Leica's advantage?

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agreed! I used to use Poseidon regulators but ended up using UK built Apex, due to the need for annual servicing under our HSE regulations here in the UK. I still like the Poseidons - beautifully built but I found them just too expensive to maintain. Not that I ever used them to the depths you linked to. My gear is now pretty straightforward - it works well so I'm happy to keep it that way;).

 

I'm supposed to say something about Leica camera's to turn the link into something useful. But it is nice to see, how a link evolved from one troll opening upto what we are now talking about: Our passions and the way we use our equipment.

 

Maybe Paul, you know if there is a underwater housing for the Leica M already? Just to keep on track.

 

About the Apex regulators. They work flawlessly I hear even at 100 meters /325 ft. I use the Scubapro's M25/A700/or G250 combination, but many fellow divers use the Apex , because maintenance is not so expensive. I didn't' know about the one year service in Britain, but that's normal for us too, although not obligatory

. 100m/325 it isn't a problem for the Apex, because one uses trimix so the gas is less dense and the regulator performs like breathing in 30m/100ft.

[pgk]

Maybe Paul, you know if there is a underwater housing for the Leica M already? Just to keep on track.

Actually it wouldn't be difficult to build a housing for the S, although it would be for the M (close focus problems would make it problematic), though S owners might not want to take their cameras underwater.......

[Paulus]

Actually it wouldn't be difficult to build a housing for the S, although it would be for the M (close focus problems would make it problematic), though S owners might not want to take their cameras underwater.......

 

 

That's an interesting thought. You are implying, that the S is too expensive to use underwater?

 

A few days ago, I was at a shop for the opening of the IWC Aquatimer collection:

 

IWC Schaffhausen | Fine Timepieces From Switzerland | Home

 

I said to the shop-owner: " people sure aren't diving with these expensive watches". He said: why not? You get used to the idea of anything being expensive.

 

Maybe the same for the S underwater?

[pgk]

That's an interesting thought. You are implying, that the S is too expensive to use underwater?

Not really. People do use digital Hasselblads underwater BUT the market is very, very small (I sell underwater housings FWIW and the most popular are 5D2 or D800 which are very good for use underwater) In the commercial photography world increasing format size is of limited interest due to the difficulty of payback, but if anyone really wants an S2 housing I will need an order of around 25 housings to make it a viability;). It would be a cheapish accessory though at an estimated £5k:D.

[NJH]

A friend of mine is a pro underwater photographer, for a long time he had a two tone gold and steel Rolex Submariner that he used for over 750 dives. I have been searching elsewhere for pictures of his camera rig but can't find em, suffice to say that the cost of an S is not that different to the cost of pro Canon body + lens + housing + lighting rig and any other stuff needed for a several weeks or more long expedition. He took the underwater product shots on here as an example;

Timefactors Quality Watches On The Net

 

The first underwater photograph on that set is not a fake by the way, its something he had been looking to do for many years and is reminiscent of the incredible advertising photographs that Rolex used long ago.

[asiafish]

It was the superb image quality of an elmarit-r 100/2,8 which brought me to leica

 

50 Cron got me.

[Brenton C]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jaap,

 

No self respecting auto dSLR would have allowed you to take that picture, with the dog on the left looking half crazy.

 

I think the digital cameras call it "J mode", as in "judgment", but we cynical manual camera anachronists slander the technology, attributing it to auto focus delay, shutter lag, and the like.

 

;-)

 

I apologize if I have this wrong, but Kasper seems to enjoy a debate.

 

Why did I buy a 60 year old Leica M last summer? I guess it's age-induced personality pertification--a combination of being both set in my ways, and pre-senile cognitive decline that comes with being 50. It makes me too stoopid and cranky to even try to "get with the program."

 

Diff'rent stroke for diiff'rent folks; mine's a double stroke!

[Herr Barnack]

“Shooting with a Leica is like a long tender kiss, like firing an automatic pistol, like an hour on the analyst’s couch.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

 

That is Leica's advantage.

[SteveYork]

Don't let the Leica fan boys dissuade you. Zeiss lenses are right up there with Leica lenses in terms of optical quality. They always have been. That's why Rollei and Hasselblad have always used Zeiss lenses. They do have a different look, however. Not as deeply saturated, flatter across the field, maybe not as sharp wide open.

 

Don't expect too much of an objective answer in this place. People will twist into yoga moves to justify why they own Leica. In this place, everything Leica does is great, the other companies just sell to the masses who don't have the refined aestheticism to know they're using lesser equipment -- at least, that's the impression I get when I read the comments. If you can read with a filter, and a grain of salt, you'll get some good insight. Some of these blokes have lots of experience.

 

I've used Leica stuff for almost 20 years now, both M & R, but I realize every company makes good equipment.

[tom0511]

...

Well, considering all this, if it is true, and I wander again: what is Leica's advantage for all that money?

 

Greetings, Kasper.

 

Hi Kasper,

as a user of fast DSLR and Leica M the advantages for the M I see are fore example:

 

-much smaller lenses and a wider collection of excellent primes; compare size of a 21/2.8 Zeiss for DSLR to size of the 21/3.4 Leica; or 35/1.4 Sigma Art to 35/1.4 FLE

-and in AF there are just a few focal lengths available which can deliver comparable IQ; that's why many people use a DSLR with sophisticated AF then use Zeiss lenses with manual focus because in some focal lengths Canon/Nikon lenses are not up to the task

-rangefinder let you see things around the frame which can be very usefull

-simple and intuitive user interface

 

Of course its easier to catch action and moving subjects with a fast DSLR.

 

So I guess both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

[jaapv]

Zeiss lenses are right up there with Leica lenses in terms of optical quality. They always have been. That's why Rollei and Hasselblad have always used Zeiss lenses. They do have a different look, however. Not as deeply saturated, flatter across the field, maybe not as sharp wide open.

Am I the only one to see the contradiction here?

[jdlaing]

Am I the only one to see the contradiction here?

 

Ahhhhh ....... no.

I think I see it too.

[TonyField]

I always find the emphasis on the lenses to be interestingly amusing. IMHO, I don't care if I use the 1950 vintage Summarit (really not a Leica design), ancient summicrons and summilux, the old 50 F1, or the new lenses. They all work well -- is one better than the other ?? who cares as long as you get the picture. :) It is the magic of the rangefinder.

[pico]

I always find the emphasis on the lenses to be interestingly amusing. IMHO, I don't care if I use ...

 

You are easily amused. The lens makes the image, with your cooperation.

 

It is the magic of the rangefinder.

 

 

Magic? Can we purchase magic? A camera is a box which can accommodate a pinhole, and any lens that fits. Get it?