Looks nice but.....

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The T is a pleasure to shoot with, and the image quality is great, as are the lenses

 

Who would ever dispute that?

[lct]

If pleasure to shoot with, image quality and lenses are not disputable, what is the rest about? Money?

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve P]

The intellectual and creative processes remain the same. The camera itself doesn't change that but it can (or can't) facilitate me. The camera itself doesn't make me look at the world any differently. I look at the world, think about interpreting it and then use a device that best facilitates me. This does not mean that there is no "decisive moment" or that all is calculated in advance. Or that intuitive creativity (whatever one wants to call it) doesn't come into play. It certainly does. But it's not all just by chance, it's coming from inside me; how I was raised, what I learned, what I read, how I react to the world based on my view of it. It's what makes different authors different.

 

So, my camera and lens encourage me to explore a different aspect of photography. As a result I begin to study and immerse myself in that aspect. Does this mean that the things I learn and the books I read are a legitimate source of creative expression but that the catalyst that inspired the journey, i.e. the camera and lens, must be excluded? This seems to me to be inflexible and a little arbitrary. I prefer a less rigid, more holistic approach to life, and art, and photography.

[wattsy]

Does this mean that the things I learn and the books I read are a legitimate source of creative expression but that the catalyst that inspired the journey, i.e. the camera and lens, must be excluded? This seems to me to be inflexible and a little arbitrary.

 

I've bought many cameras, lenses and other photographic gear over the years without thinking through exactly why I'm doing so (the purchase justification/rationalisation is usually something like "it'll help me do x kind of photography better or I can carry the camera more easily blah blah" rather than "I like the look of the object"). It has rarely, if ever, been a "catalyst" for improving my photography or leading me in some "artistic" direction and it has, if I'm honest with myself, taken me many years to realise that.

[Steve P]

Before I acquired my Ricoh GXR-M and 15mm Voigtlander Heliar, I'd never seriously contemplated street photography, but I found this pairing to be a fantastic combination. Deep depth of field, whisper - quiet shutter, low distortion for the focal length and sufficiently wide of angle to get up close and still retain plenty of environmental detail. It's an absolute Ninja of a tool. It took my photography in a different direction. There's no reason to suppose the Leica T won't do the same for someone else.

 

I made the comment in the context of this previous post.

[pgk]

If pleasure to shoot with, image quality and lenses are not disputable, what is the rest about? Money?

I have a friend whom I discovered the other day, both collects and uses Rolex watches. And yes, he does actually use the one he is wearing to tell the time;). But he agrees that the point of owning/using one is because of what it is and how he appreciates it, rather than for its inherent time keeping capability (my iPhone is probably as effective). And the price of such watches is way beyond their value as a simple timepiece, so to answer the comment above, it must be about money.

 

But I am genuinely puzzled as to what those who consider the T to be overpriced actually expect from Leica - perhaps to use another manufacturer's 'movement' and put it in a new and innovative exterior? The design compromises of doing so and expense of rehousing and 'tuning' might make any substantial and inevitable premium price charged just as difficult to justify, mightn't it? And simply re-badging and 'tuning' works already but has little modifying design input.

 

No, if we want a company like Leica to be innovative in any way, its not going to result in a cheap product. If the 'quartz movement' they use is not as state of the art as it could be, there are obvious reasons for this, and we will either have to live with it for the other advantages of a Leica design, or expect Leica to simply stop making new products.

 

I suspect that the real problem some people have is accepting a high cost of electronics which do not compete at the highest level. But electronics, I am sure, cost money to design and develop, and if we ignore the requirement to pay for the cost of doing so we will eventually end up in a world with very few manufacturers dominating the electonics' marketplace (as we are to an extent already).

 

As I have said before I don't think that the T is for me, but I do think that Leica has quite an innovative design and I hope it does well for them (I suspect it will:)).

