Leica's advantage?

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have some sympathy for Kasper. Sure there are very accomplished photographers who have learned to use RFs for almost everything. But for the average Joe (and I include myself), the M is not the best choice all the time. I don't do weddings but I do chase after three grandchildren who can move pretty quickly, and my eyes are not up to the task of focusing and refocusing. So when I am taking such photos I use a DSLR, which I also use for longer lenses, macro, and fill flash (a breeze rather than a hassle). (I do tend to use the central autofocus point and recompose, but I find that faster and more accurate than a RF -- perhaps because I learned to do that many years ago and have lots of practice). I use my M for street and for landscape and travel and love it and its IQ. But when I go to the Galapagos later this year, the DSLR will be my preferred tool for the long lens capability. The fact that an M can be used by some for action does not mean is is the better tool for all for action. For Kasper, who is keeping his M9, the DSLR may be the best tool. The debate here is over whether you could use a Leica for the kinds of things Kasper wants to do, and of course the answer may be yes for others, but maybe the answer is different for Kasper.

[Ivan Muller]

Ivan, no camera understands anything. That's why I used quotation marks. The more automatic you make things, the less you determine yourself. For instance when you switch on all AF points in the 5DII, the system will focus on the iphone in the example I gave. When you decide to do some thinking yourself and switch on the central AF point, aim at one of the eyes, keep half pressed the shutter button and reframe, you get what I aimed for. But that only is possible by sacrificing some of the automatic function of the camera. In this way you can sacrifice more and more, until you have a fully manual camera.

 

So as a photographer, I like to have a mind of my own.

 

So what's your point? With an eos, Nikon, Sony et al you can decide exactly how much you want the camera to do and not do...

 

...and I also like to have a mind of my own.....but how does leaving basic things like exposure and focus to the camera take away my own mind?...all cameras need skills to master, some more than others, and how does the notion that ' I did it all bymyself' vs ' I left most or all of the basics to the camera' make me a 'better' photographer or give me 'better' images.? In the end the only thing that matters is the final print....no one cares how you got there or how much or how little effort it took, or which camera you used or how sharp or not your lenses were, or that they were made of metal and brass instead of plastic.....you must have heard it a thousand times when, when some people look at one of your images, and they think it's great, they say something like ' you must have a very good camera to be able to do that'....as if anyone would walk up to David Hockney and say you must have very good paint brushes to be able to paint this....let us who know better not perpetuate this illogical nonsense! We are photographers and what sets us apart from all the other millions with cameras is that we have a unique 'vision' and we use tools to record that vision.....please just don't tell me that using a certain tool 'gave' me my vision, that's sounds like taking my 'mind of my own' and handing it over to the tool..."

 

Of course now some will say that the 'm' or the 's' improved my vision, and that its the perfect tool, and that's ok and good luck to you, but just maybe, perhaps it's not 'my' 'perfect' tool...and yes I know I know it's most probably because I don't just don't 'get' it....

[Ivan Muller]

Hi, Kaspar just a thought, if money is no obstacle, why don't you just get the new 'S' it has the prestigious Leica name, it's af and will have huge dynamic range, big LCD screen with zillions of pixels and then you don't have to wonder about how it compares to other dslr's there is just no comparison at all....just leapfrog all this small camera nonsense and go for the 'big one' ! It has all the Advantage...!

 

Now if I was one of those hardworking deserving 1 precenters that's what I would have, done:)

[Lindolfi]

So what's your point? With an eos, Nikon, Sony et al you can decide exactly how much you want the camera to do and not do...

 

That is exactly my point. On top of that: if you do let the camera do things for you automatically, you have to realize it may not be what you want. And that includes focus, exposure time, aperture, ISO, even image stabilization.

 

....please just don't tell me that using a certain tool 'gave' me my vision, that's sounds like taking my 'mind of my own' and handing it over to the tool..."

 

I don't say that, never did and never will. But I do say that the choice of a tool (camera) for a certain scene is part of my vision. Hockney carefully chooses his brushes the moment he decides that his polaroids of the Grand Canyon do not reflect his experience and starts to repaint the polaroids on small wooden panels.

 

Ivan, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm just sharing experience, not promoting anything, like an M9. The camera in my avatar is not a Leica, it's an 8x10 Gandolfi. Before you take a photograph with that camera, you have made many more decisions than you do with an M9. The Leica keeps the axis of the lens automatically perpendicular to the sensor, but that may not be what you want...

