Leica's advantage?

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You will spend less time taking more photos.

 

Oh no! I would wish you will spend more time making less, and better photos!

[Paul J]

Oh no! I would wish you will spend more time making less, and better photos!

 

No I meant that you will take less time, only taking one photo instead of a hundred. And you will find yourself taking more photos for the love of it. But not a hundred of the same thing.

 

Badly written, I confess.

[tomasis7]

indeed its about skills.

 

it depends what kind of photos OP wants to take. If it is general within 24-90mm, then it is no brainer to sell of all other cameras and focus on leica m. It is no good use of 200mm if it takes only 2 percent of total good pictures.

 

For begineer, it is hard to get accustomed with rangefinder photographing. It takes time and patience but if you keep work stubbornly , the reward will come.

 

After 10 years with RF, it is no way I ever use AF or anything else. because Im already faster than Any fastest Canikon system can do. Then I mean the moment my eye captures and transfers signal to the brain.

[batmobile]

Not really. Sure, it can be done, but it is dramatically easier and more predictable with a DSLR that has sports orientated AF. There is absolutely no comparison when it comes to hit rate, predictability and confidence.

 

Its horses for courses. I use Leica M for street and documentary work. It it is going to move and I am using a lens longer than 50mm, I use an SLR. I do the same for portraits using an 85mm, because I can nail focus on the eyes (which are almost never under the RF patch) in the blink of an eye. Most of my best portraits have involved a 'window' of no more than 5 seconds (documentary context) and often a lot less. I would not want to be trying that with a Leica M and a 90mm thanks, especially when people have tendency to move slightly.

 

For this reason, if I am going to be shooting long lens portraits I go to the bother of carrying an Eos 1n and 85 1.2L II because it is that much better at doing the job. if its scenic only, I'll use a 75mm Summarit or similar.

 

 

Silly buggers.(Pardon my French...) I have no problem shooting dogs running towards me using a 90....

[kdriceman]

To the guys suggesting that one of the key advantages of the Leica M over an AF SLR is the fact that the photographer rather than the camera decides the point of focus: you do realize that you can disable multi-focus points on a Canon/Nikon' date=' separate AF from the shutter release, and tell these cameras exactly where you want them to focus?

 

Somebody is also suggesting that the "colours are better" because Leica lenses are less prone to flare. That may be true of the latest designs, but some of the most loved lenses (including the current, non-aspherical, 50 Summicron) are notoriously flare prone. I think it actually adds to their charm.

 

There are no cameras I've enjoyed using more than Leicas, but the appeal primarily comes from the viewfinder, the feel of the body (largely lost in the transition to digital), the beautiful shutter release (again, lost in a digital M), and the way the lenses render (and this has precious little to do with a supposed lack of flare).[/quote']

 

Yes, of course you can tell the DSLR use only one focus point... And it will. And then someone walks in front of your target and the camera decides to change its focus... Oh, yeah, you can do "one shot" AF and lock the focus point but then maybe your subject moves. You have to re focus, recompose and now maybe you're maybe behind the decisive moment. Perhaps I just switch my DSLR to all manual and manual focus. If we resort to that, the M system wins a comparison hands down.

 

I use a DSLR almost every day for commercial purposes and need the AF so I understand all the modes, bells and whistles (and appreciate them), and you can make it work for almost any situation, but the point is that the compactness, simplicity and accuracy of an RF just make it a better tool for many situations.

[brianv]

To me, the real advantage of the Leica M Digital series is that it can use some of the best and most famous lenses of the last 80+ years in the manner that they were designed: full-frame and RF coupled. Having used the EP2 with Olympus VF-2 since it was introduced, the electronic viewfinder is not as easy to use as the RF of the M or focus screen of an SLR. The technology will improve eventually, I'm surprised that the Olympus electronic viewfinder has not been superseded. It's rare for anything on the digital to be considered "the best available" after a couple of years on the market. The Olympus VF-3 is cheaper, not as good as the VF-2. The finder for the Sony NEX, at least in the reviews that I have read, is not considered as good.

