Leica's advantage?

[Ruhayat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here's the thing:

 

You want us to denounce the M9 and the M system for being inferior to current DSLR technology. We already did that to some extent - it's what almost everyone has been telling you again and again and again: the M (or any rangefinder) has its limitations. Everyone here knows that. And we have been shooting our Ms for years knowing that.

 

But so what? We LOVE our M's! And NOTHING you do or say is going to make us say or feel otherwise.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[TonyField]

...

A photographer won’t care about slightly differences in IQ, I think. He wants to work with modern possibilities that quarantee him simply the picture. AF, ( very) high ISO, and process speed are sometimes a must, surely because other cameras can do it. FF compact cameras will come with it in the next year (s), I guess.

I bought a second hand M camera with a summicron 50. It disappointed me on the things I mentioned. I think that solidity is less important in a market where every two or three years new developments do appear. So what is in fact the big advantage of Leica?

 

Thanks, Kasper.

 

I think your comments are essentially correct for a "photographer". The Leica M9 is limited in lens selection to primes. It is difficult (but not impossible) to cover the lens range from 14mm to 800mm as you can with a reflex DSLR. The ISO range of the M9 is quite poor in terms of noise quality - it really is quite fine from ISO 160 to 800 which severely limits the shooting for many venues. The focus system, being manual, is much more difficult to contend with for anything that requires follow-focus action.

 

In terms of lens quality, certainly the old Leica lenses are still very good by modern standards and the new lenses are really quite excellent indeed. However, in terms of the final images produced (say for print purposes), the degree of difference between many Canon / Nikon primes and the lenses available for the M9 are not all that significant after proper post processing.

 

Leica is missing some VERY BASIC design points simply to keep the 1960's Leica style in it's purest form. The don't even bother to add adjustable eye-piece diopter adjustment. Think of how many photographers wear eye-glasses.

 

The only significant thing I can think of that are hallmarks of the Leica "difference" is the viewfinder - it certainly presents a different way of "seeing" the world. This directly affects the nature of how you shoot and compose images - many people do not understand how important it is.

 

A less significant hallmark is the physical camera / lens size. I can easily choose a three lens system that is very compact and fit in jacket pockets. This can be very important for some shooting venues.

 

On the whole, the Leica ethos is well over-rated. In the good old days (pre-1980) the Leica was just another pro camera that worked very well for intended uses. Today, it is a mystical entity that people dream about.

 

The operational/viewfinder attributes (and less significantly, the optical attributes) are the only things that differentiate Leica from other camera systems.

[Ruhayat]

The big advantage of Leica is... we're using it!

 

I love, love, love, love, LOVE my Leica M's! Here you go, have some M & M's!

 

2-camera 28-50-90 kit by Ramayana X., on Flickr

[pop]

... It is difficult (but not impossible) to cover the lens range from 14mm to 800mm as you can with a reflex DSLR.

 

that's the understatement of the day. How are you going to focus a lens with 800mm with a rangefinder of that base length and magnification?

 

The ISO range of the M9 is quite poor in terms of noise quality

 

Says who?

 

The focus system, being manual, is much more difficult to contend with for anything that requires follow-focus action.

 

If you have decided to shoot in a way which requires follow-focus action, don't try using a device which has been designed for working in a different manner.

 

However, in terms of the final images produced (say for print purposes), the degree of difference between many Canon / Nikon primes and the lenses available for the M9 are not all that significant after proper post processing.

 

Quite true. If you don't need or don't see the difference, there is absolutely no point in buying so expensive lenses and in risking theft and loss by carrying them in the field.

 

 

Leica is missing some VERY BASIC design points simply to keep the 1960's Leica style in it's purest form.

 

If you really mean that, you're not terribly well informed. One part of Leica's offering consists of rangefinder cameras which have found a smallish following over an astonishing number of decades. Leica did offer single lens reflex cameras for a while but had to leave the field of the digital SLRs to their competitors.

 

On the whole, the Leica ethos is well over-rated.