[Paulus]

Finally: someone asked me to post a picture with the text: I am Kasper. I will do that the next days. More than one. At 1600 ISO, Leica and Canon. And 2500. Written on a dark grey curtain or something. r.

 

 

A piece of white paper with the letters on it will be enough as long as we can see the EXIF of the camera.

 

We all know de difference between a Leica M9 and Canon DII.

 

Further more, the delay makes me think, that you don't have a M9 because otherwise, it would not be such a problem just to upload the picture on a sunday. Now you have to wait until the shop is open to make a picture in the shop or so...

but since you have made beautiful pictures with it this sunday, it would be nice to see one of these also.

[urs0polar]

Kasper,

 

I think you are getting lost in the details.

 

It's not even about Leica. For me, in the long run, in most any endeavor, I benefit most from a tool that I cannot blame for the wrong result.

 

I should stop there, but since this is the internet, we push on. I have some questions for you:

 

How many FPS is fast enough? Right now the fastest is like 11 for a traditional SLR. Not all that fast if you start to think about it. Maybe what you really want is a movie camera like the RedONE. Not a lot of arguments there, that thing is awesome. Oh wait, you have to manual focus! How *do* they make those skateboard demo movies!? skate - shot on red #1347 - 120 fps on Vimeo, shot at 120 FPS, the new one can do 300 or something, and has AF though people are always talking about how they are turning it off. Should they just give up and wait until a model comes out that has the AF performance they want? Is AF the difference between success and failure? If you aren't shooting full-frame at 300FPS, are you a loser?

 

A 5DIII might have 50 or so AF sensors now. When the 5DIV comes out with 70 cross focusing (or whatever it's called) AF sensors, should we say to ourselves "ah, *that* is the reason why I was unable to get that shot last month at the kid's party ... this camera I have right now is terrible". What is the "perfect" AF? Should we say to ourselves "ah, the 5DIV will be so much better for everything, so if the pictures I am taking now aren't what I want, then I shouldn't worry -- if only I had the right equipment, my pictures would look amazing".

 

As for me, I tend towards lazy, but I still can't blame my M8 when things go wrong. Because I've seen plenty of examples where things can go right with rangefinders, if my pic isn't right, it must be me. The M is very pure in this aspect explicitly because it LACKS features. I can't choose focus points -- so I have to do the work myself, thus I think about it. Maybe I have to zone focus; uh-oh, what is zone focus? Once I earn how to zone focus, why do I still miss? Hey, these DOF marks on my 1955 lens aren't very accurate when i view at 1:1 in photoshop. Why is that!? How do people who shoot 8x10 portraits still get only the eyes in focus with an aero-ektar!? Wow, maybe I could learn to do that! And wait, I could apply what I've learned to ANY camera! Wow, I'm not so dependent on learning how the 5DIIIs AF menus work, and I won't be screwed when they change it on the 5DIV! Now I can work on composition! Wow, composition is hard, what have I done!?!?

 

So, it's the journey, not the destination -- life vs death. No wonder people are passionate about it.

 

Another thing -- professional photographers have to get the shot - or else they don't eat. But, that's not me, and I don't think that's you either. In addition, there are a few pros who have already commented about how the rangefinder is their preference but they use other tools when those tools are necessary, as do we all. After all, before AF, no one took pictures at football games -- it really was a tragedy!

 

So, it's not Leica really, it's just that Leica designs around a different set of principles that happen to strike a chord around here.

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Impressive the level of courtliness and decorum exercised. Nobody really came close to take the bait which was trawled through the thread on several different attempts by the OP... hardly even a nibble.

[Paulus]

Impressive the level of courtliness and decorum exercised. Nobody really came close to take the bait which was trawled through the thread on several different attempts by the OP... hardly even a nibble.

 

 

+1

[pop]

Also no one on the forum answered my question why they think that so few press photographers don’t use the M.

 

Not being a press photographer, I can only offer some observations from which you can form your own conclusions.

 

Most importantly: look at some pictures published in the press. Image quality is not the prime concern. Long telephoto and possibly zoom lenses are rather more the norm than the exception, so is sustained rapid firing (presumably for fear of missing that crucial twitch of the nose). Noise in the image is no object but exposure time is.

 

Most of these parameters have been addressed in this thread and the consensus appears to be that the M8 and the M9 are not the most obvious choice for many press photographers when these parameters take priority.

[Paul J]

1: The high ISO is not that good, and is far behind camera’s half of the price of the M.

