AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #301 Posted June 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) And who says that a better electronic RF is going to be a bad thing? The same happened with the electronic sensor when it was firstly introduced. Who is now building film cameras? No one,except maybe some models from Leica like the MP which really deserves it as it can work everywhere and forever I think almost anything is possible. If you are a student of camera and photographic history just look at how remarkable it was for Polaroid to make the SX70 camera and film back in the early 70s. This was a very unique folding medium to largish format SLR design that later also had "sonar" automatic focusing. Some day, AF tracking may be nearly perfect and you'll be able to lock on to a specific eyeball and maintain focus in low light and when the subject is moving fairly quickly. We'll have to decide if this takes away from what we see as "photography" or adds to it. But if the Leica M can't do this and other cameras can, photographers using AF gear will get a much greater ratio of sharp "keepers" in these situations. But maybe the challenge of mastering manual focusing and sticking with a simple traditional M will still be worth it to some. Meanwhile your kid will be shooting sharp photos while riding a skateboard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Open Letter to Leica — 10 Ways To Improve the M9 Rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted June 14, 2011 Share #302 Posted June 14, 2011 But if the Leica M can't do this and other cameras can, photographers using AF gear will get a much greater ratio of sharp "keepers" in these situations. No. What we will see is the camera getting a greater ratio of sharp "keepers" regardless of the "photographer" - they'll just be the chap who brought it along. In the meantime photographers still using Leica Ms will continue to exercise their brains, reflexes and eyes and when they get a "keeper" they will know that it is because of their skill and technique not that of the programmer of the camera's firmware. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted June 14, 2011 Share #303 Posted June 14, 2011 What we will see is the camera getting a greater ratio of sharp "keepers" regardless of the "photographer" - they'll just be the chap who brought it along. In the meantime photographers still using Leica Ms will continue to exercise their brains, reflexes and eyes and when they get a "keeper" they will know that it is because of their skill and technique not that of the programmer of the camera's firmware. I'm reminded of the joke whose punchline is "Standing, in a hammock." Seriously, this argument is fine for photographers who get off on that feeling, but irrelevant to almost everyone else - especially the people who pay photographers. Which I think is AlanG's point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 14, 2011 Share #304 Posted June 14, 2011 The point is, John, it isn't all about the end result for many of us. It is as much about the journey. I can imagine nothing worse than living in an anodyne, hyper-efficient world in which everything is so damn perfect that it has no meaning, no life, no character, no soul. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted June 14, 2011 Share #305 Posted June 14, 2011 I understand heaven is like that. Always found its prospects very boring Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #306 Posted June 14, 2011 I'm reminded of the joke whose punchline is "Standing, in a hammock." Seriously, this argument is fine for photographers who get off on that feeling, but irrelevant to almost everyone else - especially the people who pay photographers. Which I think is AlanG's point. That is exactly the point. When Sports illustrated assigns 11 very experienced photographers to cover the Super Bowl, they expect sharp images and really don't care how they get their shots in focus. But I bet all of those photographers go for the gear that makes this easiest and most reliable for them. And it is still very challenging and they are pushing their skills as much as any Leica photographer ever has using an M and a 90mm lens shooting a portrait of someone who is moving a bit. At one time it was a big deal to get proper exposure or good color. The standards of what is expected from a photographer are higher now. I found this to be pretty interesting. Behind the Scenes with Sports Illustrated Photographers at the Super Bowl Likewise I think China built the Three Gorges dam a little differently than the Great Wall. But traditional techniques and methods still have their place with craftspeople and are on display in places like Williamsburg, VA and Tibet. Maybe Leica can straddle both camps. I don't know. But many working photographers are so busy just trying to figure out how to make a living these days that any help they can get from their tools is welcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #307 Posted June 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I understand heaven is like that. Always found its prospects very boring I guess you didn't see that Twilight Zone episode. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #308 Posted June 14, 2011 Alan - just but a DSLR. Leica M cameras are not for you and you're wasting your time trying your best to convince M users that their cameras are either poorly designed or not up to the job. No pro photographer would go and shoot the Super Bowl with a Leica it's a ridiculous scenario that you have invented to try and justify your views on Leica M cameras. