brianv Posted September 21, 2012 Share #21 Posted September 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Precision manual focus, low-latency, and you can see outside of the framelines. SLR and Mirrorless cameras show only what the lens "sees". The rangefinder camera shows a larger field of view, with framelines indicating what the actual image will be. This allows you to follow and compose as the subject moves. Low latency- very little time between pressing the shutter release and the picture being taken, advantage is to the rangefinder camera. The mirrorless camera must cycle the shutter to the closed position before making the actual exposure. An SLR need to wait for the mirror to flip out of the way. dive2 by anachronist1, on Flickr with my Leica M8 and Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5. ask the salesman how he feels about just using a camera set to video-mode and editing stills from the stream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Hi brianv, Take a look here Leica's advantage?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted September 21, 2012 Share #22 Posted September 21, 2012 I’m new on this forum, and I do have a question, if you allow me. In a certain threat I read someone who said that there is hardly a difference to be seen in prints that come from Leica Lenses or from Carl Zeiss. [...] Who looks prints anymore? Yes, some here do print, but how many put up a wet print and a digital print side-by-side to compare? Other than member Printmaker I am not aware of anyone who had great recent experience with wet color printing. Super high-resolution screens are under development and when they arrive I think there will be a major shift in perceptions of 'quality' or at least the signature of some lenses. I've been reading some thesis papers and corporate research and my impression is that just like HDR which I followed since very early research, the first super-screens are three years away. So what is in fact the big advantage of Leica? The sturdy, hefty RF camera body and the variety of excellent lenses - to those who can recognize and exploit the lenses' nature, and that's damned few. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted September 21, 2012 Share #23 Posted September 21, 2012 Who looks prints anymore? Yes, some here do print, but how many put up a wet print and a digital print side-by-side to compare? Other than member Printmaker I am not aware of anyone who had great recent experience with wet color printing. I do. All the time. If it's not printed, then it's just spending its life hiding on a hard drive as an original digital file or as a scanned negative digital file. Or hiding in a box with all the other film archives. Pretty much everyone I personally know (colleagues and others) still recognize the print as the actual end product, and what is defined as a 'photograph.' Whether it's a wet print from a negative in an enlarger (either color or B+W; I'm fortunate to have access to Omega D5 dichros and a 50" Kreonite RA-4 processor) or a wet print from a Lambda or Océ from a digital file (film origin or digital origin), or a pigment ink color print or a carbon ink B+W print, etc.. And the prints all look equally excellent (just different.) I don't think it's really that unusual to print (at least not where I come from.) In fact, aside from cataloging, editing and proofing, etc., having an image on a screen as the final product is a bit foreign, imho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbeyFoto Posted September 21, 2012 Share #24 Posted September 21, 2012 Leica cons: price. Leica pros: lens quality, IQ and a RF. Now a RF is not for everyone in all circumstances. Catching the "moment" with a RF is a real skill. (Not sure I have it!) Macro is limited with a RF and long lenses soon become an issue. Yet the IQ from a new digital M with a top Leica lens, say a 35mm or 50mm, can be very rewarding. Was it not Freud who suggested constraints nurtures creativity? In any case, I find using a M+35/50mm very rewarding. Having said that, I am unlikely to give up on some DSLR solution to use alongside the Leica RF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oronet commander Posted September 21, 2012 Share #25 Posted September 21, 2012 I do. All the time. If it's not printed, then it's just spending its life hiding on a hard drive as an original digital file or as a scanned negative digital file. Or hiding in a box with all the other film archives. Agree. Totally. All my loved photographs end up on paper. And I take as much pain to print them as to process them. That's 'final art' for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfgang Chuck Posted September 21, 2012 Share #26 Posted September 21, 2012 A good salesman will not sell you something you don't need or will not work in the manner which you need it to. If you know you are working with a reputable dealer you should be able to tell them your specific needs and they will guide to a few choices that fit your needs and let you decide from there. However, from what you described it does not sound as if you are dealing with an honest dealer. In 20 years of branding luxury items I have found that the negative sales approach does not work with consumers. If you trash a brand simply because you do not sell it, or do not know how to sell it, it usually backfires. My main question is, is this a Leica dealer? If not you have your answer, if so, I would enquire why they invest in a brand that they do not think is any good. With the limited resources most retailers have these days I can't imagine why a company would sell Leica if the did not like it. The margins are not good at all and it is very difficult to get inventory, plus their demos are expensive. Like anything you have to find what works for you. Good Luck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 21, 2012 Share #27 Posted September 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) To the OP, are your questions serious and genuine, or are you asking loaded questions for some reason? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 21, 2012 Share #28 Posted September 21, 2012 Agree. Totally. All my loved photographs end up on paper. And I take as much pain to print them as to process them. That's 'final art' for me. Ansel Adams once said something to the effect of: the negative is the score, but the print is the symphony! The negative can just as well be a digital file. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oronet commander Posted September 21, 2012 Share #29 Posted September 21, 2012 Ansel Adams once said something to the effect of:the negative is the score, but the print is the symphony! The negative can just as well be a digital file. I use to compare the raw file to the latent image and the processed file to the negative Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 22, 2012 Share #30 Posted September 22, 2012 This linkhas not been mentioned yet: Who buys Leica cameras? | News | TechRadar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 22, 2012 Share #31 Posted September 22, 2012 WIth all respect, your salesman hasn't the slightest clue what he or she is talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted September 22, 2012 Share #32 Posted September 22, 2012 Was it not Freud who suggested constraints nurtures creativity? i thought it was Vincent van Gogh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted September 22, 2012 Share #33 Posted September 22, 2012 Leica's M rangefinder advantage is live-view: seeing the moment of capture of an image and also the space around it. In future many M photographers will be using the new no-view mode... which delivers WYSIWYG, apart from the moment of capture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kasper Posted September 22, 2012 Share #34 Posted September 22, 2012 Once again, thanks for all the answers. Someone wondered if there is some hidden reason for my questions.(?) Well, the only thing is that when I’m going to spend money on something, and I can choose between different products, I want to know for sure that I spend it on the right thing. Therefore I was happy that the same salesman gave me the opportunity to use a DSLR ( Canon 5D Mark11) with a 70-200 lens for one day. And an old tele elmarit 90. ( they sell some second hand Leica lenses). Now I could compare it with the M9 that I bought. Therefore I took pictures of an event for children where my neighbours family was. These are my findings: To start positive, the images from the Leica look different. They seem to have more depth, are more living, and the colours are much better. although they differ sometimes in the same light conditions. Focussing: children hat painted letters on the faces, and on that I focussed. The children ofcourse were moving a lot. Not easy to do with the M and Elmarit. With the Canon, no problem. ( f 4) There was also a singer on a stage. He also moved a lot. Same story, while even with the 50 mm summicron it was hard to do, and sometimes impossible. ISO: inside the tents 1250 or 1600 was necessary. Here the Canon is far superior. I shot with both camara’s a bracket of 3 shots. 0,5 under, correct, and 0,5 over exposure. The Canon is always better, and at 1600 the blacks of the M are horrible. Speed: with the Canon I could shoot very quickly a lot of pictures in a row. With the Leica I missed certain expressions because the buffer was still busy. And 2fps is slow. On the LCD screen I think it is hard to see if a picture is sharp. Canon: much better. All in all I think what the salesman said is no nonsense at all. The Leica gives very good images, but its technology is unsatisfactory. Changes to miss pictures in certain circomstances are substantial. So I will buy the DSLR, but also will keep the M. A Leica with high ISO and AF would be a dream. Regards, Kasper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted September 22, 2012 Share #35 Posted September 22, 2012 Kasper, if I read your last posting correctly you did not get the message from many of our postings: you base your choice to buy the Canon 5DMkII on a single photoshoot, without including the fact that it takes time to learn and love to work with a Leica M (including post-processing). To me, it seems you take the easy way out. I also work with a Canon 5DMkII and have worked with a Leica M for a long time. I've recently shot on two consequetive nights podium acts in fast moving and difficult light conditions. I also used the 70-200/2.8 which is a great lens mounted on the Canon 5DMkII the first night and the Leica M9 with 50/1.4, 75/1.4 and 135/3.4 on the second night. I shot more images on the first night and had more keepers on the second night. So even without image stabilizing, autofocus and higher ISO, the M9 gave on the whole better results. I'm convinced this would not be the case without the experience I had with the M. I would have agreed with you that the Canon gives better results. But now I don't: in my hands an M9 gives me better results on average. An so it may well be that the Canon gives better results in your hands than the M9 and you may have made the right choice at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted September 22, 2012 Share #36 Posted September 22, 2012 I wanted a small camera with small interchangeable lenses of superb quality with little chromatic aberration. With my film Leica I feel more involved in the image process than I ever did with my D700 and pro zooms. I feel much freer and I feel quick. I generally use 24mm to 50mm lenses. I tend to guess the exposure of my film. When I get an image I like I feel I've earned it. I've never felt so at home with a camera than I do with my M2. There will be situations where it will be useless. That doesn't matter to me. It's a camera that ticks almost all my boxes. Perhaps the new Leica M will tick more but I might be dissatified with it. Your choice of equipment is far removed from what I want from my camera. They're both good cameras but in different ways. You would feel restricted by my M2 but for me it is just about perfect. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 22, 2012 Share #37 Posted September 22, 2012 Well, with the Leica photography is a craft that needs to be learnt and practiced. With a modern DSLR you have a host of goblins under the hood that do the thinking for you. Plays havoc with the creative process imo, unless your talent transcends that handicap.Having said that, you probably made the right decision and saved yourself a heap of frustration - and money. Once again, thanks for all the answers. Someone wondered if there is some hidden reason for my questions.