[viramati]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well I have just come back from a week in Scotland from being part of a team teaching Meditation and Photography at a Buddhist retreat centre so I find it interesting to try and gather some thoughts about this sort of 'Zen' like camera! As I haven't handled the camera it is difficult to comment in depth but initially I see it as a somewhat interesting design direction to go in and whereas it maybe 'zen like' in it's approach to the control system and handing of the camera I really done't feel that it will help to actually see the image in a Zen like way. Personally I find any camera that mainly relies on a large LV screen not to be conducive to actually 'seeing' the image in any real way. On the retreat I was trying to encourage my group to concentrate on the image to examine the full frame and see to the edges and corners and to try to decide what added or detracted from the image. this is really impossible to do with a small screen held away from the face with all the distractions of everything else around you so you need to use the viewfinder so to have an undistracted view. This is of course especially true for landscape, architectural photography etc. but even with documentary photography, which has always been leica field, It is very hard to see an expression or judge a moment with a small screen held at a distance again you really need a viewfinder. You will say that the T has and EVF but this is an addition and not an integral part of the camera and I do wonder how you will be able to change setting with it held to your eye as it would seem that then the only 2 controls available will be the wheels on the back. So at the end of the day no camera will help you to see that will come from yourself and your experience etc but it will either help or hinder you from making that image. I find the leica M does help in some ways as it's simplicity can make decisions easier and all settings are easily seen an changed at a glance (apart from iso) but I really do wonder if this will be the case for the T. Yes it will have it's place and sure it will sell even just because of it's interesting design and approach but this is not a camera for me

 

As an aside I would interested to know how much Jono used the EVF as opposed to the LCD and how he feels it handles with the EVF

Edited April 29, 2014 by viramati

[jonoslack]

But then again, I'm not a snapshooter and I don't even take a camera on vacations/travel (I want to relax and experience the place and not record it; only unless it's part of a project or something.) And I don't 'hunt for my prey' very often. I have projects and ideas in mind and then I go out and attempt to create them. And again, that's not to say that things don't change or I don't experiment during the act of making the images, or that new ideas don't pop into my head (when I was a grad student I used to sit in my studio all day just visualizing a project; when I was in the process of making it transpire then things certainly did change and new ideas would come to the surface.) Anyway, I know a lot of artists who work this way so I don't think it's unique.

 

Perhaps this is the case in point - I don't often plan a shoot, and I don't have projects in mind. I take a camera with me always, and respond to what's going on around me and what I see. Snapshooter indeed - except that projects emerge out of what happens, and those do get considered and worked on. Basically I trust in my 'first stage' thinking to deliver the images without much conscious intervention - I then use my intellect and conscious thinking to cull and select, and to develop the images into a project (or indeed a stand alone image).

 

Sure, if it's wonderful weather I'll go out with the camera - and I choose to go to interesting places - but clearly one of us puts the horse in front of the cart, and the other puts the cart in front of the horse (not sure which is which).

 

. . . . . . . and if you're relying on 'first stage' thinking (instinct if you will) to deliver the images, then the way a camera works can have quite a large effect on the way those images are delivered.

 

The revelation to me in reading research about first stage/second stage thinking was to realise that one's 'instinct' is informed by a huge amount of information and delivered with much more brain activity than the 'considered' results of conscious decisions.

 

And Jono: glad to hear the charity ride was so successful!

 

Thank you - it was great - and the fund raising continues (looks like it's going to get in the papers now .

 

all the best

[jaapv]

I've bought many cameras, lenses and other photographic gear over the years without thinking through exactly why I'm doing so (the purchase justification/rationalisation is usually something like "it'll help me do x kind of photography better or I can carry the camera more easily blah blah" rather than "I like the look of the object"). It has rarely, if ever, been a "catalyst" for improving my photography or leading me in some "artistic" direction and it has, if I'm honest with myself, taken me many years to realise that.

Very true. The only thing that gave a real lift to my photography was the switch to digital, as that forced me to start learning again.

[jonoslack]

HI There David

Interesting post - I actually think it's a really interesting discussion as well.

 

Clearly, the logical corollary of your 'immersive' argument is to use a dSLR or else an EVF - something which leads you directly to the image itself. You Say:

 

On the retreat I was trying to encourage my group to concentrate on the image to examine the full frame and see to the edges and corners and to try to decide what added or detracted from the image. this is really impossible to do with a small screen held away from the face with all the distractions of everything else around you so you need to use the viewfinder so to have an undistracted view

 

You see - I'd say this was completely un Zen Like (what do I know about Zen ). I take good images when I'm 'in the zone' and absolutely NOT thinking about what adds or detracts from the image - just seeing it and shooting. Of course, I'm not implying that everyone should do this, just pointing out that although it induces people to call it 'snapshooting' (unintentionally derogative); the truth of recent research suggests that more brain power goes into this kind of 'instinctive' decision than all that clumsy, language oriented conscious thought.

 

I want the distractions! - I want to see what's happening and respond to that, not isolate myself in a tunnel.

 

Added to which - if your viewfinder shows you the edges of the image (as an EVF or a dSLR) then you can't see what's outside it - what you're missing - what might make the image more coherent. That's why the Leica M is still (for me) a wonderful answer - I can see what I'm getting, but also what I'm not getting.

