass a few legacy items down the family line one day. Photography is changing very fast these days. Everything is very fast it seems. So simplifying life is my way of being me and not allowing an excess of anything or any process, mindset or outside influence to interfere with the more important things in life.

Like the Promise of the Coming Day as I watch the sun rise each morning, a simple life allows one to relax and live in the moment.

fireblade
06-07-2016, 19:58
IIRC, it was Roger Hicks who first enlightened me on the wisdom of purchasing useful, but beautiful things. I forget the reference... But the idea of making one's functional purchases both useful and aesthetically pleasing strikes an enduring chord with me.

"The simple life" also strikes me as a wonderful way of living while giving one a lot of choices based on one's own desires and needs. Leica has a history of being able to fulfill both the functional/aesthetic values and the simpleness of living in the world of photography with a manual camera. At least the film Leicas but I am not so sure about the latest digital offerings. Still, to me, Leica has a draw that is counter to the high-tech contemporary environment around us.

Each morning, I spend a couple of hours of quiet time before the chaos of each day begins. Relaxing, meditating, praying, cursing, writing, or observing the darkness and dawning of the new day, and sometimes simply going with the thought of the moment. Today, I wondered... is there someone out there actually happy with enough? Yes, me :)

What is enough? What would that person's life look like? A single scenario of many possibilities: Yes, many and diverse.


A person living from one day to the next with few assets or possessions and no permanent home of his own, possibly driving a modest means of transportation, retired or working a part-time job, has what would be considered a simple life. Not that this scenario is recommended for self-enlightenment, but as an example, this person may be a fellow photographer. One who enjoys the passion of photography and enjoys the use of a Leica... his only camera in a bag with a couple of lenses.

Pure reduction to the basics of life with just enough? This may be a life with few stresses from the complex society around him but one filled with a passion for capturing the beauty of the world he lives in and sharing with other people just to see them smile.

Which Leica would he most likely use? Leica 109.

Please note that I have reduced the gear of choice to Leica only for a reason. No need to bring in other brands for this discussion.

What do you think of a one-Leica life and the gear of choice while living on quite modest means? One Leica life is more than sufficient. Now as for a modest life, that is relative, and upbringing would have a lot to do with that....a modest life.

Would he/she shoot film or digital? M2, M3, or newer? M8, M9 or a later digital camera?:confused: Any would do. Form and function is different for all.

..............Cheers :)

Rayt
06-07-2016, 20:52
Loin cloth; check. Sandals; check. Leica M3; check. Noctilux; check.

Mute-on
06-07-2016, 21:24
Loin cloth; check. Sandals; check. Leica M3; check. Noctilux; check.



ROFL :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

David Hughes
06-08-2016, 01:25
Oh dear, how about a simple old fashioned bicycle like a 60's Moulton instead of all this foreign stuff?

Regards, David

PS But no iPhone.

dave lackey
06-08-2016, 03:31
Ha! This has been an enjoyable exercise worthy of a discussion at Manuel's Tavern. Beers all around!

Time to close the doors and catch the last train leaving the station. Retiring this crazy thread will be a good thing and I thank you for all your comments.

Godfrey
06-08-2016, 07:52
We could start on camera bags again now. Oh Joe! ... :rolleyes:

G

Vince Lupo
06-08-2016, 09:36
Loin cloth; check. Sandals; check. Leica M3; check. Noctilux; check.

Sounds like a Kinks song to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ_858LCr9k

dave lackey
06-08-2016, 11:37
We could start on camera bags again now. Oh Joe! ... :rolleyes:

G

Ha! We just did... waiting on Vince here...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155826&page=3

Vince Lupo
06-08-2016, 11:42
Already responded -- it's not particularly exciting, sorry.

David Hughes
06-08-2016, 23:58
Well, that killed that line of thought...

noisycheese
06-18-2016, 15:59
IIRC, it was Roger Hicks who first enlightened me on the wisdom of purchasing useful, but beautiful things. I forget the reference... But the idea of making one's functional purchases both useful and aesthetically pleasing strikes an enduring chord with me.

"The simple life" also strikes me as a wonderful way of living while giving one a lot of choices based on one's own desires and needs. Leica has a history of being able to fulfill both the functional/aesthetic values and the simpleness of living in the world of photography with a manual camera. At least the film Leicas but I am not so sure about the latest digital offerings. Still, to me, Leica has a draw that is counter to the high-tech contemporary environment around us.

