The M9 with the new 35 Summilux

[microview]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well you'd find more if you took the bother to follow the link in the original posting!

[Knorp]

Sorry but $118 for a field test on a lens shooting cats and plants ain't exactly what I describe as interesting or useful. I guess the Leica M shooter has changed since digital.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't see the value.

 

Perhaps you have to try harder then: but please take a look here first: 35lux

I think Jono did a grand job.

 

All the best.

[Guest Lotw]

That, indeed, is special!

[leicashot]

Perhaps you have to try harder then: but please take a look here first: 35lux

I think Jono did a grand job.

 

All the best.

 

OK, I concede there is more to it, but for $118 I see more value in buying a book with skilled photography from working professional photographers. IMHO the images, although fine are just like any I see on most forums and don't truly represent the nature of traditional Leica photography. But I'm just a crabby old traditionalist and not representative of the majority of people on this forum....so I know I'm wrong....and If I am wrong lets see forum member put their money where their mouth is and buy this book.

 

Good luck to you and sales.

 

Kristian

[Mauribix]

Gimme some popcorn please...

 

BTW, Kristian, may you please tell me what "traditional Leica photography" is supposed to be?

[leicashot]

Gimme some popcorn please...

 

BTW, Kristian, may you please tell me what "traditional Leica photography" is supposed to be?

 

I can tell you what it 'wasn't. Flowers and pet images.

 

It 'was' designed for photojournalists documenting people as people react differently around Leica M's as they are small, which at the time they were introduced were invaluable to people such as HCB.

 

Not to say they can't be used for pets and flowers....just not my cup of tea, and I feel there are better cameras for the job in that regard.

 

I'm sure you must disagree...well enjoy your popcorn

[andym911]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can tell you what it 'wasn't. Flowers and pet images.

 

It 'was' designed for photojournalists documenting people as people react differently around Leica M's as they are small, which at the time they were introduced were invaluable to people such as HCB.

 

Not to say they can't be used for pets and flowers....just not my cup of tea, and I feel there are better cameras for the job in that regard.

 

I'm sure you must disagree...well enjoy your popcorn

 

Sort of agree here....putting on the table cats and plants....well you know what I mean...an olympus XA would have done it too.......or any other half working digital/analog/TLR/whatever camera.......Bokeh?.....sad stuff.

 

well that's the forum in recent times ...collectors and ASPH fanatics..

 

best

andy

[leicashot]

Sort of agree here....putting on the table cats and plants....well you know what I mean...an olympus XA would have done it too.......or any other half working digital/analog/TLR/whatever camera.......Bokeh?.....sad stuff.

 

well that's the forum ...collectors and ASPH fanatics..

 

best

andy

 

Yes I men no disrespect to the author but to charge $118 for a book, the images need to have value beyond what is seen on the internet. The images must be of financial value to the customer. i'm only saying this because the images don't represent the 'traditional' value of Leica M Photography. Instead they could have been taken with any camera. There are certain situations where a Leica M is almost essential to acquiring great images and most of those situations involve people, because the attributes of an M, being small in size and quite relate to the nature of people photography.

 

I suggest the author take his/her time to establish images that represent these qualities before putting out and investing in such an enterprise. i believe the book would also have more widespread appeal too. if you disagree look at Leica catalogues dating back to the original m's and previous, even up to today.

 

if modern day Leica photography is about still life and animals i apologize....it wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong. Have a good day everyone.

[Mauribix]

I can tell you what it 'wasn't. Flowers and pet images.

 

It 'was' designed for photojournalists documenting people as people react differently around Leica M's as they are small, which at the time they were introduced were invaluable to people such as HCB.

 

Not to say they can't be used for pets and flowers....just not my cup of tea, and I feel there are better cameras for the job in that regard.

 

I'm sure you must disagree...well enjoy your popcorn

 

Your guess is partly right, I disagree... because it was not designed specificly for "photojournalists documenting people". That's the most common and obvious mistake that photo-amateurs tend to do when they talk about Leica.

It was designed to take photographs, using a smaller film in a smaller unit. Period. It was a matter of size not related to photojournalism.

 

Then I can't disagree with what you can't seem to argue: I asked you what "traditional Leica photography" is supposed to be, and you told me just what is not supposed to(still in your personal opinion I guess).

If I asked you what a 35mm lens was, would have you answered me "it's not a 50mm lens"?

Of course you were not wrong, but that wouldn't be such a smart answer.

I was expecting something more from a selfdescribed "old traditionalist"... I used to think that traditionalists should at least know their traditions as to argue when asked.

 

Well, probably, since you're here from not too long, you're forgetting to consider which role was covered by Jonathan during the M9 pre-production.