 

What on earth do you mean by a "Leica ethos"? Do Leica or their competitor kill or maim experimental animals or exploit local cultures?

 

In the good old days (pre-1980) the Leica was just another pro camera that worked very well for intended uses.

 

Which it still happens to be. A pro camera that works well for intended uses. It does work but poorly for unintended uses, as does every camera and, indeed, every tool.

 

Today, it is a mystical entity that people dream about.

 

Again: what do you mean by "mystical entity"?

 

 

 

The operational/viewfinder attributes (and less significantly, the optical attributes) are the only things that differentiate Leica from other camera systems.

 

It all boils down to what has been said over and over again in this thread and in other threads in this forum.

 

The Leica M series is an outstanding product which is suited particularly well for some situations and for some ways of doing photography. When used outside of those parameters there is bound to occur a dismal failure.

 

The same is true for any other kind of camera and for any kind of tool at all.

 

There are situations where a discardable cardboard and plastic camera is the only camera which will do. Using a dSLR with all advanced focus following and ISO numbers in excess of those of owls and the most advanced in-camera PP developed by NASA will not be of any help if that is the case.

 

There really, really is no sense in continually pointing out that there are things which can not be done well or not at all with Leica M cameras. Everyone knows that already before even having seen one. There is no tool which is equally usable for all tasks. Not even expensive tools.

 

It's as useful as stating that boiling water is warmer than ice.

[Ruhayat]

Pop,

 

you missed one:

 

I think your comments are essentially correct for a "photographer".

 

It depends. What kind of "photographer" are we referring to here? I know for sure the M system is not a limitation for ALL photographers, even professional wedding photographers who shoot action in fast-changing light.

[Guest Kasper]

To answer the question that someone put why I argued: after I bought a second hand M9 I did notice some matters that dissappointed me a bit. So I wrote something down on this forum, and asked a question. What’s Leica’s advantage? Paul J gave the best answer, but I disagreed on the point of fast focussing. That became quite a story, including my challenge, while the other points were ignored or minimized. In the meantime. I agreed on the very good quality of the lenses, and IQ up to about 1000 ISO.

So in fact the issue is: what is the real advantage of the M camera? My opinion after working with it and reading a lot about Leica is: the M system surely does have advantages. In the analogous era such was without question, and there were still many professionals who used the system. Digital M’s is another story. I think that a camera with a price like the M9, should have more possibilities than it actually has. 5500 euro and that kind of shortcomings? Tony Field is right in this respect.( and on more points)

But let me make this clear: in itself I do like the system. So I’m just going to order a M. Better ISO ( I read that Leica is very satisfied with the result at 6400), better speed, better buffer, and a better LCD screen. It was wise from Leica to develop that improvements, and about time. The new M will be much more useful.

 

Best regards, Kasper.

[Ruhayat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kasper,

 

I'm genuinely curious:

 

why is it so important for you to know what the Leica advantage is?

 

To answer the question that someone put why I argued: after I bought a second hand M9 I did notice some matters that dissappointed me a bit. So I wrote something down on this forum, and asked a question. What’s Leica’s advantage? Paul J gave the best answer, but I disagreed on the point of fast focussing. That became quite a story, including my challenge, while the other points were ignored or minimized. In the meantime. I agreed on the very good quality of the lenses, and IQ up to about 1000 ISO.

So in fact the issue is: what is the real advantage of the M camera? My opinion after working with it and reading a lot about Leica is: the M system surely does have advantages. In the analogous era such was without question, and there were still many professionals who used the system. Digital M’s is another story. I think that a camera with a price like the M9, should have more possibilities than it actually has. 5500 euro and that kind of shortcomings? Tony Field is right in this respect.( and on more points)

But let me make this clear: in itself I do like the system. So I’m just going to order a M. Better ISO ( I read that Leica is very satisfied with the result at 6400), better speed, better buffer, and a better LCD screen. It was wise from Leica to develop that improvements, and about time. The new M will be much more useful.

 

Best regards, Kasper.