(?) Well, the only thing is that when I’m going to spend money on something, and I can choose between different products, I want to know for sure that I spend it on the right thing. Therefore I was happy that the same salesman gave me the opportunity to use a DSLR ( Canon 5D Mark11) with a 70-200 lens for one day. And an old tele elmarit 90. ( they sell some second hand Leica lenses). Now I could compare it with the M9 that I bought. Therefore I took pictures of an event for children where my neighbours family was. These are my findings: To start positive, the images from the Leica look different. They seem to have more depth, are more living, and the colours are much better. although they differ sometimes in the same light conditions. Focussing: children hat painted letters on the faces, and on that I focussed. The children ofcourse were moving a lot. Not easy to do with the M and Elmarit. With the Canon, no problem. ( f 4) There was also a singer on a stage. He also moved a lot. Same story, while even with the 50 mm summicron it was hard to do, and sometimes impossible. ISO: inside the tents 1250 or 1600 was necessary. Here the Canon is far superior. I shot with both camara’s a bracket of 3 shots. 0,5 under, correct, and 0,5 over exposure. The Canon is always better, and at 1600 the blacks of the M are horrible. Speed: with the Canon I could shoot very quickly a lot of pictures in a row. With the Leica I missed certain expressions because the buffer was still busy. And 2fps is slow. On the LCD screen I think it is hard to see if a picture is sharp. Canon: much better. All in all I think what the salesman said is no nonsense at all. The Leica gives very good images, but its technology is unsatisfactory. Changes to miss pictures in certain circomstances are substantial. So I will buy the DSLR, but also will keep the M. A Leica with high ISO and AF would be a dream. Regards, Kasper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 22, 2012 Share #38 Posted September 22, 2012 I read above you had some trouble shooting your M9 compared to a DSLR. Kasper, such is the frustration of the new M9 user. I understand car analogies often impart a putrid stench to these threads but, give me some leeway here for a moment and I'll attempt to make a point. If, you bought an older 911 and went to the track with it for the first drive and missed gears and had trouble with over-steer which resulted in poor track times you wouldn't blame the car and state that it is technologically behind the time. Likewise, would you get out of the car on that first run and ask what is the advantage here? On the other hand, a newer model Mercedes AMG might just cruise around the track on your first run and provide adequate times with no spinouts because, its electronic stability control is engaged all the time and makes decisions for you. Pick either car - no wrong answer here. For me, the essence of the M is the RF, compact size, incredible optics, less is more, and the resulting superior images that this system produces when everything falls into place. I believe for most of us here you can't get to the answer of which camera to choose based on comparisons of features. Which is why it is often hard to defend the camera based on comparisons of features. Also, nothing wrong with owning a DSLR as well. You might be surprised how many here have a D700, D800, or 5DII, 5DIII. Welcome to the forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted September 22, 2012 Share #39 Posted September 22, 2012 What Rick says above about cars (and cameras) is quite correct. And it can apply to just about any product. That's why there's such a wide diversity of goods out there in the world. Pick what works at any given moment in your life and remember that your needs and desires can also change over time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted September 22, 2012 Share #40 Posted September 22, 2012 Once again, thanks for all the answers. Someone wondered if there is some hidden reason for my questions.(?) Well, the only thing is that when I’m going to spend money on something, and I can choose between different products, I want to know for sure that I spend it on the right thing. Therefore I was happy that the same salesman gave me the opportunity to use a DSLR ( Canon 5D Mark11) with a 70-200 lens for one day. And an old tele elmarit 90. ( they sell some second hand Leica lenses). Now I could compare it with the M9 that I bought. Therefore I took pictures of an event for children where my neighbours family was. These are my findings: To start positive, the images from the Leica look different. They seem to have more depth, are more living, and the colours are much better. although they differ sometimes in the same light conditions. Focussing: children hat painted letters on the faces, and on that I focussed. The children ofcourse were moving a lot. Not easy to do with the M and Elmarit. With the Canon, no problem. ( f 4) There was also a singer on a stage. He also moved a lot. Same story, while even with the 50 mm summicron it was hard to do, and sometimes impossible. ISO: inside the tents 1250 or 1600 was necessary. Here the Canon is far superior. I shot with both camara’s a bracket of 3 shots. 0,5 under, correct, and 0,5 over exposure. The Canon is always better, and at 1600 the blacks of the M are horrible. Speed: with the Canon I could shoot very quickly a lot of pictures in a row. With the Leica I missed certain expressions because the buffer was still busy. And 2fps is slow. On the LCD screen I think it is hard to see if a picture is sharp. Canon: much better. All in all I think what the salesman said is no nonsense at all. The Leica gives very good images, but its technology is unsatisfactory. Changes to miss pictures in certain circomstances are substantial. So I will buy the DSLR, but also will keep the M. A Leica with high ISO and AF would be a dream. Regards, Kasper. IMHO your arguments are not really scientific, artistic, nor emphatic. IMHO you argue as if you know already everything. How are you going to learn if you know already everything? I think the Leica M will not be the right camera for you at this moment. Maybe later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.