2: The bufferspeed is very slow. If you need NOW AND THAN a series of pictures fast, and quickly in a row, the M struggles.

3: The LCD screen is worse than those of much cheaper camera’s and it’s hardly to check if a picture is sharp. Something that SOMETIMES also is needed, given the fact that digital photography is much more critical than film.

4: The dynamic range is not as good as that of a top DSLR.

5: Focussing on an RF does have advantages, but also disadvatages, specially with 90 mm and above, at full aperture when the subject moves and you shoot pretty close.

 

OK, OK, I'm going to take the troll bait if only for my own entertainment.

 

What baffles me most is photo journalism, the very term and genre was defined by people who wouldn't even believe you if told them about an M9. The earliest made with wet plate cameras which had the dynamic range of an etching, the cameras had the ergonomics of a ship and the buffer was at the rate of a few an hour. At best the "kids of those days" had the highly advanced Speed Graphic to work with.

 

What is considered and called "The Golden Age of Photo Journalism" is BECAUSE of the Leica. This is what defined the genre in the way it is still today.

 

Jacques Henri Lartigue pioneered action photography and photos of racing cars with 5x4. He had no problem hand holding what is akin to a tank, compose and focus and image back to front and get the most remarkable images. Robert Capa's photos were OBVIOUSLY ruined by the fact he had such antiquated equipment...

 

As for low light photography Brassai? Weegee?

 

In answer to your questions.

1. My Phase One P65 has the same limited ISO characteristics. It makes the price of the M9 look like an entry level dSLR. Price has nothing to do with it.

2. The buffer is slow but reasonable. If you stop and think about your photo. You feel the moment and look for the shot you will find the buffer is ample for professional work. It is for mine (fast paced fashion). If you don't want to be a photographer and just rattle off a hundred shots and pick the best one later than go ahead and use your dSLR. Perhaps your profession would be better suited as an editor.

3.LCD is sub par, yes. But all you need is the histogram and a reference. It is because you have always relied on that you are not used to trusting your own ability. If you can't rely on your abilities then checking it on the LCD...well it's too late you've already missed the shot and lost the job my friend! Before the days you kids had digital cameras the rest of the world functioned perfectly well with film. The photos that defined the term "photojournalism" were made with film and quite probably an M with even less functions.

4.Dynamic Range is perfectly adequate. You have more Dynamic range than you need. You can be 2 stops under exposed (this is probably the most you'll need in most working environment) and still get a perfectly reasonable image with decent shadow detail. Just don't shoot with the lens cap still on and you'll be fine.

5. I shoot, tracking people, walking towards camera wide open without that much issue. It just takes practice. You brain remembers how quickly to move the barrel the closer they get the more you do it. There are people here who don't even need to check focus. They have used the M for long enough to know what distance they are and what position to move their focus hand at. It's not that different to tracking a fast moving race car with a very slow shutter speed.

6. There aren't any people any people using the camera for reportage? There are many. Research magnum photographers that use them. There are MANY. There are forum users here who does just that.

 

It seems like you have made up your mind dear Kasper so just use use what ever you damn well feel comfortable with. What ever gives you the best results that mirror what is in your head. Really if you feel you get better results with your 5D then great, use it. It's a good camera. The reaction comes when you tell experienced people taking the time to encourage you that effectively they are wrong. At the end of the day use what you want but telling experienced people that the camera can't be used for these purposes and that a dSLR that thinks for you is better is always going to provoke a response.

 

I'll leave you with this poor excuse for an action shot made by a feeble 5x4 plate camera. What a pity it wasn't with a 5D huh? Troll be gone.

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!

[almoore]

Yes, but one of those quirks with AF...

 

Jamie, if this was a different forum I could happily chat to you for the next week about the quirks and shortcomings of Canon's AF system. The reality is that it's taken them more than a decade to get the AF to the point where it's close to being as consistent and reliable as the final film EOS1v. But that doesn't alter the fact that a number of the accounts here of their shortcomings are down to user error than the real and inherent weaknesses of the system.

[tomasis7]

i want to add one thing.

 

why ask about advantage if one want to be convinced that it is not the case.

 

For Leica, you know insantly that it does click for you or doesnt. I dont see how its useful to use time to persuade other to use the most complicated yet easy tool as RF.

 

Let other to shoot with Iphone, compacts, entry DSLR or whatever their dear seemingly knowledgeable salemen to tell to their poor clients what to do with their photography "career".