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use a DSLR almost every day for commercial purposes and need the AF so I understand all the modes, bells and whistles (and appreciate them), and you can make it work for almost any situation, but the point is that the compactness, simplicity and accuracy of an RF just make it a better tool for many situations.

 

But most definitely not, as has been claimed here, the best choice for follow focus. Even a manual focus SLR will do better.

[kdriceman]

But most definitely not, as has been claimed here, the best choice for follow focus. Even a manual focus SLR will do better.

 

This is one of the reasons I have and use a DSLR.

[Jamie Roberts]

But most definitely not, as has been claimed here, the best choice for follow focus. Even a manual focus SLR will do better.

 

I'm genuinely curious why you say that. Why would an M with live view and mf lenses be worse than a dSLR?

 

I have a 5d3 and Leica R and Oly lenses I use for (non-business) video. It's pretty cumbersome, but the results are great. Why would follow-focus be worse on the M?

[almoore]

I'm genuinely curious why you say that. Why would an M with live view and mf lenses be worse than a dSLR?

 

If you believe that an M "with live view and mf lenses" would be better for follow focusing on a dog running towards you (which I believe was the original example) then use it. But don't act surprised if others contend that an SLR is a more convenient and obvious choice.

 

We're all free to use whatever we see fit, but the defensiveness of a certain demographic to any suggestion that another camera might, in certain circumstances, be more practical than a Leica, is, frankly, odd.

[brianv]

Any camera is a tool. The RF, SLR, AF, and Liveview cameras have different mechanisms for acheiving the same results. Whether one mechanism is better at producing the desired results is in the hands of the person using it. Many photographers on this forum are very proficient at using an RF camera for taking "action shots". Some claim that "it just cannot be done". The examples shown in this thread prove that it is possible to take photographs of moving subjects, and to acheive the desired results repeatedly. The difference is the willingness of the individual to take the time to learn how to use the camera.

 

and the M9 is great at Kid's Parties.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest Kasper]

Not only defensive, also selective, i think. Only a few persons react on the point that I made:

Focussing on a child's face ( fullscreen) that is moving quickly while using 2,8 or 4,0, or in the street also someone who is approaching fast at the same aperture. This is what I found on the net: 'Although there are many street photographers who can focus extremely quickly using manual focus, autofocusing still has an advantage in bright daylight. This is especially the case when you are walking around in the streets and you see a person at a certain distance you didn’t predict. When you use autofocus, you won’t even have to think and as long as you have your auto-focus point in the center, your focusing will be extremely fast and accurate.'

I myself spoke with a experienced photographer. He said that if you are making a portrait of a person, for example at a press conference, and you want the man close, while he is moving his head frequently, AF is faster than any manual focus, surely at open aperture. That was my point.

Besides of that I talked in my findings about the speed of the buffer, the high ISO,and the LCD screen. And I wondered why none of the press photographers that I see on tv is using a Leica M. Why don't I get answers on these remarks? Personally I think that the M is too slow for press work. No AF when it is needed, a slow buffer, and ISO that can't go higher than about 1250 or maybe in good light1600. Many pictures are made nowadays at 3200 or 6400. And not only by professionals.

I will keep the M as I said, because of its IQ. But I think it lacks several things, for which I bought the 5 D. For the use of long lenses for sure the best choise, because what I read about the new M and the use of long lenses: far to slow for dynamic subjects.

I hope someone will react on speed, buffer, ISO and lcd also.

 

Many thanks, Kasper.

[pedaes]

Kasper

 

Your view is your view and you see what you see. What is there to comment on? You won't see AF on a Leica M model for some time - most of us have no expectations and desire for this so can live comfortably with both the benefits and limitations. I don't know what bit of 'rangefinder' and Leica philosophy you don't understand.

[brianv]

This thread was titled "Leica's advantage?"

 

The comments and posted images demonstrate the advantages of the Leica in the hands of photographers that have taken the time to learn how to use it. You can either learn to use a Leica in the situations that it has advantages, or endlessly compare all types of cameras with relative advantages and disadvantages of each. TBFW.