But then again, if it's a cat or a bee in front of you, why shouldn't you snap them?

You may like it or not, but there's not always a war scene to frame.

[leicashot]

Your guess is partly right, I disagree... because it was not designed specificly for "photojournalists documenting people". That's the most common and obvious mistake that photo-amateurs tend to do when they talk about Leica.

It was designed to take photographs, using a smaller film in a smaller unit. Period. It was a matter of size not related to photojournalism.

 

Then I can't disagree with what you can't seem to argue: I asked you what "traditional Leica photography" is supposed to be, and you told me just what is not supposed to(still in your personal opinion I guess).

If I asked you what a 35mm lens was, would have you answered me "it's not a 50mm lens"?

Of course you were not wrong, but that wouldn't be such a smart answer.

I was expecting something more from a selfdescribed "old traditionalist"... I used to think that traditionalists should at least know their traditions as to argue when asked.

 

Well, probably, since you're here from not too long, you're forgetting to consider which role was covered by Jonathan during the M9 pre-production.

But then again, if it's a cat or a bee in front of you, why shouldn't you snap them?

You may like it or not, but there's not always a war scene to frame.

 

Well while you acted all 'smart' with your analyzation of my comments, you then go and bring up 'war scene' making the assumption that that is what I am talking about when I actually wasn't. If you're going to get into an argument, please make your claims valid instead of making them up. glad you're enjoying your popcorn, its all part of the service

[Mauribix]

Now I really enjoy my popcorn.

[Nikkor AIS]

I think testing a lens with cats plants is totally acceptable. Better than test charts and brick walls. I agree the Leica's where ment to take picture's. This idea that there for" this" or for 'that' is just silly.

 

 

Gregory

[jonoslack]

Wow - I seem to have caused a controversy - how refreshing.

For those who stick up for me - thank you!

 

Kristian (and Andy as well).

first of all, the 'plants and pets' and 'could have been taken with any camera' are terribly cliched jibes - surely you can do better than that . . . . but then, perhaps you like your jibes to be traditional too?

 

First a little self defence.

The book is nothing to do with the lens test - I made the book for myself, as a record of time spent testing the M9. It was suggested that some others would like it, so I made it public and added the exposure and lens information - every book sold also contributes to a charity - none of it comes to me, and if you wish, you can look at all the pages online for nothing. Some people have looked at it, some people have bought it, and from those I've only had nice comments (thank you!). More about the content a bit later.

 

As far as the 'plants and pets'. I've had the 35 'lux for a little over a week, unfortunately,during that time I haven't been to any gritty third world countries . Still I was aware that others would like to get some kind of a handle on the characteristics of the lens, so I tried to present that - mostly with wide open shots to give some idea of how the lens draws, and, Andy, if you aren't interested in the bokeh - fine - others certainly are. I live out in the country, amongst animals and plants, graveyards and church concerts - so that is what I had available to shoot. Of course I understand that beyond the documentary aspects this isn't traditional M photography, but I was hoping that it would give people some idea of how the lens performs, and perhaps be a little more interesting than the kind of test shots you get on some sites.

 

Right - defence over.

 

as far as 'traditional M photography' is concerned. Sorry - I take issue with your point of view. One of the real joys of digital M photography is that the possibilities have really expanded - whether photographs of rural scenes/landscapes/plants are worthwhile is perhaps questionable (I ask this question often). However, the M9 makes an excellent landscape camera:

GetDpi landscape thread, it's also fine for travel (which is actually what my book mostly relates to, and anyway, I thought that WAS a traditional M use).

 

I feel quite evangelical about this - it's very sad to feel limited with subject matter using a camera which is actually very versatile.

 

Yes I mean no disrespect to the author but to charge $118 for a book, the images need to have value beyond what is seen on the internet. The images must be of financial value to the customer.

erm . . . did you really meant that about financial value?

Doesn't sound like the spirit of M photography to me.

 

The 'it could have been taken with any camera' remark I also take issue with - characteristics of leica lenses shine whatever the subject may be, and the small lightweight camera and lenses makes it a travel kit second to none (the smallest full frame camera).

 

Finally - back to the content of the book - out of several hundred pictures I counted 4 pictures which include pets (mine or others) and 8 if you include horses and chickens as pets; the whole last section is dedicated to People. The rest either relate to travel / landscape / wedding / people, two of which certainly ought to fit into your criteria Kristian. There isn't any gritty realism . . . . I consciously don't do gritty realism, I try to celebrate the world around us, the people the places and the things, and in my opinion the M9 helps me to do this, partly because it doesn't get between me and the subject, and partly because of the wonderful quality of the optics. Other cameras are not the same. Whether the subjects are worthwhile, or my realisation successful is obviously up for discussion (and don't imagine that you are more critical than I am).