 

. . . and so to your question

 

 

As an aside I would interested to know how much Jono used the EVF as opposed to the LCD and how he feels it handles with the EVF

 

For the first three months with the camera I didn't have an EVF - so I used the LCD - I was overjoyed to get the EVF, and I probably use it more than half the time. Truth to tell though, with the EVF the Leica T is 'just another ILC' - whereas using the LCD with touch focus you can see the event and what the camera will give you at the same time, and with practice that produces interesting (and different) results.

 

If I were teaching a photography course, I'm afraid I'd be telling people to STOP thinking about what was in the image and to just practice . . . . . and practice . . . . . and practice. To look at other people's work . . . and practice. Because I think the road to good images is practicing, not thinking about it. . . . . To be honest it's a harder route - but I still think it's the best one.

[jonoslack]

Very true. The only thing that gave a real lift to my photography was the switch to digital, as that forced me to start learning again.

 

Being forced to take all your pictures using an LCD for three months certainly forces you to start learning again too

[jmr]

As an aside I would interested to know how much Jono used the EVF as opposed to the LCD and how he feels it handles with the EVF

 

If I might offer my perspective on this:

 

The EVF is bright, clear and uncluttered. The camera operation using it feels comfortable and natural: it being somewhat raised from the camera body, I find my nose doesn't get in the way as much as when using a built-in finder.

 

Yes, you might argue that it's bolted-on and should have been built-in, and I too thought much the same—until I actually used it. My take is that although it's a distinct and separate piece, it's clearly and coherently designed-into the concept of T photography.

[viramati]

Very true. The only thing that gave a real lift to my photography was the switch to digital, as that forced me to start learning again.

 

Interesting thought and something to relate to. I sussed to do my own B&W developing for personal work and when I worked a set photographer all processing etc was handled by the production company. When I moved back to England in the late 90's I moved in another career direction as Photography is a hard way to make money so I also really came back to it seriously with the introduction of Digital and the digital darkroom

[viramati]

HI There David

Interesting post - I actually think it's a really interesting discussion as well.

 

Clearly, the logical corollary of your 'immersive' argument is to use a dSLR or else an EVF - something which leads you directly to the image itself. You Say:

 

 

 

You see - I'd say this was completely un Zen Like (what do I know about Zen ). I take good images when I'm 'in the zone' and absolutely NOT thinking about what adds or detracts from the image - just seeing it and shooting. Of course, I'm not implying that everyone should do this, just pointing out that although it induces people to call it 'snapshooting' (unintentionally derogative); the truth of recent research suggests that more brain power goes into this kind of 'instinctive' decision than all that clumsy, language oriented conscious thought.

 

I want the distractions! - I want to see what's happening and respond to that, not isolate myself in a tunnel.

 

Added to which - if your viewfinder shows you the edges of the image (as an EVF or a dSLR) then you can't see what's outside it - what you're missing - what might make the image more coherent. That's why the Leica M is still (for me) a wonderful answer - I can see what I'm getting, but also what I'm not getting.

 

. . . and so to your question

 

 

 

For the first three months with the camera I didn't have an EVF - so I used the LCD - I was overjoyed to get the EVF, and I probably use it more than half the time. Truth to tell though, with the EVF the Leica T is 'just another ILC' - whereas using the LCD with touch focus you can see the event and what the camera will give you at the same time, and with practice that produces interesting (and different) results.

 

If I were teaching a photography course, I'm afraid I'd be telling people to STOP thinking about what was in the image and to just practice . . . . . and practice . . . . . and practice. To look at other people's work . . . and practice. Because I think the road to good images is practicing, not thinking about it. . . . . To be honest it's a harder route - but I still think it's the best one.

Hi Jono

maybe I wasn't very clear and this of course could be the whole topic for a long essay!

so I am not saying just look through he viewfinder and yes we had a 'Zen' day where you are really trying to just 'see' and going with you intuition and not get waylaid by expectations etc. So I will stand and look at my subject maybe for quite a while. I will walk around it, I will try to connect with it, I will try to 'see' it. I sort of stop and try to step back in myself and slow down BUT when it comes to actually taking the image I will use the viewfinder and I will spend sometime studying the image, I will look up again but then I will always finally compose through the viewfinder. I would recommend a great book by John Daido Loori called 'The Zen of Creativity' He was an American Photography and Zen teacher who also studied under Minor White who certainly had an interesting style to teaching Photgraphy!!