Each morning, I spend a couple of hours of quiet time before the chaos of each day begins. Relaxing, meditating, praying, cursing, writing, or observing the darkness and dawning of the new day, and sometimes simply going with the thought of the moment. Today, I wondered...(1.) is there someone out there actually happy with enough? (2.) What is enough? What would that person's life look like? A single scenario of many possibilities:

A person living from one day to the next with few assets or possessions and no permanent home of his own, possibly driving a modest means of transportation, retired or working a part-time job, has what would be considered a simple life. Not that this scenario is recommended for self-enlightenment, but as an example, this person may be a fellow photographer. (3.) One who enjoys the passion of photography and enjoys the use of a Leica... his only camera in a bag with a couple of lenses.

(4.) Pure reduction to the basics of life with just enough? This may be a life with few stresses from the complex society around him but one filled with a passion for capturing the beauty of the world he lives in and sharing with other people just to see them smile.

(5.) Which Leica would he most likely use? Please note that I have reduced the gear of choice to Leica only for a reason. No need to bring in other brands for this discussion.

(6.) What do you think of a one-Leica life and the gear of choice while living on quite modest means? Would he/she shoot film or digital? M2, M3, or newer? M8, M9 or a later digital camera? :confused:

@Dave, my answers to your questions are as follows -

(1.) Yes.

I have met many Buddhist monks who have very little in the way of possessions or financial assets. They are the happiest people I have ever met. Others who are also content with what little they have are "bums" - Ski Bums, Trout Bums, Surf Bums, Climbing Bums and Photography Bums. I have read stories of Rock Climbing Bums who have lived for years on end in dilapidated vehicles and/or tents with no job. They climb rock daily, do menial temp work to pay for food and other necessities, have no health insurance or investment portfolios - and they are deliriously happy. Same with Ski Bums - they are ski lift operators, ski rescue guys/gals or ski techs who mount bindings on skis, sharpen/wax skis, etc. They live hand to mouth on little money but the payoff is a season lift ticket at the ski area where they work. Every day there is snow on the ground, they are on the mountains, screaming down the runs at 60 MPH or hammering their way through the mogul fields. Same with Trout Bums - they are fishing guides who make not much money, but they are casting flies and catching trout every single day while their clients get to do that two weeks a year. It's all about following your passion and making sacrifices to do so. The payoff isn't money - it's happiness and a quality of life that others only dream of.

(2.) It all depends on who you ask. Bill Gates, Donald Trump or Mark Cuban will give you distinctly different answers from a Buddhist monk, a Trout Bum, a Photography Bum or an aspiring Olympic athlete.

(3.) If I were that guy, I would have a 28mm and a 50mm lens (probably the new version of the 28 Summicron and the 50mm Summilux) and my M camera. Those two lenses would cover 90% plus of my needs.

(4.) Again, it depends on who you ask; a guy who homesteads in a cabin in Alaska will give you a very different answer from a Wall Street investment banker or a Buddhist monk. America's current mainstream culture is all about amassing money, fame, power or a combination of all three. Chasing those pots of gold at the end of the rainbow is in many cases an exercise in futility. Many people discover that when they have at long last achieved all of the "when I finally get _______________, THEN I'll be happy" preconditions, they are STILL unhappy; then what??

After having had the opportunity to observe firsthand other cultures and people, I have come to a realization: On the whole, America's current mainstream culture is counterproductive to happiness, peace of mind and a quality of life that brings with it contentment. Why is that? Because we in America tend to give OTHER PEOPLE the power to decide for us what will make us happy. Giving someone else that power is just asking for unhappiness.

(5.) If I were that guy, it would be my M-P 240. I stuck with film 100% until two years ago when I got my first digital camera, an M240. I love film - particularly Tri-X and the prints I can get from it - but the M-P 240 makes my photographic life so much more easy.

In my experience, when used with Leica M lenses, Leica's24 mp 24x36mm sensor M cameras easily equal or exceed 120 film in terms of printed image quality at a given size. That is an awfully compelling case for acquiring a full frame digital M camera and an M lens or two for it. Regarding the cost of the camera and one lens,

I have had my MP 240 for fifteen months now; last week, I sat down and figured out how much money I have saved in terms of film and processing. I would have spent over $9300 USD to shoot an equal number of images on film in those fifteen months - and that's if I bought chemistry and developed it all myself, which would have taken thousands of hours of developing.

