Leica shooting

[Knomad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are at least a few differences.

 

First, shooting with a rangefinder... any quality rangefinder, really... is a different way of seeing. No more "looking through the tunnel" of a DSLR. Instead you see a nice bright image, and the ability to see outside the brightline frames means you can edit into as well as out of the image. This changes the way I compose images, and I think that difference is under-rated.

 

Specifically with a Leica M, there are tangible and intangible differences. Tangible ones include the exquisite balance of the camera, the minimalist layout with only essential controls, the quality build, and the technical aspect of the lenses, the quantifiable things like resolution.

 

Intangible... Leica glass does some things that can't be quantified. There's a unique look. Many of us have a favorite lens or two, and for some of us they are older lenses.

 

Then there's the experience of shooting with a legend. For some people this might not matter... it's true that a good photographer can find a way to get a good photo with almost any piece of equipment. But for other people, I don't doubt that using a Leica raises the bar. It can make one passionate about photography, which results in more care and deeper involvement in creating the image.

 

For me... although I dabbled in Leica earlier, I made the move for good about 12 years ago, with an M6. Before that I'd worked professionally with Nikons, and then with medium format when my emphasis shifted to the art scene. So using a Leica was a huge change, suddenly I was freed from the tripod and the studio and had all this wonderful spontaneity.

 

One of the ironies of Leica is that we have these little jewels, technological marvels with some of the sharpest lenses ever made, and then we go out and use them handheld at slow shutter speeds and wide open in impossible lighting conditions. There's no way to explain why we do this to anyone who hasn't done it. All I can say is that it's possible for a Leica image to somehow look sharp even when it's not, even when there's camera movement blur and it was shot at night at a quarter-second and the depth of field is a few millimeters. I could never get my Nikons to do that, first I could never hand hold them at speeds that slow, all the mirror vibration and the bulkier body wasn't as steady, and the lenses while fine stopped down weren't as good wide open, and the images just looked blurry and soft.

 

The minimalism is also very important to me. My life is complex enough, the last thing I want to add to it is a DSLR that does everything but wash my dishes and has a 420 page users manual. With a Leica, even with a digital M, my creative life can be a refuge from that everyday complexity. That minimalism is very important to me.

 

I can take a good photo with another camera. But there aren't very many I'd talk about the way I just talked about a Leica. They aren't for everyone, but if a rangefinder is compatible with what you choose to photograph and the way you go about it, I've got to believe that passion translates into results.

[Advertisement]

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

[Hakan Aldrin]

Knomad - thank you for a very well written post!

[Millberg]

This review of Leica M9 is really good. It touches on the questions I had. Found it on a Canon site :-)

 

The Leica M9 Review