Dutch Posted July 15, 2011 Share #1 Posted July 15, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I always enjoy reading about gadgets (despite never even holding a smartphone) and today I came across an article at the Gizmodo website that was titled: The Sony NEX-7 Might Be an Amazing 24MP Rangefinder Camera That’s Only $1200 Uh? “Rangefinder”? Now I know all the arguments that go around and don’t want this to be part of that, but it is striking me as increasingly funny that what people really want is a rangefinder, but often go through enormous lengths (practically, but more important, philosophically) in order to end up buying a compromise. I say this from personal experience as much as anything, since I almost did that myself before realizing that it would be a monumental error to buy an E-P2 with an M lens, when all I really want is a Leica M with an M lens. My point is that I think that those who end up buying the compromise because it is so much like a rangefinder, fail to realize that a Leica M really isn’t such an expensive option for an uncompromising shooting experience. At least I am very happy that I didn’t spend my money on one of the new mirrorless solutions, but decided to save up for a Leica M6 instead. I don’t intend this as criticism of the mirrorless cameras, not in the least, I simply found a profoundly stronger appreciation for what Leica has achieved with its M cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 Hi Dutch, Take a look here Kinda funny to realize. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bocaburger Posted July 15, 2011 Share #2 Posted July 15, 2011 I seriously considered a micro 4/3 as a backup for my M9, having sold my M8. But when I added up the cost of an EVF attachment (manual focusing on a rear screen at arm's length is not for me) and an M adaptor, and then learned that wide angle lenses would need post-processing to correct for the vignetting which is caused by sensor proximity and dealt with with microlenses on the M9, I backed away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 15, 2011 Share #3 Posted July 15, 2011 There is nothing funny in huge price differential. I am sure there are many people who wouldn't say no to M camera but price is deciding factor against. Other thought not many people pick up LIFE photographic book and nod to the fact that 90% of epic images were taken with Leicas, besides clever marketing of all key camera manufacturers show DSLRs, zoom lenses and lately Mirrorless as a tool that will make anyone "insert the name of your favourite photographer" in an instant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 16, 2011 Share #4 Posted July 16, 2011 Other thought not many people pick up LIFE photographic book and nod to the fact that 90% of epic images were taken with Leicas, besides clever marketing of all key camera manufacturers show DSLRs, zoom lenses and lately Mirrorless as a tool that will make anyone "insert the name of your favourite photographer" in an instant. I think you may well find that the very fact that you think 90% were taken with Leicas points to the clever marketing by Leica themselves...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 16, 2011 Share #5 Posted July 16, 2011 I think you may well find that the very fact that you think 90% were taken with Leicas points to the clever marketing by Leica themselves...... Clever marketing perhaps, but far less people buy than covet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 16, 2011 Share #6 Posted July 16, 2011 Other thought not many people pick up LIFE photographic book and nod to the fact that 90% of epic images were taken with Leicas [...] I highly doubt that is true. Citation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 17, 2011 Share #7 Posted July 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I highly doubt that is true. Citation? As I said not many people go out and pick up a book and draw conclusions from it. OK citation; sorry no ISBN numbers but most recent LIFE compilations full of epic XX century photography I have seen on sale in UK bookshops are full of work taken with Leica cameras, some Contax, some Nikon, some Rolleiflex, some press plate cameras but mostly Leica. Maybe it is not 90% but 85%, or even 79%. Sorry I didn't run full statistical analysis to satisfy hair splitters only presented my observation by using significant percentage number denoting great majority. Don't take my word for it, take a stroll to a library or a bookshop, internet is great but there is still mountain of information away from the computer screen. You are photographer of one kind or another are you not, you frequent LUF, don't you. So go observe, that is what photographers do. Perhaps if you get time on your hands, get one of the books, there are technical details with the images, and count for yourself maybe you will be less skeptical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted July 17, 2011 There is nothing funny in huge price differential. I am sure there are many people who wouldn't say no to M camera but price is deciding factor against. It depends on how you look at it. I see the price difference as related to the unique nature of the photography experience and that a lot of people desire this type of experience. Taking control of the camera, feeling the quality, etc.. No other manufacturer does this. Maybe I'm coming down with a case of Leica fever that impedes my judgement, but when I see a camera I find myself asking... "How much is it like a Leica?" Considering that, how much of an investment is it really for me to go out and buy an M6? