Irritation

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you missed Steve's point (see his quote below.) You prefer a slide rule only because you know how to use one. A computer is actually better and much simpler than a slide rule if you don't know how to properly use a slide rule.

 

I strongly disagree if you are questioning the informative power of the slide-rule. Arithmetic as evinced by the slide, or rotary rule, can enlighten the user to the mechanical-spacial relationship of the particular computation to the extent that he can anticipate a solution without using the device. From there he can springboard to profound relationships of numbers to the outcome. Simply displaying a solution on a CRT, calculator, or whatever, shows no such thing. Perhaps they will someday.

[CalArts 99]

I strongly disagree if you are questioning the informative power of the slide-rule. Arithmetic as evinced by the slide, or rotary rule, can enlighten the user to the mechanical-spacial relationship of the particular computation to the extent that he can anticipate a solution without using the device. From there he can springboard to profound relationships of numbers to the outcome. Simply displaying a solution on a CRT, calculator, or whatever, shows no such thing. Perhaps they will someday.

 

Absolutely. I agree 100%.

 

But that wasn't my point.... read it again.

[CalArts 99]

Tell that to my mother, who can't use either...

 

Sorry, but you missed my point. The Leica "M" is a Manual camera... There is nothing wrong with it's exposure method, if you know how to use it. Hence my slide rule comparison.

 

If you want auto: auto focus, auto exposure, auto clemenger etc. There are many, many better cameras to use.

 

An example of a photographic slide rule. I have two light meters.One Fancy Sekonic 758 and a Gausen Digi-Toy. The Sekonic is digital, it tells me exactly the exposure I need for a given f stop, speed. The Gausen gives a digital readout in EV values only, and I adjust the slide rule to that value. It then shows me all possible correct exposures for all speeds and f stops. I find the slide rule reading much better, because I can choose to compromise in what ever direction I wish, simply by looking at the slide rule. Not adjusting the thumbwheel to change the settings.

 

Okay, once again: Steve's point was that an automated 'computerized' camera is actually the simpler camera if you don't know how to use a manual rangefinder like the M9. One can put an expensive DSLR on P and point the thing at the subject and get a perfectly exposed and focused photograph. You don't even have to look through the viewfinder. Not so with the M9, unless you know how to use one.

 

Clearly the slide rule is more advantageous if you know how to use one. Otherwise a computer is better and simpler. Get it?

[swamiji]

Clearly the slide rule is more advantageous if you know how to use one. Otherwise a computer is better and simpler. Get it?

 

Oh, I get it. You're in the wrong forum. Instead of discussing how we can get better exposure, you want us all to dump our "M" and pick a Computerized camera... because, as you say it's better and simpler...

 

ARGH

[swamiji]

Just a thought, Moderators, Can we have a Leica Luddite sub-forum where we can actually discuss things photographic, in direct relation to the existing Leica "M"?

[gyoung]

Okay, once again: Steve's point was that an automated 'computerized' camera is actually the simpler camera if you don't know how to use a manual rangefinder like the M9. One can put an expensive DSLR on P and point the thing at the subject and get a perfectly exposed and focused photograph. You don't even have to look through the viewfinder. Not so with the M9, unless you know how to use one.

 

Clearly the slide rule is more advantageous if you know how to use one. Otherwise a computer is better and simpler. Get it?

 

Actually I can't think of any camera where you can 'put it on P and point at the subject and get etc..................' If you have a nonrepresentative brightness range, too high- or low-key it will be fooled just the same, you end up using correction +1, +2 etc and it takes longer than setting it on M and knowing what you are doing

 

Gerry

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually I can't think of any camera where you can 'put it on P and point at the subject and get etc...

 

But that's what most people who aren't 'serious' about photography do. They buy a point and shoot, budget SLR, or use their phone and leave it on auto. The results are usually very good. Sure they'll be caught out by certain situations such as subjects that are backlit, but they're the exceptions and probably represent a minuscule percentage of the photos they take.

 

Ask most people what the relationship between ISO, shutter speed and aperture is, and you'll get a blank look.

[gyoung]

That's true of that market, where expectations are lower and especially if they have been brought up on the box camera maxims of having the sun hehind you etc. Thank goodness for film latitude.