[Mauribix]

Spot on, mate.

 

Jonathan, did you have any shot taken with the new 35lux with some foliage in the OOF area by the way?

When the lens came to my "attention" I remember I found it a bit more "nervous" with foliage in the background, i.e. the dreaded "double circle" effetcs.

Actually my 35lux ASPH ver.I did it too, but it seemed a little less pronounced.

Would you take care to post any example if you can?

Ciao,

Maurizio

[jonoslack]

Spot on, mate.

 

Jonathan, did you have any shot taken with the new 35lux with some foliage in the OOF area by the way?

When the lens came to my "attention" I remember I found it a bit more "nervous" with foliage in the background, i.e. the dreaded "double circle" effetcs.

Actually my 35lux ASPH ver.I did it too, but it seemed a little less pronounced.

Would you take care to post any example if you can?

Ciao,

Maurizio

 

Hi Maurizio

thank you!

I'm sure I can dig something out later - it can be nervous . . . but so can the IV, I never owned the previous lux ASPH, so it's hard to make a direct comparison (I rather suspect that this actually varies from lens to lens as well). A couple of shots already up will give you an idea:

 

poppies

iris

some other plant!

 

On the other hand, I think it can be lovely (as per the dreaded cat picture).

[Mauribix]

Well while you acted all 'smart' with your analyzation of my comments, you then go and bring up 'war scene' making the assumption that that is what I am talking about when I actually wasn't. If you're going to get into an argument, please make your claims valid instead of making them up. glad you're enjoying your popcorn, its all part of the service

 

Kristian, I'm glad you edited your former post. I found it a bit harsh too.

BTW "war scene" is a typical photojournalistic theme, that's why it was part of the equation... but I must disagree when you say that it was my assumption to your talking, I guess it's safe to read carefully before getting excited. It was just a bit of irony. Apologizes if I offended you.

[Mauribix]

Hi Maurizio

thank you!

I'm sure I can dig something out later - it can be nervous . . . but so can the IV, I never owned the previous lux ASPH, so it's hard to make a direct comparison (I rather suspect that this actually varies from lens to lens as well). A couple of shots already up will give you an idea:

 

poppies

iris

some other plant!

 

On the other hand, I think it can be lovely (as per the dreaded cat picture).

 

Thank you Jonathan,

the "some other plant" shot is nearly what I was meaning. Obviously we can't make a direct comparison... that's a pity.

[jaapv]

Hi Jono this thread made me look at your book again I think I will buy it. I envy your pet shots; I have two black cats and I have never been able to get even one decent shot of them... I stick to my dogs now- at least they dont have black velvet fur....

Seriously, I think subject matter echoes the photographer, not the camera. That it looks better with some brands is another thing.

[Elk]

Guys!

Don´t know if I dare to join this thread,but what the h'''.

I agree with Jonathan and Mauricio. To be even more specific ´bout the origin of the Leica. It was designed as an exposure test equipment. Oscar Barnack needed to find out how sensitive the film batches he bought were. Myht also tell us that Barnack was very determined to design a smaller camera than those sold around 1900-1920. Again it was Barnacks hobby as an amateur movie buff that made the 35 mm format possible. Because movie film stock had finer grain than contemporary plates. As a cinematographer by profession I´d like to point to that historical fact.

An other myth, or fact, is that Ernst Leitz II brought a Leica prototype along on his travel to USA. That also might have been one reason for Leitz to start producing the 35 mm camera and originating a whole new format for still photography. That is, a small camera for the average photo amateur! And as Leitz advertised, [Leica]...intended as a compact camera for landscape photography, particularly during mountain trips!

By the way, the lens was also essential to make use of movie film stock those days. Dr. Max Berek designed the first Elmar 50mm/3,5 which was the other part of the success. As hopefully the new Lux 35 will continue the success!

I try to use my Leica M9 in other areas than those Leica M cameras "are designed for". I do a lot of macro, for example. It´s not what the camera was intended for (if it ever was!), it´s what it´s used for and the result that´s essential.

Have a nice weekend

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mauribix]

It´s not what the camera was intended for (if it ever was!), it´s what it´s used for and the result that´s essential.

spot on.

 

I wasn't thinking about right now, but then again I used my M9s (oh well my M8s too) for reportages, weddings, newspapers, adv, and even 3 times for the fashion shows at the Milan Fashion Week and once at the N.Y. fashion week.

Yes, actually the digital M has expanded possibilities (as Jono underlined few posts ahead).

 

thank you for taking the time to write down a bit of history too: passionating.