Leica M 240. Might be the camera for ( war-) photographers if...

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Transcontinenta. And they are not very Leica-oriented. I always deal with Wetzlar directly. They were not able to get a Monochrome when it came out. I called Solms and they sent one out.

I was talking about Inca, because that was the name in the past, when this happened. And I must say, talking to seasoned professionals, they still talk about the old Inca and it's curious Leica- behaviour. I have better experience with Transcontinenta, some people there try to be very helpfull. But I don't know derect why they are not so Leica oriented. If one has to deal with Leica directly, what's the use of this firm for Leica anyway? Shuving boxes?

[jaapv]

Yes, there are a few nice people there, but Leica is only a small part of their operations. The Odin days were a lot better.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tom0511]

What would it need, to revive the Robbert Capa early times again, now in the digital era. Is it possible and how? or is it still happening?

 

Dont know someone with a Leica M but I know a good photographer who has been shooting in Iran, Syria, Egypt during revolutions etc. with a Leica S with impressive results.

 

We should not forget that technology has moved forward and if fastest pace is important (and I believe it is for photographing in war areas) I would also use a camera with fast AF rather than a Leica M.

 

When Leicas were so popular for reportage there were not many other faster options available.

[Peter H]

What would it need, to revive the Robbert Capa early times again, now in the digital era. Is it possible and how? or is it still happening?

 

Dont know someone with a Leica M but I know a good photographer who has been shooting in Iran, Syria, Egypt during revolutions etc. with a Leica S with impressive results.

 

We should not forget that technology has moved forward and if fastest pace is important (and I believe it is for photographing in war areas) I would also use a camera with fast AF rather than a Leica M.

 

When Leicas were so popular for reportage there were not many other faster options available.

In a completely unpredictable situation as I imagine war photography is, unlike sports photography which can be just as fast-moving in most circumstances, but where most parameters are set and you operate within a known set of variables, I'm not convinced that AF is going to be the best way of getting the most acceptably in-focus shots of the critical action.

 

Maybe other reasons make DSLRs the most popular choice.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Peter H

[jaapv]

What would it need, to revive the Robbert Capa early times again, now in the digital era. Is it possible and how? or is it still happening?

 

Dont know someone with a Leica M but I know a good photographer who has been shooting in Iran, Syria, Egypt during revolutions etc. with a Leica S with impressive results.

 

We should not forget that technology has moved forward and if fastest pace is important (and I believe it is for photographing in war areas) I would also use a camera with fast AF rather than a Leica M.

 

When Leicas were so popular for reportage there were not many other faster options available.

Given that Robert Capa often used other brands than Leica ,Graphlex, Contax , Nikon and that the VRF only was introduced i n1954, well after WWII, I doubt that this is a very good comparison.

[Paulus]

Given that Robert Capa often used other brands than Leica ,Graphlex, Contax , Nikon and that the VRF only was introduced i n1954, well after WWII, I doubt that this is a very good comparison.

With " Robbert Capa early times " i meant the time between 1929 and 1946. I read, that he shot a lot with Leica, selling them all the time when he needed money. Don't know if he still used it in Indochina. He used a Nikon, when he stepped on the landmine there...

[Likaleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2008/12/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-iraq

[jaapv]

With " Robbert Capa early times " i meant the time between 1929 and 1946. I read, that he shot a lot with Leica, selling them all the time when he needed money. Don't know if he still used it in Indochina. He used a Nikon, when he stepped on the landmine there...

He used a Contax in Normandy.

[jto555]

From reading here a war photographer needs - AF, a zoom, a small camera, high ISO, and video. So, let me present you with -

 

http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-digital-cameras---point-and-shoot/bridge-cameras/dmc-fz330.html

 

Or if you want smaller body and a "Pro" level of backup service -

 

https://www.canon.ie/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_camera/powershot/powershot_g5_x/

 

 

For a war photographer I suspect reliability is paramount. If you are filming during a firefight there IS no backup or another camera been couried out to the you. Also light weight and small dimensions are good. You do not want to be carrying 20 kg of camera kit in 35 degree heat and trying to run at the same time. Image quality would not be high on the list. If the picture is good enough it is good enough.

 

During the London riots of 2011, photographers became the target of some rioters. So a few photographers put away their Pro camera and used the likes of a Canon G11. It ticked all the boxes above and could be put in a pocket if the photographer needed to blend in to the crowd.

 

One other pratical point. Photographers today are not getting as much money for published work as before and very few photographers are staffers on magazines with a salary. So the kit also has to be more affordable for when it has to be replaced.