[pico]

The perfect camera

 

A fully auto-everything inter-networked camera worn in tiny helicopter and controlled from the mother ship by an editor. Human photographer no longer needed. We can call it the Kaspar Kamera!

[TonyField]

@ POP

 

(I have not figured out the quiting system here.... sorry)

 

Int terms of long lenses, the M series works very well with the Visoflex. The longest lenses I have owned or used are in th 400mm to 600mm range. The M9 still should work well with the Visoflex and my 200mm F4.

 

Poor high ISO on the M9 starts at 1600 - although it is usable.

 

Follow focus is certainly possible with the M series as long as you have trained yourself. I shot lots of dance and theatre with the M3,4,5. None the less, the M9 certainly not to be recommended for follow focus.

 

Seeing the difference in lenses is seldom related to "expense". The Leica lenses are quite excellent.

 

IMHO, I am reasonably well informed. Leica certainly has not "improved" its m2,3,4 offering in any way. In fact, the took backwards steps. The viewfinder of the M3 was superior to any of the following cameras - in particular was free from flare with back-lit subjects. They changed to the M2 style since it was cheaper to produce and "good enough". Leica has always offered diopter correction eyepiece - however they never did make it adjustable (as you find on even the cheapest DSLR cameras from about 2000.

 

The Leica reflex was left to the competitors simply because the original Leicaflex and SL were poorly designed and needed constant repairs. The reception, even among leica shooters, was very poor - in spite of the fact of having very fine optics (400mm 2.8 springs to mind

 

The Leica Ethos is largely based on the emotional almost mystical connection between Leitz and photographers (in particular, because of it's current high price) The only aspect of the ethos that I subscribe to is the viewfinder and the relatively compact body/lens packaging.

 

If you "believe" the Leica is magical, then of course it is.

[pop]

You will find a red "button" with the lettering "quote" at the bottom right hand side of every post. You click on this button in order to quote the post instead of clicking on "reply".

 

There are other ways to quote a post, but this may be the simplest one.

[TonyField]

You will find a red "button" with the lettering "quote" at the bottom right hand side of every post. You click on this button in order to quote the post instead of clicking on "reply".

 

There are other ways to quote a post, but this may be the simplest one.

 

The problem is with partitioning the quotes. Do I put the text between the pairs of:

 

((QUOTE=pop;2200944)) quoted text .((/QUOTE))

[pop]

You start the same way. Insert as many of the /QUOTE and QUOTE tags in as needed.

 

Since my Apple keyboard does not offer the square brackets, I just copy and paste the existing tags.

 

"Some assembly required", as they used to say in the electronics magazines of my days.

 

Ah - you put your reply between (/quote) and (quote=pop etc). Hence your post looks a bit like this:

(quote=pop) what I said blather blather(/quote) your retort (quote=pop)something else I said(/quote) another reply

 

and so on. Use square brackets instead of my round ones.

[TonyField]

 

...

Since my Apple keyboard does not offer the square brackets, I just copy and paste the existing tags.

 

"Some assembly required", as they used to say in the electronics magazines of my days.

...

 

Humm, Leica and Apple share some similar ethos and mystical qualities

[pop]

Humm, Leica and Apple share some similar ethos and mystical qualities

 

Go and wash your mouth with soap.

[Guest Kasper]

Kasper,

 

I'm genuinely curious:

 

why is it so important for you to know what the Leica advantage is?

 

Why? Well, when I said to some people, amongst them a photographer, that I intended to buy a Leica, discussions started. Was it still worth the price? Or did Leica became a snobbery brand, instead of a company for photographers? Later I had the opportunity to buy a M9 and a 50 for a very good price. An offer one almost could not refuse. I took the gamble, discovered some items after a while, and wanted to see what the forum had to say about it.That’s all. Now I think Tony Field described its benefits in the best way, but also its shortcomings. He is realistic. Is Leica a mystical entity? Personally I will say more about it after the new M. Until now I should say; too pricy, and too limited. Although within that limitations very good.

 

Best regards, Kasper.