[kdriceman]

This thread just continues in circular motion... people continue to post Leica's advantages... Others post Leica's dis-advantages... Debates and arguments ensue. It's pretty tiresome, really, but I can't stop looking. It is like going to a car race because you think there is going to be a spectacular accident and you don't want to miss it!

 

Honestly, what more is there to say about Leica's advantages/disadvantages?? Even the OP seems to have accepted Leica's advantages as being worth the price, but perhaps not enough for all his uses, since it appears he has chosen both the M9 and the DSLR.

[Guest Kasper]

Not always a great level of intelligence, is it? It is ablolutely ineffective to compare the past to nowadays. Sure, pictures were made in low light, and certainly, photo’s of moving subjects were also created. But how many pictures did fail? New improvements created new possibilities as every (old) photographer knows.

I did’nt say that moving subjects can’t be done with the M. I only wrote that in certain circumstances it is hard to do with a Leica M. For those who are so busy finding all kind of arguments to make a eh..troll of me ( very polite), I will repeat some of my words, or give it some more explanation:

You want to isolate a person from his environment and therefore have to use wide aperture. ( 2,8 or 4,0). Or in case of low light have to do the same thing. The subject you are going to shoot is moving fast, while the direction of his movements is unpredictable. ( singer on the stage). It also can happen on a conference with a speaker who also moves front and backwards in an unpredictable way, and at unpredictable moments. There you try to focus on the eyes. In both cases you want the subject pretty close in view.

Now, as what the professional said to me in front of the stage when we talked about Leica: how good you are, AF is always faster in such cases, certainly when you can hold the subject in the focussing points. When I used a Leica many years ago it was a pretty much harder job ( in such cases), and I missed quite more pics. AF was in that respect a big improvement that we all welcomed.

 

It’s a pitty that I don’t kow personally any of you experienced gentlemen. Otherwise I would pay you a visit if that would be allowed, and we would do a couple of tests. Me with the Canon, you with my M9. 90mm, 2,8. But, wait, perhaps something like that is possible. Who dares to take the challenge?

 

Best regards, Kasper.

[tomasis7]

Robert Capa doesnt care about this weird test

 

the right question is why CARE to focus on forward moving object? it is likely not good photo after all.

 

For good photos as street photography , art LEica RF is suffficient for the REQUIRED needs

 

Toys as DSLR are better suited for silly tests

 

Nothing of cameras are wrong to do. Just use what suits for you, if you are fan of shooting forward moving objects, then invest heavily in DSLR system .

 

Good luck!

[brianv]

The last time I shot a group onstage was in Georgetown, 1978 or so, when the Nikon F2a was new. Used a Nikkor 105/2.5 and an "E" screen, grid lines. Kodacolor 400 was new. I scanned the negatives in a few years back, the pictures were all in focus. It's just not that hard to do.

 

Some people have the attitude "If I cannot do it, no one can."

 

I have the attitude "If I can do it, anyone can."

 

It's just a matter of taking the time and making the effort.

[otto.f]

Kasper you keep on coming back with the 90mm as the case that illustrates your point of view. But the 90 is exactly the point where traditionally the M went over to R, because the RF becomes critical at that point, especially at 2.0; this also counts for a 75/1.4. At this aperture/focal length combinations the RF produces measure errors that also count up to relative more unsharp photos

In the book Leica M6 by Scholz there are some informative tables about the fysical boundaries of the RF system

[Lindolfi]

I would pay you a visit if that would be allowed, and we would do a couple of tests. Me with the Canon, you with my M9. 90mm, 2,8.

 

Badly designed experiment: in a good experiment you keep all important factors constant with the exception of one of them. For instance you ask the same photographer to use two different camera's on the same subject. (Already been done by you and by me) Or you ask two photographers to use the same camera on the same subject.

 

But never ask two photographers each with a different camera to make a picture of the same subject. If there is a difference, what would be your explanation and conclusion?

[CalArts 99]

An odd thread to say the least..... over a futile issue that has been discussed to death for decades.

 

My car is faster and my girlfriend is prettier. So nah, nah, nah.

 

And now it's become a challenge? An actual duel choosing different weapons?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Kasper]

It is simple. The experienced photographer, who claimes here that I’m wrong, will shoot with the Leica a certain number of pictures. We than will see how many sharp pictures he has.

I will shoot the Canon, as a not so much experienced photographer. Same number of pictures. We are going to see how many sharp pictures I will have. Allright?

A third person will see if the conditions are the same. ( same distance to start, etcetera).