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am just saying that there always is demand for technological advancement in equipment and Leica is not immune unless they are willing to settle for a very small segment. I actually played with a Graflex Big Bertha 5x7 camera a few times that had a 750mm lens. This used to be a common camera for sports decades ago. I also used a Leicaflex SL and 400mm Telyt as well as 640 Novoflex. This also used to be a good choice for sports. The Telyt was also used by some with a Visoflex on an M. What do you think they used that for? And at one time Leica Rs had some great long lenses. I remember meeting a Sports Illustrated photographer who was using Leicas and long lenses at Watkins Glen for the U.S. Grand Prix back around 1976. My best friend did a lot of action photography with a 400 Telyt on his SL back in the 70s and 80s and perhaps later too. So if you legitimately can now say "No pro photographer would go and shoot the Super Bowl with a Leica it's a ridiculous scenario..." it is simply because Leica never advanced its technology to allow it to be used this way today and others did. As a result, they abandoned that segment of the market along with other areas. And if they don't keep advancing the M, they'll be abandoning additional segments over time as competition will close in from all sides and take away their market. I don't see any other possibility. I think Leica understands this and will do its best to keep it from happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted June 14, 2011 Share #309 Posted June 14, 2011 I know in the past that Magnum photographers such as Alex Webb have been assigned/hired to shoot the Olympics - they often work with Leicas (Webb film, maybe now digital) - and are there not to capture the sports per se but everything else that goes on. I recently documented the Bing Bar at the Sundance Film Festival. I used both a Nikon D3 and a Leica M9. The M9 was jealously looked upon by the wire photographers (one said if his agency allowed the M9 he'd can the dslr for good and never look back) and was perfect for capturing low key pics of celebrities, candid lifestyle, etc. I wasn't on a deadline and was there to document in my own unique style. Believe it or not there are pro photographers out there hired to create artistic visions for their clients and the Leica M9 satisfies that. I really don't understand this crusade against the M9 by people who don't own one and for all intent never will (of course there will be something not right for them with M10, 11, 12, and so on). I don't particuarly like Canons but you won't find me on a Canon forum bashing Canons. So what's the story???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 14, 2011 Share #310 Posted June 14, 2011 That is exactly the point. When Sports illustrated assigns 11 very experienced photographers to cover the Super Bowl, they expect sharp images and really don't care how they get their shots in focus. But I bet all of those photographers go for the gear that makes this easiest and most reliable for them. And it is still very challenging and they are pushing their skills as much as any Leica photographer ever has using an M and a 90mm lens shooting a portrait of someone who is moving a bit. At one time it was a big deal to get proper exposure or good color. The standards of what is expected from a photographer are higher now. I found this to be pretty interesting. Behind the Scenes with Sports Illustrated Photographers at the Super Bowl I think this makes Bill's point quite well and you didn't even know it. I watched that whole video and thought about when I shot SLR film and it was all about knowing how to set up your auto settings, having the best long lens, and the latest camera and motor drive. Sit and push the button and try to stay awake and attentive so you don't mis the shots. So, I kind of disagree with you when you say that is challenging. Watch the video again. What is so challenging about sitting on your knees with a camera on a monopod pushing the shutter while on 10 frames/sec? What is creative about that? That is just a job. I am thankful that I don't have to do that. I do agree that the cameras those guys use are the best tool and they are picking them based on that. And, I love that gear too. I wish that I had a use to justify 2 expensive systems. But, in the end, that video really just highlights the differences between that gear and the M-system. It speaks to the utter differences of a the two designs. One, designed so you push the button and the camera does everything. The other designed so you do everything then push the button. I don't understand how you can add all of the things needed to accomplish design goal one to camera number two(the M) and meet the design goal of the second. By the way, keep me out of the "don't change a thing group." I've made it clear before that I want Leica to make changes that makes what is already there better without adding anything. I want it more reliable and I want it to have better support. I don't care much about anything else. I'd just quietly like to use my M CRF, and figure out everything myself, and then push the shutter. Anything that gets in the way of that would take away, not add, to the experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #311 Posted June 14, 2011 I really don't understand this crusade against the M9 by people who don't own one and for all intent never will (of course there will be something not right for them with M10, 11, 12, and so on). I don't particuarly like Canons but you won't find me on a Canon forum bashing Canons. So what's the story???? Please understand that I am in thorough agreement that the camera is fine as is for its intended purpose and is highly valued in this place in the market. One can't predict how long it will be that way. I'm just saying that I believe that Leica knows from past experience that change is inevitable and that the M will gradually change. They already gave up one system because they didn't keep up with changes and competition. Do you think that experience conditioned them to believe the best way to keep the M alive is to not advance it