(6.) Again, if I were that guy - I would have my M-P 240 and a 28mm and a 50mm lens, or possibly an M-Monochrom typ 246 with those two lenses.

To wrap up, I will pass along this tidbit of wisdom that a young man bestowed upon me just yesterday: "We're not here for a long time; we're here for a GOOD time." And we're back to that quality of life thing.

JMHO/YMMV. Hope the above helps.

dave lackey
06-18-2016, 18:32
@Dave, my answers to your questions are as follows -

(1.) Yes.

I have met many Buddhist monks who have very little in the way of possessions or financial assets. They are the happiest people I have ever met. Others who are also content with what little they have are "bums" - Ski Bums, Trout Bums, Surf board members Bums, Climbing Bums and Photography Bums. I have read stories of Rock Climbing Bums who have lived for years on end in dilapidated vehicles and/or tents with no job. They climb rock daily, do menial temp work to pay for food and other necessities, have no health insurance or investment portfolios - and they are deliriously happy. Same with Ski Bums - they are ski lift operators, ski rescue guys/gals or ski techs who mount bindings on skis, sharpen/wax skis, etc. They live hand to mouth on little money but the payoff is a season lift ticket at the ski area where they work. Every day there is snow on the ground, they are on the mountains, screaming down the runs at 60 MPH or hammering their way through the mogul fields. Same with Trout Bums - they are fishing guides who make not much money, but they are casting flies and catching trout every single day while their clients get to do that two weeks a year. It's all about following your passion and making sacrifices to do so. The payoff isn't money - it's happiness and a quality of life that others only dream of.

(2.) It all depends on who you ask. Bill Gates, Donald Trump or Mark Cuban will give you distinctly different answers from a Buddhist monk, a Trout Bum, a Photography Bum or an aspiring Olympic athlete.

(3.) If I were that guy, I would have a 28mm and a 50mm lens (probably the new version of the 28 Summicron and the 50mm Summilux) and my M camera. Those two lenses would cover 90% plus of my needs.

(4.) Again, it depends on who you ask; a guy who homesteads in a cabin in Alaska will give you a very different answer from a Wall Street investment banker or a Buddhist monk. America's current mainstream culture is all about amassing money, fame, power or a combination of all three. Chasing those pots of gold at the end of the rainbow is in many cases an exercise in futility. Many people discover that when they have at long last achieved all of the "when I finally get _______________, THEN I'll be happy" preconditions, they are STILL unhappy; then what??

After having had the opportunity to observe firsthand other cultures and people, I have come to a realization: On the whole, America's current mainstream culture is counterproductive to happiness, peace of mind and a quality of life that brings with it contentment. Why is that? Because we in America tend to give OTHER PEOPLE the power to decide for us what will make us happy. Giving someone else that power is just asking for unhappiness.

(5.) If I were that guy, it would be my M-P 240. I stuck with film 100% until two years ago when I got my first digital camera, an M240. I love film - particularly Tri-X and the prints I can get from it - but the M-P 240 makes my photographic life so much more easy.

In my experience, when used with Leica M lenses, Leica's24 mp 24x36mm sensor M cameras easily equal or exceed 120 film in terms of printed image quality at a given size. That is an awfully compelling case for acquiring a full frame digital M camera and an M lens or two for it. Regarding the cost of the camera and one lens,

I have had my MP 240 for fifteen months now; last week, I sat down and figured out how much money I have saved in terms of film and processing. I would have spent over $9300 USD to shoot an equal number of images on film in those fifteen months - and that's if I bought chemistry and developed it all myself, which would have taken thousands of hours of developing.

(6.) Again, if I were that guy - I would have my M-P 240 and a 28mm and a 50mm lens, or possibly an M-Monochrom typ 246 with those two lenses.

To wrap up, I will pass along this tidbit of wisdom that a young man bestowed upon me just yesterday: "We're not here for a long time; we're here for a GOOD time." And we're back to that quality of life thing.

JMHO/YMMV. Hope the above helps.

Ah, thanks for the well thought-thru response! Not much I can not agree with there because you have identified my "bum-ness". I fit the Trout bum and photo bum pretty well, at least as part-time bum. My full-time job doesn't pay anything and I have no time off so being a bum is a heavenly pursuit!