 

Again it is not really about 'thinking' what is in the image it is about trying to 'See', 'Feel' a sort of suspension of the thought process. To see and feel you way into all aspects of the image.

 

Yes of course people need to practice but those on our courses come at all levels from those who bought, begged, or borrowed the camera tha night before and have no idea to those who know a f stop from a shutter speed etc. so we do a sort of introductory course at all levels and will be introducing later this year a course based much more just on seeing and with no technical input.

 

P.S I am talking here mostly about landscape type photography and of course one of the main reasons of using the Leica M is to be able to see what comes in and out for the frame within the viewfinder

Edited April 29, 2014 by viramati

[CalArts 99]

So, my camera and lens encourage me to explore a different aspect of photography. As a result I begin to study and immerse myself in that aspect. Does this mean that the things I learn and the books I read are a legitimate source of creative expression but that the catalyst that inspired the journey, i.e. the camera and lens, must be excluded? This seems to me to be inflexible and a little arbitrary. I prefer a less rigid, more holistic approach to life, and art, and photography.

 

Yeah, I agree that it may seem 'inflexible' on the surface but it's really far from that. In fact it's the complete opposite.

 

btw, you might be interested in Vilém Flusser's writings about photography and the "apparatus." He was very influential in the philosophy of photography and media (and also in the design of objects) before his death and is perhaps even more so now.

 

“The photographer can only desire what the apparatus can do." Flusser's thesis is that the camera is a 'programmed apparatus' and that the photographer is merely the 'functionary.' The functionary is bound by the rules that the apparatus dictates. The user might think that they are producing images of the world in the way that they want that world to be seen but it's the apparatus that really sets the parameters and it is therefore the apparatus that shapes the meaning of the image it produces. It's interesting, too, that this was written before digital (in 1983) and is probably even more pertinent today with the manufacturer's digital processing and algorithms 'running the show.'

 

So in a way, allowing yourself to determine your 'directions' rather than allowing the camera to direct you, might be seen as an attempt to transcend the control of the apparatus. And since we really don't have 100% control (every camera/lens/sensor/film/processing imprints its own characteristics on the image; i.e., its parameters and its dictates), then perhaps putting the 'work first and then the camera after the fact' might be a way of attempting to have more control over the apparatus (i.e., you pick the camera first in the hopes of not letting the camera dictate too much.)

 

Siegfried Zielinski has argued that "if machines (e.g., the camera) are able to do our work, if they in principle can do without us, we have to re-think the artist's role within the art process. To just fulfill the function is not enough. Artistic creativity has to reach beyond the functionality of technology."

 

And if the apparatus (the camera) is in control (although we always want to believe that we are in control), then maybe that's why we also see a redundancy of images (not just in volume but in style and technique, etc..)

 

Anyway, it's all just food for thought.

 

Towards a Philosophy of Photography, Flusser

[Steve P]

I don't know if the camera is in control of me exactly, but one look at many of my photographs would suggest I'm not entirely in control of it:). Thanks for the link. I look forward to exploring it.

[CalArts 99]

I don't know if the camera is in control of me exactly, but one look at many of my photographs would suggest I'm not entirely in control of it:). Thanks for the link. I look forward to exploring it.

 

You're right. I shouldn't have used the word 'control.' That wasn't quite the right term. Certainly the apparatus doesn't 'control' you, but it sets the parameters and the user becomes the functionary.

 

Flusser is a bit abstract but a worthwhile read, imho. There's a Flusser archive in Berlin: Vilém Flusser Archiv

[AlanG]

So after a lot of these cameras are in many hands for a while, we should expect to see new breakthroughs in interpretive photography?

 

The reality is that photography mostly comes down to where you point your camera and when you press the shutter. Everything that affects focus, color, and exposure is simply in support of that... whether the operation is deliberative or automatic, immediate or later. Experienced photographers have the entire process under control pretty early in the game.

[BB W]

Agreed on that second paragraph of yours, Alan.

 

My experience is that if you like using your camera no matter what kind it is you'll have it with you and use it.

 

Who cares as long as the shooter like his or her choice?

 

I still think this looks like an interesting camera set up and hope to try one out one day.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[stunsworth]

The reality is that photography mostly comes down to where you point your camera and when you press the shutter. Everything that affects focus, color, and exposure is simply in support of that...

 

The only problem I have is that is I feel I take better photographs with a rangefinder than with an SLR. I often wonder why, and can't help feeling that it's due in part to the fact that I prefer to use a rangefinder to an SLR.