But I thought we were talking of higher things, m8,m9 etc level, and if I point my m6 at a scene with any amount of sky in it the meter will give too short an exposure for good shadow detail, and its the same with the auto electronic nikons I have in spite of their theoretically more sophisticated metering

 

Gerry

[swamiji]

But that's what most people who aren't 'serious' about photography do. They buy a point and shoot, budget SLR, or use their phone and leave it on auto. The results are usually very good. Sure they'll be caught out by certain situations such as subjects that are backlit, but they're the exceptions and probably represent a minuscule percentage of the photos they take.

 

Ask most people what the relationship between ISO, shutter speed and aperture is, and you'll get a blank look.

 

It's the wealthy versions of those you refer to, buy a M9, and complain that there exposure is not as good as auto- exposure on a DLSR, with out trying to understand why. Or berate the M9 for poor performance. On a manual camera, the fault lies within our selves, not the camera. I guess that is too hard for some people to grasp.

[NZDavid]

I agree an interchangeble sensor would make a lot of sense, but one thing puzzles me: How is it people know already about all the features that are going to be on the "upcoming" M10? I didn't think it had even been announced yet!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello David,

 

A number of people writing here are not writing about an M10. They are writing about an M-Wish List. Not only that but: It is clear a number of the suggestions being discussed are not going to be incorporated until the M11. Which is most likely currently being tested. Some will be on the M12.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[jaapv]

No, it is not being tested. It will be in the development stage.

[CalArts 99]

Oh, I get it. You're in the wrong forum. Instead of discussing how we can get better exposure, you want us all to dump our "M" and pick a Computerized camera... because, as you say it's better and simpler...

 

ARGH

 

Huh? Why should you (myself included) dump our M cameras???

 

You still don't get it. Maybe this is a language difference issue?

 

My post was in response to Steve's (250swb) post about the M not actually being a simpler and more minimalist camera than an automated one. That's because we LEARN how to use the manual rangefinder. Once we LEARN how to use it yes, it becomes 'simpler' and 'minimalist.' The M can then potentially become the better tool.

 

But if we don't know how to use something, it's not so easy. The automated camera is SIMPLER in that respect. No, it's not 'better.' But in fact for the novice, it becomes a simpler and more minimalist tool. It is therefore 'better' in that sense. I can hand an automated camera to my grandmother and she can make an image. It would be much simpler for her then if I handed her the M. Whether the automated camera is a 'better' camera overall compared to the M isn't the point. It's a 'better' camera in this particular instance because it is simpler to use.

 

Look at all the threads here about people buying the M for the very first time and needing a period of learning how to use it. Here's one from today: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/246556-my-first-try-new-leica-m9.html The automated camera doesn't require such a learning curve.

 

If I don't know how to use a slide rule, then a computer or calculator becomes a simpler and easier to use tool. In that sense it is 'better.' Is a slide rule a more capable tool for someone who knows how to use one? Yes, absolutely! But it's utterly useless until one learns how to use it.

 

If you don't know how to read the engravings off of a lens to know your depth of focus, then the M becomes a difficult camera to master over an automated camera that has a depth of focus preview button. This isn't about a better tool, but what is simpler in general. And an automated camera is simpler for the novice. It becomes in fact, a more minimalist and simpler camera.

 

And that is all that was being said.

 

How hard is this to understand?

 

But I will add this: a person with intellect and creativity can produce an interesting and significant image with any tool regardless. Don't fool yourself that since you have 'mastered' a tool and a skill set that you can automatically produce something of value. I know plenty of individuals who are 'masters of their tools' who produced incredibly poor products. One can be a technical superstar yet have nothing to show for it. It's a false notion of superiority. People should get off the high horse a bit when it comes to the M camera. It's a fabulous tool (I've been using them for decades) but it will not make you special as an artist or as a human being.

 

Cheers.

[brianv]

The Leica Mini is an easy to use, automated camera.

 

Most of the "automated Point and Shoot" digital cameras have so many bells and whistles on them that most owners do not know how to use all of them and often get lost in the clear-as-mud menu systems.

 

The M9 is about as close in operation of a classic film camera as anything on the market.

 

Slide Rules vs calculators. Slide Rules keep working, calculators fail after about 30 or 40 years. Someday I need to take apart the Wang 360K. Stuck bit in the ALU and a failed Nixie tube.

[mwilliamsphotography]

 

... The results are usually very good. Sure they'll be caught out by certain situations such as subjects that are backlit, but they're the exceptions and probably represent a minuscule percentage of the photos they take ....

.

 

Really? Do you really believe that?