I love that title! I am a bum... A Leica bum. Perfect!

I guess the fact that I cannot afford a Leica M digital even used (not interested in the M8), means I am a Leica film bum. At least that part of my life is a happy part. Not too sure about the trout bum part as I get no free time to go fishing other than for panfish occasionally at our neighborhood lake.

It occurs to me that I have a single Orvis flyrod. A single Pelikan pen. A single M6. A single X1. No cars. No houses. But I am happy with all of that!

It is grand to be a bum.

Archiver
06-20-2017, 23:40
Dave, you settled on the M6. But what lens(es) do you have?? :D

For me, a simple life that included a Leica would be my M9 and only three lenses: 21, 35 and 50. These take care of almost all shooting I like. Were I to strip it down more, it would be a 25/28 and 50. Even further, it would be a fast 35. Video is important to me, so if I had to have an all in one it would probably be the SL and a couple of lenses, or the M240.

As for a simple life, I think of it as being 'stripped back' and minimal but not necessarily cheap or self-depriving. I believe a person can live a simple life while using luxury goods, but not multiples of these goods. So a simple life could be lived with one well maintained German or Italian car, a neatly furnished but minimal home, a wardrobe of well made but multipurpose clothing, and of course, a good camera. The complications arise when there are lots of different choices and superfluous items. One pair of Crockett and Jones or Alden shoes is simple. Five pairs is superfluous. Own what you can use, but little more, if possible.

The occasional small luxury, well-chosen and practical, can give immense satisfaction. My collection of gear is the antithesis of this, but I've arrived at a point where I have so much that I have very few hankerings for anything else. So, in a way, my mountain of gear is as minimal and simple as it can be for me to be happy with it.

And yet, some don't 'need' any of that to be truly happy. Like the bum described above, it's about desired experiences of life, and being able to construct ones life to have them in a streamlined fashion.

JHutchins
06-21-2017, 00:15
Haven't read most of this thread, but definitely know more than a few people in the ski bum/climbing bum category (though all the kids say dirtbag these days, not bum). Also musicians and perpetual tourists. I live in Juneau and they're drawn here.

Me, maybe I kind of fit? I live on a sailboat in Juneau and definitely haven't room for many things. So I try, on the whole, to have niceish things. Only "niceish" because my imagination is fairly unbounded while my income is fairly tightly bound. So I recognize many, many layers of nice above mine. My daughter is in college now and has two more years left and I'm thinking pretty seriously about becoming my own flavor of dirtbag once she's out. Though I prefer the term "seafaring vagabond." It'd mean quitting my job and relying on my meager savings to survive while sailing, taking pictures, and reading -- the three things I want to spend most of my time on. I have a pretty full kindle and when it dies; well, kindles are cheap so I think I'm covered there. Have the boat so I spend a lot of time thinking about how to maintain my camera habit. I have an M240 now and am seriously thinking about getting either an M10 or a 246 Monochrom as a second camera (or really a first camera and the 240 would be the second) so that, at least while I can afford repairs, I won't have to be without a camera while repairs are being carried out. Though frankly I'm not convinced that any of these are incredibly reliable cameras and I think there will come a time when I can't afford to have repairs made so I expect there will come a time when I'll survive by finding antiquated Fuji X100s on ebay. And I can live with that future too.

I've already reduced my lens collection down to a 21/3.4 Super Angulon, a 35 Summilux pre-ASPH, a 50 rigid Summicron and a 75 Summilux. I could get by with just the 21 and 35 but whatever, I like the others, there's a place for them in the boat, I feel no special need to reduce further.



@Dave, my answers to your questions are as follows -

(1.) Yes.

I have met many Buddhist monks who have very little in the way of possessions or financial assets. They are the happiest people I have ever met. Others who are also content with what little they have are "bums" - Ski Bums, Trout Bums, Surf Bums, Climbing Bums and Photography Bums. I have read stories of Rock Climbing Bums who have lived for years on end in dilapidated vehicles and/or tents with no job. They climb rock daily, do menial temp work to pay for food and other necessities, have no health insurance or investment portfolios - and they are deliriously happy. Same with Ski Bums - they are ski lift operators, ski rescue guys/gals or ski techs who mount bindings on skis, sharpen/wax skis, etc. They live hand to mouth on little money but the payoff is a season lift ticket at the ski area where they work. Every day there is snow on the ground, they are on the mountains, screaming down the runs at 60 MPH or hammering their way through the mogul fields. Same with Trout Bums - they are fishing guides who make not much money, but they are casting flies and catching trout every single day while their clients get to do that two weeks a year. It's all about following your passion and making sacrifices to do so. The payoff isn't money - it's happiness and a quality of life that others only dream of.