technologically? We don't know what kind of competition they'll be up against in a year of two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #312 Posted June 14, 2011 I think this makes Bill's point quite well and you didn't even know it. I watched that whole video and thought about when I shot SLR film and it was all about knowing how to set up your auto settings, having the best long lens, and the latest camera and motor drive. Sit and push the button and try to stay awake and attentive so you don't mis the shots. So, I kind of disagree with you when you say that is challenging. Watch the video again. What is so challenging about sitting on your knees with a camera on a monopod pushing the shutter while on 10 frames/sec? What is creative about that? That is just a job. I am thankful that I don't have to do that. Yeah a lot of things seem real easy but turn out harder than you think if you want to be one of the few at the top where standards are higher. But I do agree that photography in general has gotten much easier overall. Will it be wise for Leica to buck this trend? I think somewhere down the line the number of people who want to be challenged by focusing and "mastery" of the tool will decline. Personally, I like manual cameras and don't even use the meter that much. When I started out, I had to compute flash exposure using distance and guide numbers. So I am capable of getting by without it. But sometimes I need all the help I can get. I really don't get excited about my MF focusing skills or my reflexes when using a camera because I was better at all of that when I was much younger and working to improve those skills is not getting me anywhere. So I can't focus a rangefinder nearly as fast as I used to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted June 14, 2011 Share #313 Posted June 14, 2011 I think the situation is simply that the high price of the Leica bodies and lenses makes people much more critical about what they get for their money. Likewise, many pro photographers are very critical about what they get from MF backs and cameras in terms of the latest technology and value for the money. A similar argument can apply to other brands but usually to a lesser degree. An example would be a Canon 5DII owner might say he doesn't see the value in having a 1DsIII, or a person using a consumer 70-300 won't see the value in buying a 70-200 2.8IS. The difference is there are various cameras and lenses in those systems that accommodate a wide range in price points and eliminate a lot of "bitching." There also is more competition in this market. There seem to be many who feel the M9 and lenses provide enough value for the money at least for the time being. But there will eventually be declines in sales figures and a new model will be released to try to pick up sales again. (Especially if more and more people start agreeing with any of Digilloyd's points as time goes on and the camera looks "dated" to them.) We all know this and what else is new? "Preferring a simple" camera does not mean that some wouldn't want the electronics to work faster, or the screen to be the best it could be, or the noise to be less at higher ISOs, or the rangefinder to lens interface to be closer to "perfect." Agree 100% A lot of people, pro and amateur alike have to weigh out the enjoyment of using / image quality / price factor all the time, I know I do. At the end of the day, even though work has picked up great and I would love to use one for certain jobs, the M9 is just not worth the expense to me, especially since a new Nikon 35 1.4G and an X100 cost less than the new Leica 35 1.4 alone. I love using Leica M in my work, but I love the resulting photographs, the life I get to live and getting good value for money even more than attachments to gear. Even if I had 7K to spend on an M9, I just would not do that on principal, it and the entire Leica line up is simply overpriced at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 14, 2011 Share #314 Posted June 14, 2011 Yeah a lot of things seem real easy but turn out harder than you think if you want to be one of the few at the top where standards are higher. But I do agree that photography in general has gotten much easier overall. Will it be wise for Leica to buck this trend? Personally, I like manual cameras and don't even use the meter that much. I agree, but what those guys are doing isn't exactly creative. They are good at making sure they anticipate and that they know the game and the players. They know their angles and the know how to get what they want in the scene. But, a lot of that kind of photography is the gear and having the experience to let SI put you on the sidelines. I think Leica will walk a fine line and I do believe they will buck the trend. But, I also know that technology marches on and some things will probably come with that march whether we want it or not. For example, I know if they go to CMOS, it will be easy to add live view. Then, I'd take it for sure and for some types of shots it would be welcome. And, I know that if we have live view it would probably be a waste if Leica didn't let us record that stream to the card(video), and I'd use that too. But, I'm not asking for it on this camera. It is always going to be a fine line between what technology makes the concept better and what added technology detract from the concept. Keep in mind that more is often less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #315 Posted June 14, 2011 I agree, but what those guys are doing isn't exactly creative. They are good at making sure they anticipate and that they know the game and the players. They know their angles and the know how to get what they want in the scene. But, a lot of that kind of photography is the gear and having the experience to let SI put you on the sidelines. I think Leica will walk a fine line and I do believe they will buck the