Replace a Leica body - about €6,500. Replace a Panasonic DMC - about €500.
 

Edited July 24, 2016 by jto555

[Exodies]

What's the point of war photographs other than to make a reputation for the photographer? The pictures are ugly and predictable.

[Paulus]

What's the point of war photographs other than to make a reputation for the photographer? The pictures are ugly and predictable.

I don't think I understand? How can you make a reputation with ugly and predictable photographs, do you mean a bad reputation, or do you think, that- ugly and predictable- this is the case in all war photographers?

[jdlaing]

What's the point of war photographs other than to make a reputation for the photographer? The pictures are ugly and predictable.

You are correct. War photography is just another form of sensationalism. Until you have been on the business end of a bullet all you can do is look at the photos with your mouth hanging open. Ask Pico. War is meant to be experienced in person. If more folks got a close up taste there would be less.

[Exodies]

I don't think I understand? How can you make a reputation with ugly and predictable photographs, do you mean a bad reputation, or do you think, that- ugly and predictable- this is the case in all war photographers?

Jdlaing said it better than I could. Sensationalism like sentimentality sells.

[jdlaing]

I'll give the uniniated an example. I may use Chief Petty Officer language so caution to the readers.

 

In 1969 we used to take a Mark IV PBR river boat out at night and head up river and change course so the boat would drift with the current after we shut the engine off. When the boat came almost to a stop we would throw the bow line in the brush and the boat would sit there dead silent along the bank. This was an ambush position. One night some Ensign came to us with a war correspondent photographer and told us to let him tag along. Not a good idea but it was what it was.

 

We do the deal and this moron is sitting in the boat at the fron right behind the gin tub where the twin 50 mount was. The forward gunners head is all that shows. We told this photog two or three times to keep his big mouth shut and sit down.

 

The North Vietnamese regulars were very afraid of snakes. Along comes this fool down the river bank carrying a 122mm rocket and a lantern so he can see if there are any snakes. There were a couple more rocket crewmen behind him that we hadn't seen yet thru the brush. This ass walks right in front of the boat and trips over the bow line and gets back up right between the twin 50. If the gunner had fired he wouldn't have hit the guy. The idiot immediately throws his hands up. The photog jumps up to catch his photo and all hell breaks loose from the other two NVA. Three very nice boat crew lost their lives that night because of this sensationalist rat bastado. He was hustled out of the base before morning. If we'd had caught him he probably would have been on the casualty list.

 

This is why I am so disdainful of war photographers. Mostly they are in the way.

[Giulio Zanni]

What's the point of war photographs other than to make a reputation for the photographer? The pictures are ugly and predictable.

Sorry no effense but this is an ignorant and arrogant statement. I guess you never looked at the images of Nachtwey or other VII photographers. This is people that risk their life to raise awareness about the tragedies of this world. War photography might not be your kind of photography (even if after such a statement I would be curious to see your images) but I think they deserve respect. Edited July 24, 2016 by giulioz

[Exodies]

I looked at the pictures. It came as some surprise to me that war is bad. My awareness is raised. Now what?

[Giulio Zanni]

I looked at the pictures. It came as some surprise to me that war is bad. My awareness is raised. Now what?

Nothing, we go back and shoot our dogs at 1.4 with our five thousand dollars lens :-)

[zlatkob]

What's the point of war photographs other than to make a reputation for the photographer? The pictures are ugly and predictable.

 

Oh gosh, you are right.  There should be NO pictures of war.  That would be better, right?  There should be no ugly pictures of anything.  And take it a step further:  people should stop all pointless journalism about ugly subjects and unhappy events.  Writing about anything sad ... that's ugly and predictable.  Writing history ... don't bother ... a lot of it is ugly and predictable.  Tragedy, illness, disease, crime, misfortune ... likewise all terrible subjects.  We can greatly simplify public education by taking out all of these ugly and predictable parts.  Music too ... just make the pretty and happy kind.

[zlatkob]

What's the point of war photographs other than to make a reputation for the photographer? The pictures are ugly and predictable.

 

You're really onto something with this complaint.  Just think how the writing and re-writing of history could be managed more efficiently and prettily if there weren't these pesky war photographers making pesky photos of ugly stuff.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

But there is a point in Exodies' post. Of course there is war photography that exposes, informs and shapes opinion, often at great risk to the photographer. But too much that makes the newspapers is not much more than the obligatory running-with-gun uniformed type amidst demolished buildings which tells us nothing, or devastated civilian mother with tear-stained child type of stuff that is pure cliché.