(2.) It all depends on who you ask. Bill Gates, Donald Trump or Mark Cuban will give you distinctly different answers from a Buddhist monk, a Trout Bum, a Photography Bum or an aspiring Olympic athlete.

(3.) If I were that guy, I would have a 28mm and a 50mm lens (probably the new version of the 28 Summicron and the 50mm Summilux) and my M camera. Those two lenses would cover 90% plus of my needs.

(4.) Again, it depends on who you ask; a guy who homesteads in a cabin in Alaska will give you a very different answer from a Wall Street investment banker or a Buddhist monk. America's current mainstream culture is all about amassing money, fame, power or a combination of all three. Chasing those pots of gold at the end of the rainbow is in many cases an exercise in futility. Many people discover that when they have at long last achieved all of the "when I finally get _______________, THEN I'll be happy" preconditions, they are STILL unhappy; then what??

After having had the opportunity to observe firsthand other cultures and people, I have come to a realization: On the whole, America's current mainstream culture is counterproductive to happiness, peace of mind and a quality of life that brings with it contentment. Why is that? Because we in America tend to give OTHER PEOPLE the power to decide for us what will make us happy. Giving someone else that power is just asking for unhappiness.

(5.) If I were that guy, it would be my M-P 240. I stuck with film 100% until two years ago when I got my first digital camera, an M240. I love film - particularly Tri-X and the prints I can get from it - but the M-P 240 makes my photographic life so much more easy.

In my experience, when used with Leica M lenses, Leica's24 mp 24x36mm sensor M cameras easily equal or exceed 120 film in terms of printed image quality at a given size. That is an awfully compelling case for acquiring a full frame digital M camera and an M lens or two for it. Regarding the cost of the camera and one lens,

I have had my MP 240 for fifteen months now; last week, I sat down and figured out how much money I have saved in terms of film and processing. I would have spent over $9300 USD to shoot an equal number of images on film in those fifteen months - and that's if I bought chemistry and developed it all myself, which would have taken thousands of hours of developing.

(6.) Again, if I were that guy - I would have my M-P 240 and a 28mm and a 50mm lens, or possibly an M-Monochrom typ 246 with those two lenses.

To wrap up, I will pass along this tidbit of wisdom that a young man bestowed upon me just yesterday: "We're not here for a long time; we're here for a GOOD time." And we're back to that quality of life thing.

JMHO/YMMV. Hope the above helps.

Archiver
06-21-2017, 03:30
Pure reduction to the basics of life with just enough? This may be a life with few stresses from the complex society around him but one filled with a passion for capturing the beauty of the world he lives in and sharing with other people just to see them smile.

Which Leica would he most likely use? Please note that I have reduced the gear of choice to Leica only for a reason. No need to bring in other brands for this discussion.

What do you think of a one-Leica life and the gear of choice while living on quite modest means? Would he/she shoot film or digital? M2, M3, or newer? M8, M9 or a later digital camera?:confused:

To answer Dave's original question:

A one Leica life on modest means would probably entail a secondhand body from the M3-M6 era, and one or two secondhand lenses in good condition. Desired lenses would affect the body chosen: 50mm shooters would do well with a M3, 28mm shooters would prefer a M6. Those who want a lighter camera could get a lovely zinc M4-P. My reasoning is that an old film M will cost less than a digital M secondhand, and will be serviceable for a longer period of time.

As for lenses, it's up to shooter preferences again. My preference is for the best balance between small and fast, so I'd go with an earlier Summilux 35, or a secondhand Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.4. Going a bit slower but cheaper is the Voigtlander Skopar 35/2.5, tiny and inexpensive.

Wide shooters have a range of lovely lenses like the 21mm Super Angulon, 24mm Elmar and 28mm Elmarit, which come at lower prices than their newer counterparts. If the shooter doesn't mind non-Leica lenses, there's the Voigtlander 21/4 and 25/4 which are very affordable secondhand, and very compact. I love my Voigtlander 25/4 on a film body.