[almoore]

The comments and posted images demonstrate the advantages of the Leica in the hands of photographers that have taken the time to learn how to use it

 

I don't believe that any of the photographs posted on this thread show any innate advantage of Leica M cameras. What they show is that a Leica, like pretty much any other camera, is capable of producing ordinarily competent images.

 

There are photographers whose style utilizes the inherent strengths and characteristics of Leica, but they're not posting on this thread. When I look at a Lise Sarfati photograph I couldn't imagine it being produced with any other camera, and the same applies to Alex Webb, but in all honestly there's nothing here with that distinctiveness. I love Leica cameras, but the empty, self-congratulory boastfulness that so often surfaces here is a real turn-off to anybody more interested in images than gear.

[Carduelis]

Not only defensive, also selective, i think. Only a few persons react on the point that I made:

Focussing on a child's face ( fullscreen) that is moving quickly while using 2,8 or 4,0, or in the street also someone who is approaching fast at the same aperture. This is what I found on the net: 'Although there are many street photographers who can focus extremely quickly using manual focus, autofocusing still has an advantage in bright daylight. This is especially the case when you are walking around in the streets and you see a person at a certain distance you didn’t predict. When you use autofocus, you won’t even have to think and as long as you have your auto-focus point in the center, your focusing will be extremely fast and accurate.'

I myself spoke with a experienced photographer. He said that if you are making a portrait of a person, for example at a press conference, and you want the man close, while he is moving his head frequently, AF is faster than any manual focus, surely at open aperture. That was my point.

Besides of that I talked in my findings about the speed of the buffer, the high ISO,and the LCD screen. And I wondered why none of the press photographers that I see on tv is using a Leica M. Why don't I get answers on these remarks? Personally I think that the M is too slow for press work. No AF when it is needed, a slow buffer, and ISO that can't go higher than about 1250 or maybe in good light1600. Many pictures are made nowadays at 3200 or 6400. And not only by professionals.

I will keep the M as I said, because of its IQ. But I think it lacks several things, for which I bought the 5 D. For the use of long lenses for sure the best choise, because what I read about the new M and the use of long lenses: far to slow for dynamic subjects.

I hope someone will react on speed, buffer, ISO and lcd also.

 

Many thanks, Kasper.

 

Kasper,

 

In reading your requirements from a camera, I think you should use a digital SLR which will offer you the AF, buffer speed, high ISO and high resolution lcd that you require. It is obvious that the current M and possibly the new M will not satisfy your requirements which are not unreasonable. I think the latest Canon 5D mk 3 should be really good for you now they have improved the focusing on it which was always a weakness before. Personally, if I had your requirements I would n't buy a Leica M and would seriously think about upgrading my current Canon 5D mk 1 to the latest mk 3. My requirements however are very different to yours as I want a light weight compact system for mainly what I have defined as static or stationary photography. I am not that concerned about AF and never used ISOs above 800, and enjoy taking my time composing my shots usually in manual metering mode. I feel my requirements could now be best served with an M9.

[Paulus]

Not only defensive, also selective, i think. Only a few persons react on the point that I made:

Focussing on a child's face ( fullscreen) that is moving quickly while using 2,8 or 4,0, or in the street also someone who is approaching fast at the same aperture. This is what I found on the net: 'Although there are many street photographers who can focus extremely quickly using manual focus, autofocusing still has an advantage in bright daylight. This is especially the case when you are walking around in the streets and you see a person at a certain distance you didn’t predict. When you use autofocus, you won’t even have to think and as long as you have your auto-focus point in the center, your focusing will be extremely fast and accurate.'

I myself spoke with a experienced photographer. He said that if you are making a portrait of a person, for example at a press conference, and you want the man close, while he is moving his head frequently, AF is faster than any manual focus, surely at open aperture. That was my point.

Besides of that I talked in my findings about the speed of the buffer, the high ISO,and the LCD screen. And I wondered why none of the press photographers that I see on tv is using a Leica M. Why don't I get answers on these remarks? Personally I think that the M is too slow for press work. No AF when it is needed, a slow buffer, and ISO that can't go higher than about 1250 or maybe in good light1600. Many pictures are made nowadays at 3200 or 6400. And not only by professionals.