 

Just cruse your friends Facebook galleries (not photographer "friends") ... it's no better than 10 or 20 years ago ... except now there's a lot more of it. Plus, they don't have a lab to save their shots ... now they just post them straight from the no-brainer camera or phone.

 

In past people forced you to sit through their insipid slide shows, now they e-mail it to you. Which is a blessing I guess, since you can delete them and say you never got the e-mail. : -)

 

-Marc

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Jaap,

 

My metaphorical Post # 71 was meant to remind people that companies sometimes work on more than 1 generation of the same thing @ the same time.

 

Leitz was working on the M3 in the 1930's.

 

More than 10 years before they released the IIIf.

 

The IIIf was released to the public 4 years before the debut of the M3.

 

Summitar * 812275 - a prototype 50mm Summicron F2 - is from 1950. 3 years before the 50mm Summicron in screwmount only was released for sale on the then current IIIf.

 

This type of simultaneous multigenerational development goes on as standard practice in many types of industries all over the World & has for a long time.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[brianv]

The Leica IV- combined VF/RF Long base RF- I read about it quite a while ago. The story that i read was that Contax had a patent on the combined VF/RF introduced with the Contax II. Bet that irritated the engineers. I've always believed the FED 2 was based on the Leica IV.

 

Hot Glass Summicrons- the use of thoriated glass was quickly changed. "Early Adopters" must have been irritated as their lenses Yellowed with age, and those bought a year later did not. The two that I have cleared up quite well.

 

I have two 1936 Carl Zeiss Sonnar 5cm f1.5's. The earlier of the two is factory coated (no Red "T"), the one from the subsequent batch is not. Not until two years later that the "T" coated series was formally out.

[swamiji]

Huh? Why should you (myself included) dump our M cameras???

 

You still don't get it. Maybe this is a language difference issue?

 

My post was in response to Steve's (250swb) post about the M not actually being a simpler and more minimalist camera than an automated one. That's because we LEARN how to use the manual rangefinder. Once we LEARN how to use it yes, it becomes 'simpler' and 'minimalist.' The M can then potentially become the better tool.

 

But if we don't know how to use something, it's not so easy. The automated camera is SIMPLER in that respect. No, it's not 'better.' But in fact for the novice, it becomes a simpler and more minimalist tool. It is therefore 'better' in that sense. I can hand an automated camera to my grandmother and she can make an image. It would be much simpler for her then if I handed her the M. Whether the automated camera is a 'better' camera overall compared to the M isn't the point. It's a 'better' camera in this particular instance because it is simpler to use.

 

Look at all the threads here about people buying the M for the very first time and needing a period of learning how to use it. Here's one from today: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/246556-my-first-try-new-leica-m9.html The automated camera doesn't require such a learning curve.

 

If I don't know how to use a slide rule, then a computer or calculator becomes a simpler and easier to use tool. In that sense it is 'better.' Is a slide rule a more capable tool for someone who knows how to use one? Yes, absolutely! But it's utterly useless until one learns how to use it.

 

If you don't know how to read the engravings off of a lens to know your depth of focus, then the M becomes a difficult camera to master over an automated camera that has a depth of focus preview button. This isn't about a better tool, but what is simpler in general. And an automated camera is simpler for the novice. It becomes in fact, a more minimalist and simpler camera.

 

And that is all that was being said.

 

How hard is this to understand?

 

But I will add this: a person with intellect and creativity can produce an interesting and significant image with any tool regardless. Don't fool yourself that since you have 'mastered' a tool and a skill set that you can automatically produce something of value. I know plenty of individuals who are 'masters of their tools' who produced incredibly poor products. One can be a technical superstar yet have nothing to show for it. It's a false notion of superiority. People should get off the high horse a bit when it comes to the M camera. It's a fabulous tool (I've been using them for decades) but it will not make you special as an artist or as a human being.

 

Cheers.

 

Look up minimalism... The Paint brush is a most simple and Minimalistic mode of artistic expression. But the most difficult to master.

 

Much of what you say, I agree with. But too many confuse simple to use with better. Like in the phase, "The DSLR is simpler to use, so it's better".

 

Never did I say that the "M" made a better photographer. However since more photographic knowledge is needed, it tends to force photographers, make more informed choices, instead of letting the camera make them for you. That does not necessarily mean better pictures. But as it says in a song in the movie "How to get rich without really trying", "Mediocrity is not a mortal sin". To me the insular feel I get from a DSLR breeds mediocrity, and perhaps some amount a laziness, which the "M" does not allow.