As long as the one-Leica shooter is prepared to do their own development and printing, costs can be reduced even further. Buy black and white film and chems in bulk, store the film in the freezer until needed.

If the one-Leica shooter of modest means wants a digital camera, the X1 and X2 can be had for quite cheap secondhand. The X 113 sports a very fast 35mm equivalent lens, and secondhand X cameras can be found for the same price as a secondhand M6, or thereabouts.

Let's assume our modest hero has a reasonable computer, and harddrive space is getting cheaper all the time, anyway. The X1, X2 and 113 produce relatively small files, so filling a 5TB harddrive will take long enough for money to be saved for a new one later on.

What do I think of such a life? It would be quite liberating, honestly. When I only had one camera (a Canon S45 digital zoom compact) there was never any question about which camera or lens I was going to use. It was just there, and I had to make do with it. Now I have loads of cameras and lenses and it can be a hassle to think of what I'm going to use.

To live with the limitations of an inexpensive single camera would mean picking one that meets as many of my potential shooting needs as possible, so I'd have to go with a digital Leica that shoots video. I'd choose the X113 in this instance, or maybe even the D-Lux (this is cheating because it's a rebranded Panasonic). The D-Lux has the most versatility of all these cameras and fits within the budgetary requirements, although serviceability over time would be an issue.

David Hughes
06-21-2017, 06:04
Hmmm, I use this computer for my accounts, the odd letter and photography but the M6 will kill one of them, the simply life kills computerised accounts and the fountain pen is better for letter writing.


So a lot of money being saved and accumulated.


So will you save it as gold coins in a sock under the mattress? Or sacks? We can now start a discussion about the merits of gold Roubles, Dollars and Sovereigns... And then move on to sacking...


Regards, David

Deardorff38
06-21-2017, 09:11
For quite a few decades, my most used lens was a 35mm summicron, with an M2, M4, M6 behind it. There's no question that my current MP eliminates the need for a meter & simplifies things. If I trimmed it down to one camera & lens, i'd find the old black paint M2 I sold and put a 35 summicron on it or my current no goggles 35 Summaron with the beautiful infinity lock. Unfortunately, about the time I got involved in darkroom work, a mentor gave me a Fuji 6x9....& I eventually got a 5x7." For me I would give up photography all together if I did not do my own (wet) printing. In the darkroom, I prefer a large negative every time... so if I simplified, my choice would bypass the beauty of the Leica, and settle on my Rolleiflex T with the 3.5 Tessar. It's slower & I always take less images than with 35... but love working with them in the darkroom.

JeffS7444
06-22-2017, 12:08
For grins, maybe I'd try an X2 and call it good. Assuming that it worked about as well as my Ricoh GR does, I think it'd work out fine.

creenus
06-22-2017, 12:32
"Leica Dirtbag" seems incongruous, but I could live with that.

I would say bum, but that's a whole other thing to the Brits :eek:

David Hughes
06-23-2017, 02:05
As we are only allowed one camera, can I assume you'll all swap your smart phones for old fashioned dumb phones?

FWIW, I'd sooner have the Leica few lenses set-up (and did for decades) and an Olympus XA4 for pocketability and the close-up function but that's two film cameras...

Regards, David

steveyork
07-09-2017, 06:51
Creative people tend to get bored easily. That's some of why photographers are always cycling through new gear, or trying new chemistry. They're looking for new experiences. Traveling is probably a better option, but that involves a time commitment. Having said that, I think there is some truth to the old photographer maxim that beginners obsess about gear, as they get more experience they obsess about composition, until finally they're thinking in terms of light. The truth of the matter, as we all know, is that any camera can take a great picture, and when you are in the field you don't care whether it is spelled with an "L" or not. Usually when I'm thinking too much about gear, it means I'm not taking enough pictures.

sjones
07-09-2017, 09:23
My M2 and 50mm Summicron DR is enough. I don't have a desire for any other camera/lens combination. And being that the photography world has failed to come up with something more enticing (for me!!!) in the last 60 years, i doubt I'll be changing my mind, at least in terms of 35mm cameras.

I cannot fully dismiss the possibility of exploring medium or large format film in the future, but right now I have no plans for such expansion.

I do not feel the least bit creatively limited by my camera, whereby the shortcomings that I still confront originate from my mind and vision.