[Ruhayat]

I see. Well, is it worth buying a Leica? Only you can answer that question. The people here who love their Ms despite the limitations have answered theirs to their satisfaction. It's the same as asking: is it worth buying an Audi when a Hyundai can be just as good and is much cheaper? And why does Nikon still bother to make a D4 when the D800E is cheaper and technically better?

 

There's a reason for each choice. Just use whatever feels right and comfortable to you, that's what I say. Never mind what anyone else thinks - we may have different sets of criteria than you.

 

In a similar vein, a DSLR is not always the better solution compared to a compact point and shoot either, despite its obvious advantages. I know a few people who took gorgeous snaps with their P&S cameras, then bought DSLRs thinking it would give them even better results, but their photos just became worse. Because it was a different kind of thinking, and they couldn't adjust.

 

The best way to know is to try it for yourself, that's what I tell my friends who ask me if they should buy an M. In my observation, there are people who "get" a rangefinder, and then there are those who no matter how hard they tried, could never get used to it. Since you already have bought an M and tried it out, what you already discovered should be more valuable that we think.

 

Why? Well, when I said to some people, amongst them a photographer, that I intended to buy a Leica, discussions started. Was it still worth the price? Or did Leica became a snobbery brand, instead of a company for photographers? Later I had the opportunity to buy a M9 and a 50 for a very good price. An offer one almost could not refuse. I took the gamble, discovered some items after a while, and wanted to see what the forum had to say about it.That’s all. Now I think Tony Field described its benefits in the best way, but also its shortcomings. He is realistic. Is Leica a mystical entity? Personally I will say more about it after the new M. Until now I should say; too pricy, and too limited. Although within that limitations very good.

 

Best regards, Kasper.

[Ruhayat]

Maybe the Audi vs Hyundai example is not the best. Perhaps a better analogy would be, old manual two-seater sports cars vs modern new automatic sedans. I know which one I would choose for weekend driving up the mountains, and which for commuting. But that might not be the same choice for someone else.

 

For what it's worth, I don't know why people like to make M9 vs D800 comparisons and wonder if it's worth buying "inferior" technology for a higher price. But no one seems to make the same remark about, say, buying a Canon 600D vs a Canon 60D, which similarly costs more than 1/3 more, yet has exactly the same technology inside - only the casing is different. Or indeed the D800 which has a higher res than the D4.

[IkarusJohn]

The simple answer to Kasper is that everything you say is true. It's as simple as that.

 

What do I see as the advantage of the Leica M? I'm not a long term Leica user, I'm not a professional photographer - I am a professional (a Barrister), and I take photographs, but that's something else. Face it, you get used to using whatever camera system you prefer. I like the rangefinder, and I enjoy the whole ethos, but I would probably like the D900 as much if that is what I had.

 

The advantage of Leica, though, is something very specific. It is very high quality prime lenses, with the best FF sensor that Leica can find (at the time). The images from the CCD sensor on the M9 really float my boat in a way that no other digital camera does, and it also makes the most of the lenses. Simple as that.

 

As for the rest, what Leica does is give you simplicity in controls in the traditional camera format - ISO, aperture, shutter speed, all within easy control. I can't do any of that with the ease and elegance of the Leica M.

 

I don't give a toss about the rest of its shortcomings, or how much better Canons or Nikons are at other things - they don't provide simplicity in such a small, elegant package, nor do they have the glass and image quality to match.

 

Cheers

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Lightwrangler]

Since my Apple keyboard does not offer the square brackets' date=' I just copy and paste the existing tags.[/quote']

 

Option-5 and Option-6 if my memory does not fail me. (Or was it Option-Shift-5? You will find out)

 

Mike

[k-hawinkler]

Option-5

 

∞

 

and Option-6

 

§

 

if my memory does not fail me. (Or was it Option-Shift-5? You will find out)

 

Mike

 

Square brackets are on all my Mac keyboards, on the same keys as the curly brackets.

 

{ }

[ ]

 

I would like to see a photo of that keyboard without square brackets. Thanks.