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 17, 2011 Share #9 Posted July 17, 2011 Perhaps if you get time on your hands, get one of the books, there are technical details with the images, and count for yourself maybe you will be less skeptical. This could be tricky as an Amazon search has not led to a likely candidate for one such book of the kind of which you speak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewittehd Posted July 17, 2011 Share #10 Posted July 17, 2011 The Time-Life series were published in 1970-1972 (Life Library of Photography Series (17 Volumes)) and 1977 (Time-Life Art/Photography Books (11 Volumes)). I think I might have the latter somewhere in the basement. They are still available on Amazon second hand for prices ranging 100 - 160 USD. Jean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 17, 2011 Share #11 Posted July 17, 2011 It depends on how you look at it. I see the price difference as related to the unique nature of the photography experience and that a lot of people desire this type of experience. Taking control of the camera, feeling the quality, etc.. No other manufacturer does this. Maybe I'm coming down with a case of Leica fever that impedes my judgement, but when I see a camera I find myself asking... "How much is it like a Leica?" Considering that, how much of an investment is it really for me to go out and buy an M6? A lot of people I know love photography but not have pockets deep enough to indulge. This could be tricky as an Amazon search has not led to a likely candidate for one such book of the kind of which you speak. Try Waterstones, that is brick & mortar. Even if you find book(s) on amazon I am implicitly refering to you still need to go thru its contents so reach my conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted July 18, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted July 18, 2011 A lot of people I know love photography but not have pockets deep enough to indulge. Yes, of course. If you haven't got the money, it's a simple matter. That wasn't really what I was referring to. Maybe if I give an example. Some people buy the X100 because it's like a baby M9 to them. I would say they would have been better off buying an M6 (or M3). At least, that has become my choice. Does that make sense? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 18, 2011 Share #13 Posted July 18, 2011 Does that make sense? Yes and no. YES For a seasoned M user who came thru the ranks starting with film and ended with M digital getting X100 as additional, not substitute, pocketable P&S can be rewarding as camera appears to be producing nice digital files, it is easy to carry and it doesn't brake the bank. Before anyone say X100 is not P&S I think it works best in such mode of operation, only you don't have to hold it at arms length, if you wish to do so, and sensor is APS-C. Even M camera can be P&S if you prefocus and set exposure to auto, only this P&S have interchangeable optics. NO I think It is difficult to square film FF camera with APS-C digital camera. Different workflows, different results, different approach to shooting. Roll of film against SD card - you think differently with roll of film in the camera containing 36 shots against seemingly limitless number you can squeeze on single the memory card. Buying M6 is no substitute for X100. Personally I handled X100 and I didn't like it as it appeared too faddy and gadgety, and I don't like compromise APS-C format, period. I started my DSLR journey with Nikon D200 and D300 and as soon FF D700 was launched sold all APS-C cameras and have no intention going back to crippled formats for any shooting. Having small pocket camera with small sensor, smaller than X100, is different matter. For pocket camera compromise is key design criteria, it is not pretending to be something it is not. On the other hand micro 4/3 is entirely different animal, small size camera system for people who wants to shoot without remortgaging. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted July 19, 2011 Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I guess my thoughts on Leica and rangefinder photography have to do with a particular style of photography that I am keen to explore. Maybe that has biased me a little against the point and shoot/EVF/crop sensor developments. (Not that I don't appreciate them, I still love my 7D and the X100 seems like a wonderful camera.) When you mention film, I start wondering if it might not be the combination of a film rangefinder that appeals to me the most. If given the choice right now, I would probably take an MP over an M9. But that's really just a hunch. I will found out soon enough when I get an M6. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Holy Moly Posted July 19, 2011 Share #15 Posted July 19, 2011 "It's not the camera dude, it's the eye and attitude". Same with music: A Fender Stratocaster makes no Jimi Hendrix out of me....... Look at the phantastic photographs of Vivian Mayer: Rolleiflex 6x6 It's a big trap from Leica to get people think that a M makes this and that.......but it's successful in terms of digital rangefinder without any competitor.... here a typical M streetpic with visualization of the right frame content in a second: Shot A Views | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Shot B Dublin main post | Flickr - Photo Sharing! done with a Nikon F SLR...... PS The Time Life books were my inspiration in the seventies.......I read them today from time to time........errr - watch the photographs.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reiver Posted July 19, 2011 Share #16 Posted July 19, 2011 not wrong, Holy Moly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share #17 Posted July 19, 2011 Very true indeed! Me getting a Leica M is not about getting better pictures. Ever since I started photography I have been looking for a camera that offers me full control and forces me to think in a way I don't have to when shooting my DSLR. After I while I realized that I wanted a rangefinder to compliment my DSLR. The choice for a Leica M over a Voigtlander Bessa or Zeiss Ikon has to do with build quality and looks (I love the M design). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Holy Moly Posted July 19, 2011 Share #18 Posted July 19, 2011 Very true indeed! Me getting a Leica M is not about getting better pictures. Ever since I started photography I have been looking for a camera that offers me full control and forces me to think in a way I don't have to when shooting my DSLR. After I while I realized that I wanted a rangefinder to compliment my DSLR. The choice for a Leica M over a Voigtlander Bessa or Zeiss Ikon has to do with build quality and looks (I love the M design). Getting a Leica M isn't to get better pictures, it's to get Different pics- when it works for you. Good Luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share #19 Posted July 19, 2011 I certainly hope so Holy Moly. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.