I will keep the M as I said, because of its IQ. But I think it lacks several things, for which I bought the 5 D. For the use of long lenses for sure the best choise, because what I read about the new M and the use of long lenses: far to slow for dynamic subjects.

I hope someone will react on speed, buffer, ISO and lcd also.

 

Many thanks, Kasper.

 

 

I'm using the Leica M6 for more than twenty years now. I used it as an professional photographer also using a Nikon F3 and F4 for the long lens photo's.

 

I did not have to have speed ,because what I wanted and had to to photograph, did not need more than 2 images per second, and you can do that with an M6 also.

 

I always shot with 400 asa , sometimes with 1600 asa pushed one time , but only one time for fun I used Tmax 3200 pushed to 51200 asa. I didn't need so much speed, because my lenses were 1,4/2,0 and my hand was steady. Now next to the M6/MP I use a M9. Nothing has changed for me. I still can make the pictures that I want to make.

 

Why do you need speed? Why do you need a fast buffer? If you don't make pictures every second, you won't need them. You don't need the lcd if you know already what you have done. It's nice to have for the spoiled photographer, but it does not make the photo.

[otto.f]

I'm using the Leica M6 for more than twenty years now. I used it as an professional photographer also using a Nikon F3 and F4 for the long lens photo's.

 

I did not have to have speed ,because what I wanted and had to to photograph, did not need more than 2 images per second, and you can do that with an M6 also.

 

I always shot with 400 asa , sometimes with 1600 asa pushed one time , but only one time for fun I used Tmax 3200 pushed to 51200 asa. I didn't need so much speed, because my lenses were 1,4/2,0 and my hand was steady. Now next to the M6/MP I use a M9. Nothing has changed for me. I still can make the pictures that I want to make.

 

Why do you need speed? Why do you need a fast buffer? If you don't make pictures every second, you won't need them. You don't need the lcd if you know already what you have done. It's nice to have for the spoiled photographer, but it does not make the photo.

 

Yes I would love an M-E 2 without the LCD-screen for € 2800! Because indeed with a RF you know what happens during the snap

[Guest malland]

...Focussing on a child's face ( fullscreen) that is moving quickly while using 2,8 or 4,0, or in the street also someone who is approaching fast at the same aperture. This is what I found on the net: 'Although there are many street photographers who can focus extremely quickly using manual focus, autofocusing still has an advantage in bright daylight. This is especially the case when you are walking around in the streets and you see a person at a certain distance you didn’t predict. When you use autofocus, you won’t even have to think and as long as you have your auto-focus point in the center, your focusing will be extremely fast and accurate...That was my point...

Kasper, that may be your point, but let's take street photography — for street photography autofocus is not how I, and many other street photographers, find the best way to focus. I experimented extensively doing street photography with a Nikon D400, which has very fast and accurate autofocus, including follow focus: quite often, shooting under dynamic situations with several people in the scene, the D400 focus on the wrong subject. The way most street photography is done is to use a relatively small aperture for deep DOF and to prefocus on a distance where you expect the subject to be and then, if necessary make a quick adjustment. I don't claim that the Leica-M is the best camera for street photography — that may be the Ricoh GRD cameras because of their huge DOF. But even with a GRD camera, with which I often shoot as close as 1m from the subject (when using the 21mm FOV), it makes a huge difference — the difference between success and failure — whether you focus at 1m, 1.2m or 1.5m. Auto-focus will not help you much when shooting in this way. Indeed, the situation you posit, of a subject appearing where the subject appears "where you don't expect it" is not the typical problem of street photography — and for this untypical problem a rapid adjustment from prefocus for an unexpected distance will work better and more consistently than the often aleatory nature of autofocus.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steve Ash]

In my very personal view the M system provides me with the highest level of enjoyment starting from handling, focusing, framing and finally looking at print.

 

Regards,

Steve