 

That does not mean my work is not shit... just not lazy shit... ok

 

One Last item... Language differences... I was born and raised in California... Whats your excuse?

[CalArts 99]

Look up minimalism... The Paint brush is a most simple and Minimalistic mode of artistic expression. But the most difficult to master.

 

Much of what you say, I agree with. But too many confuse simple to use with better. Like in the phase, "The DSLR is simpler to use, so it's better".

 

Never did I say that the "M" made a better photographer. However since more photographic knowledge is needed, it tends to force photographers, make more informed choices, instead of letting the camera make them for you. That does not necessarily mean better pictures. But as it says in a song in the movie "How to get rich without really trying", "Mediocrity is not a mortal sin". To me the insular feel I get from a DSLR breeds mediocrity, and perhaps some amount a laziness, which the "M" does not allow.

 

That does not mean my work is not shit... just not lazy shit... ok

 

One Last item... Language differences... I was born and raised in California... Whats your excuse?

 

I think we're clearly on just completely different wavelengths. This isn't about better 'overall' (I'm assuming that's where the confusion remains.) And also, so you do understand, I personally think the M9 is a much better tool and simpler to use over any other camera. But I know how to use the M system and am comfortable with it. It works for me and is therefore 'better.'

 

The 'better' tool is the tool that works best for a specific situation for a specific person at a specific moment in time. This was never about 'better' overall as in "the DSLR is simpler to use, so it's better." It's better in the context of a user, and that was the original point. An automated camera is in fact simpler to use than a manual M9. Until you can master the manual camera.

 

Do the test: give someone who has never used a camera in their life a D3. Set it on P and tell them to point it at a subject. Tell them to release the shutter button. Now do the same with the M. Put it on A and tell them to point the camera at a subject. Tell them to release the shutter button. Look at the results.

 

I would never recommend a Porsche 930 for someone who has never driven a car before. But I would suggest a fully automated car (ABS, power steering, automatic transmission) for them to drive. For that person an automated car is the better choice; it is simpler, and is in fact 'minimalist' in respect to their driving experience. Just like Apple makes a point in minimalism to make the computer experience easier, simpler, and more rewarding. I'd argue that Linux is better (like a slide rule) but the minimalist hardware and the minimalist GUI of the Apple OS is a lot simpler for people to use. It is a better choice in that context only because it's simpler and easier.

 

Is a fully automated car a better car for 'real' driving by an experienced driver? No. But it's better in the same way a calculator is better over a slide rule for someone who has never used one, just like an auto everything camera is better over the M9. In the end the calculator and an auto camera are the 'simpler' and more 'minimalist' tools.

 

In respect to "that does not mean my work is not shit... just not lazy shit," using any automated tool is not about being lazy. To imply that is elitist. These are tools. One uses a tool for an end product. It's not about mediocrity or being lazy whatsoever. To say the "M does not allow" laziness is nonsense. And as I already said, the belief that superiority comes from simply knowing an arcane process is a false notion. I know many artists who actually know relatively very little about photographic tools and processes and yet they produce exemplary work. They are far from lazy and they are superior in respect to their production. And we all know famous artists throughout history who had not invested themselves into the hardware and the process itself but in the end result (which is really all that counts.) And we know that throughout history artists have used a variety of new automated tools which have relieved them from being tied to the equipment itself and allowed them to concentrate on their end product, the image. And they are certainly far from lazy and mediocre. This is nothing new to report, we all understand this.

 

End of story. Let's let it go now and just agree to disagree.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[swamiji]

The biggest part of my disagreement is the philosophy that spawns it. While I certainly agree there is no single camera perfect for every task, and the "M" certainly has it's limitations. Your argument is simply to cater to the beginner. Agreed the "M" is not a beginners camera, but beginners do learn to use them. I feel they should be congratulated, and encouraged. I think it is counter productive to recite the mantra "DSLR's are better because they are easer to use" in a group dedicated to improving there photographic skills with the "M".

 

Many here are from the DSLR world, and have decided it no longer served them, for all there needs. Some are truly beginners, and need to work with the basics. Both groups need encouragement in working with the "M".

 

In this day and age, shooting with a "M" is Elitist! To be able to shoot completely manual puts you in an elite group. Especially in an automated, DSLR world. You had better get used to it. Much like a race car driver is in an elite group of drivers.

 

The comment about DSLR's making you lazy, actually I have heard here on the forum by many members. Some of which came from the DSLR world.

 

So with that I agree it's time to let it rest, and agree to disagree