Telegraph's M9 Review

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Andy, everything you said above makes perfect sense to me. And it could be that there is no good reason for Leica or its current users to have many new features in any M in the near future.

 

I have no idea if Leica's resources will allow it to develop another system at this time.

 

I totally get the appeal of the simplicity of the M. I'm just not sure if this is as important an attraction for many photographers as it once was. Leica might really have to do some kind of market research to determine, what if anything, they should add to an M. I'm just stating my opinions. If I were were running the company, I might reach the conclusion not to change much. (I don't know what they know.)

 

My general point of view is that once you turn a camera into a computer, you might as well let it run as many programs as possible, and let it interface with as many peripherals as possible. (I know people don't want to think of their M as a computer, but that is exactly what it is now.)

 

As for the business of photography, it is interesting you mentioned Newsweek. It has been losing money and The Washington Post is trying to sell it.

 

I know a lot of Leica users are very attracted by the "romance" of photojournalism. And my earliest interest in photography was to try to be another W. Eugene Smith. But even back in the early 70s it was clear that the golden era of photojournalism was long gone. I did a few news jobs but quickly moved into the commercial market as an architectural and advertising photographer.

 

The reality for most of those who are in that field is that it is a very unappreciated career where photographers are just a commodity and few make much of a living exclusively from photojournalism. And just doing the day to day work can be a hassle full of stress because a photojounalist carries little weight or authority and has limited financial resources to do the job well. Many years ago I was a national director of ASMP and we even changed our name from "Magazine" to "Media" to better reflect the range of photographers we wanted as members. Don't feel for me, I'm doing OK and am pretty set. But the profession of photojournalism is pretty low and most other aspects of the business are becoming less "professional" every day.

 

But I'm sure you already knew this.

[Advertisement]

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

[redbaron]

The reality for most of those who are in that field is that it is a very unappreciated career where photographers are just a commodity and few make much of a living exclusively from photojournalism. And just doing the day to day work can be a hassle full of stress because a photojounalist carries little weight or authority and has limited financial resources to do the job well. Many years ago I was a national director of ASMP and we even changed our name from "Magazine" to "Media" to better reflect the range of photographers we wanted as members. Don't feel for me, I'm doing OK and am pretty set. But the profession of photojournalism is pretty low and most other aspects of the business are becoming less "professional" every day.

 

I'm doing OK, and I use MPs. But I never really thought about being "appreciated", having "weight or authority" or being "low", whatever that means.

[AlanG]

I'm doing OK, and I use MPs. But I never really thought about being "appreciated", having "weight or authority" or being "low", whatever that means.

 

It means when you go to a site and want to move things around and have the engineer run some wires for you, they will probably say no. Whereas if you shooting advertising for a hotel, they will say, "sure," and "where do you want us to bring the food for the crew and models?"

[adan]

"It means when you go to a site and want to move things around..., they will probably say no."

 

Wasn't it Eliot Elisofon of LIFE who once asked, "Admiral, could you move your fleet about two miles to the left? It would improve the composition."?

 

I know. I know - that was 60 years ago. A different time, a different world.

 

I hope there is still (and will always be) a cultural need for unposed, undirected photographs and groups of photos that tell human stories and record the human condition - the Gene Smith approach, as you say. Perhaps that is more accurately called documentary photography or reportage, to distinguish it from the paparazzi and daily news photography (the "jour" in photojournalism).

 

But it certainly is less and less of a paying job (at least in the US). Smith starved in a garret for his art 50 years ago. Magnum turned to subsidies through commercial work 40 years ago. Newspapers took up and carried the torch for three more decades, but their tide is ebbing. It remains to be seen what new business model will come along.

[Xmas]

Personally I found the film loading mechanism of the M4 onwards much more of a relief than the rewind crank.

 

Ok two points for M2 or M3 cameras.

 

- You can get a fast load kit, consisting of a new spool and baseplate pusher similar to a M4 and later, in some ways better (than M4 tulip thing) in some ways worse.

 

- You can get fast rewinders which clamp on to the knob, but don't go around and around while you are winding, and is easier then a M4!

 

I have a quick load kit on all my M2s & M3, but only one fast rewinder. Don't notice a big difference, prefer the knob to the M4 or fast rewinders.

 

Noel

[Xmas]

"It means when you go to a site and want to move things around..., they will probably say no."

 

Wasn't it Eliot Elisofon of LIFE who once asked, "Admiral, could you move your fleet about two miles to the left? It would improve the composition."?

 

I know. I know - that was 60 years ago. A different time, a different world.

 

I hope there is still (and will always be) a cultural need for unposed, undirected photographs and groups of photos that tell human stories and record the human condition - the Gene Smith approach, as you say. Perhaps that is more accurately called documentary photography or reportage, to distinguish it from the paparazzi and daily news photography (the "jour" in photojournalism).

 

But it certainly is less and less of a paying job (at least in the US). Smith starved in a garret for his art 50 years ago. Magnum turned to subsidies through commercial work 40 years ago. Newspapers took up and carried the torch for three more decades, but their tide is ebbing. It remains to be seen what new business model will come along.

 

Lots of the Pjurnos complained that the met kettled them with the Proles ignoring their press passes.

 

Lots of the Pjurnos have taken to carrying cycle crash helmets, they did not carry them last year.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

But it certainly is less and less of a paying job (at least in the US). Smith starved in a garret for his art 50 years ago. Magnum turned to subsidies through commercial work 40 years ago. Newspapers took up and carried the torch for three more decades, but their tide is ebbing. It remains to be seen what new business model will come along.

 

I met Gene Smith in 1975 when he gave a lecture at RIT and received an award. he was still recovering from being beaten up in Minamata. It was clear that people were taking up some kind of collection for him. This really burst my bubble about the life of a photo journalist. (I know he had a lot of problems.)

 

There certainly are some pure photojournalists doing well. But we really need to clarify that most of the people we think of as photojournalists are doing a broader range of editorial shooting. Many also do weddings, events and corporate work. And a lot of commercial, fashion, corporate, and ad shooters do editorial work on the side for the enjoyment of it. This is sort of like having the well paying jobs subsidize the magazines. But being a "pure" photojournalist in the 21st century will be a tough going. Especially if you want to pay for health, liability, workers comp, disability, and life insurance, have a family, a college fund and a retirement plan. (Maybe the spouse has a good income.)

 

As a business, editorial shooting at one time had a concept called the day rate vs. page space. The day rate was the minimum you'd get if you had an assignment and your pictures couldn't be used. (E.g. you were hired for a stake out and nobody showed up, or they changed their minds about a story idea.) You'd get paid more if they were used depending on size and placement. But then it devolved to just a low day rate, and then magazines wanted more usage for the same low fee.

 

As for posing, I was surprised to learn how many National Geographic photos were set up. And there has always been a suspicion that some of Smith's Spanish Village shots were posed for effect.

[Samalmoe]

I met and worked on a project with smith in the 60's, and for what it's worth his cameras then were a miranda and a pen f. whatever it took to take a picture I guess..