trend. But, I also know that technology marches on and some things will probably come with that march whether we want it or not. For example, I know if they go to CMOS, it will be easy to add live view. Then, I'd take it for sure and for some types of shots it would be welcome. And, I know that if we have live view it would probably be a waste if Leica didn't let us record that stream to the card(video), and I'd use that too. But, I'm not asking for it on this camera. It is always going to be a fine line between what technology makes the concept better and what added technology detract from the concept. Keep in mind that more is often less. I agree here 90% And I really think everyone knows deep down that change will come. When I got a Nikon F as a 16 year old back in 1968, I couldn't imagine I'd ever want anything else. I remember thinking the drop in loading and the rewind crank on the M4 was a big advancement too. The only 10% exception is about the SI shooters. Those shooters have a lot of experience and know how to not mess up. They understand the game and don't drift too much mentally. That being said, this assignment keeps them locked down and stifles their creativity somewhat, but all of them have paid their dues, and shown incredible creativity and camera skills many many times over. That's what earns them this job at the Super Bowl in stead of you or me. When I needed spinal surgery I wanted a neurosurgeon who felt it was easy not one who felt challenged. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmkays Posted June 14, 2011 Share #316 Posted June 14, 2011 They already gave up one system because they didn't keep up with changes and competition. Do you think that experience conditioned them to believe the best way to keep the M alive is to not advance it technologically? We don't know what kind of competition they'll be up against in a year of two. Agreed. I'm surprised those on the thread urging Leica to embrace new technology have not cited the Leica S-system. With the introduction of the S2 isn't Leica signaling a willingness to incorporate advances in the science of photography as well as the art? I'm not drawing parallels between the S and M systems, but raise this to suggest Leica's corporate vision may not be as enslaved to the Luddite fringe as some speculate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #317 Posted June 14, 2011 The S2 is indeed meant to be a technology platform for other Leica products to benefit from. No discussion about that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #318 Posted June 14, 2011 Agreed. I'm surprised those on the thread urging Leica to embrace new technology have not cited the Leica S-system. With the introduction of the S2 isn't Leica signaling a willingness to incorporate advances in the science of photography as well as the art? I'm not drawing parallels between the S and M systems, but raise this to suggest Leica's corporate vision may not be as enslaved to the Luddite fringe as some speculate. This and statements along the lines of signaling a possible solution for R users leads one to think they are looking at either incorporating live view into the M or coming out with a new system. I don't know if they will do either of these any time soon but I think it is clear to any observer that Leica has been developing skills in electronics, software, auto focus, live view, and other technology and plans to use these skills in future models. I bet most of us are in agreement that Leica will provide technological change that they feel best enhances their products within the limits of their resources. We just don't know any specifics but shouldn't be surprised when it happens. And I don't see why we have any conflict as each of us is just speculating over the possibilities... whether we want particular changes or not. I can even understand some not wanting any changes, I just have a hard time thinking this is even a remote possibility. The only change I'm personally interested in is reversing the effects of aging. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zimboom Posted June 14, 2011 Share #319 Posted June 14, 2011 So if you legitimately can now say "No pro photographer would go and shoot the Super Bowl with a Leica it's a ridiculous scenario..." it is simply because Leica never advanced its technology to allow it to be used this way today and others did. As a result, they abandoned that segment of the market along with other areas. And if they don't keep advancing the M, they'll be abandoning additional segments over time as competition will close in from all sides and take away their market. I don't see any other possibility. I think Leica understands this and will do its best to keep it from happening. I bought my M9 for that reason, I don't want to be in that segment where everything look the same, like plastic looking "HDR" and the like! Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 14, 2011 Share #320 Posted June 14, 2011 And if they don't keep advancing the M, they'll be abandoning additional segments over time as competition will close in from all sides and take away their market. Yep, and all of that has already happened, ages ago. The war is over and the SLRs have won. And maybe they in turn will be defeated by the forces of EVIL eventually. Whatever. Rangefinder cameras are occupying a small niche now and the Leica M is thriving within that niche. Since that niche, while quite safe, is unlikely ever to get much wider again, Leica is also exploring other directions, with the S2, the X1, and maybe other types of cameras in the future. There will be further development within the M system, but I doubt it could take the world by storm if only Leica would strive for buzzword-compatibility. The worst they could do would be to alienate the customers actually cherishing the rangefinder concept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.