mixed feelings after a few years

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry Carlos, you posted whilst I was writing my post on the same point

[uroman]

i am reading opinions about the emotion of using an M, and not to worry about the money. i was more interested in the basic idea of, if one took pictures with a 5d3 or an a7s or a m leica, and one put the images into lightroom and did processing, is there really going to be that big of a difference for a hobbyist. I understand that the rendering might be different, and certain lenses are special. but overall, is the M adding real value compared to others. Im looking at the "end product" for most of the images - not so much the emotional part of it. I took a Lightroom course, and the instructor showed how he could take a terrible picture from a camera phone, and make it into a really nice picture with post processing. It was amazing. If that can be done, it makes me question my purchase of an M9 and lenses. Is photography now a digital PP field? It is hard to know, on 500px or zenfolio, if pictures have had post processing. I bet most have. So i don't know how to judge the value in this sort of world.

 

I am going to have to give this more thought. I thought the responses would be more reassuring, and I am trying to learn the "leica way". I really love the camera, but i am more concerned about how to do all of this in the long term with 8000 USD bodies, and 4000 USD lenses. I figured as a professional, with financial security and ability to afford Leica, that i would be the sort of customer that leica wants to develop for the future. Although i love the images i have made, i am just really scared off by the high cost of digital leica bodies, and it has made me question whether or not this is a wise thing for me to do. Yes, i can afford them, but i can't ignore the cost, even as part of the 1%. I search for value too. I wonder, if the value is now in lightroom and photoshop, instead of the camera itself. I wonder if those programs and the cheaper cameras are a game changer. I just don't know.

 

Again, thanks again for the comments, because i am learning about the "lecia culture", and just trying to discover how to make this hobby viable for the next 20 years. I simply can't do it with 8000 USD bodies every 3 years, unless i get 8000usd of value out of the M body, over dslrs or mirror less brands from sony or fuji, etc. It is a difficult thing to grasp for the future.

 

I wonder if other younger and new leica users are also struggling with these concepts.

 

All that being said, i have to say that the 75 lux is a beautiful lens.

[Advertisement]

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

[farnz]

You're asking an impossible question because the appeal of the final image is completely subjective so only you know whether you like it.

 

One thing that an M can offer that dSLR's cannot is to be able to use an enormous number of legacy lenses, some of which will give very different renderings to modern lenses. You might be predisposed to prefer sharp, clear, high-colour images that modern lenses typically produce but older lenses from the 1930's, 40's 50's and 60's can offer lower contrast images with pastel colours and gentle vignetting that can be very attractive too. Some of this can be replicated in post-processing but some of it not.

 

The question you have asked is similar to the classic "Which lens should I buy next?" that regularly pops up and that no one can answer but the person posing the question because he or she is the only one that knows what they like.

 

Pete.

[robert blu]

Apart from the X1 I have no digital cameras, yet. Thinking about, not sure. I'm happy user of my M7.

 

Now from the "money" side I often ear comments from friends saying you are crazy to spend so much money on a camera, my one cost 1/3 of yours and photographs are good (more or less!) like yours.

But than they are not happy with the camera they have. So they change it. And maybe in the next year change again. And each time buy one or two new lenses...

To make short whitin a few year time period they spent much more money I did...

The point is to buy something you like, you enjoy to use and keep it. Try to get the best out of it.

 

Another approach is that if somebody is an hobbist, even passionate and thinks too much if he can afford "that tool ", whatever it is it means he cannot afford it! this seems to be little brutal, (sorry!) but is the way I take my buying decisions.

 

And I have friends who spent much more money to buy a motorcycle they use for their pleasure only a couple of month each year...as it is for my sailboat...

 

Not easy to find a balance between logic and emotion, pleasure to use an instrument and its cost, right and left side of our brain...

just my thinking which could be wrong, of course ...

 

robert

Edited December 31, 2014 by robert blu

[MarkP]

I really love the camera, but i am more concerned about how to do all of this in the long term with 8000 USD bodies, and 4000 USD lenses.

 

Yes, the bodies aren't cheap but why do you necessarily need to upgrade every three years if you're happy with the results your current camera gives.

 

Regarding lenses, I have bought at least a third of mine second hand. There are also the excellent Summarits, legacy Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses.

 

 

 

I thought the responses would be more reassuring

 

I think people are just being honest and balanced in their advice.

 

 

 

All that being said, i have to say that the 75 lux is a beautiful lens.

 

Yes it is .

Edited December 31, 2014 by MarkP

[thighslapper]

Your lenses are a good long term investment .... whatever camera you use them on ...... and some Leica lenses will actually make you money.

 

None of the mainstream camera producers come close with such a full range of compact, fast and super quality optics.

 

With bodies you are forever playing catch-up or chasing new features...... but if my M-P was guaranteed to work forever I could probably use it without complaint for the forseeable future.....

 

..... but we are all seduced by the assumption that VR/IS, more DR, greater ISO capability and other 'improvements' will make us take better photos .......

 

I enjoy using my M-P (and XV ..... less so the T) but loathe the A7r I bought ..... and my old NIkon D70 and Fuji X100 .... so I suppose money can buy happiness after all...... and what price can you put on that ?

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cameras and lenses do two nearly distinct things: (1) they make the picture which you may or may not digitally enhance after taking it and (2) they support you in the process of taking the picture.

 

In the last ten years I have taken the path from a film SLR through many kinds of digital cameras (excluding digital SLRs) to the digital M for my main camera.

 

Though I actually started away from the film SLR on account of it being heavy and bulky and the films becoming expensive, I finally arrived at the M (Typ 240) () not only because the picture out of the camera is often better than anything I'd done before, but mostly because I felt that the RF and the camera at large put me much more in control of the actual shooting.

 

It's quite an individual thing, but I see that I'm not the only one here who feels that way.

[Luke_Miller]

i was more interested in the basic idea of, if one took pictures with a 5d3 or an a7s or a m leica, and one put the images into lightroom and did processing, is there really going to be that big of a difference for a hobbyist. I understand that the rendering might be different, and certain lenses are special. but overall, is the M adding real value compared to others. Im looking at the "end product" for most of the images - not so much the emotional part of it.

 

If the "image is the thing" and the process of capturing it irrelevant, then the M adds no value to you. My DSLRs produce images I could not capture with my M9, but I don't enjoy shooting with them. They only come out for client photography. I shoot with the M9 and Monochrom the rest of the time. If the only thing that matters to you is how the image appears on your computer monitor you have a lot of less costly options.

[Jeff S]

 

….was more interested in the basic idea of, if one took pictures with a 5d3 or an a7s or a m leica, and one put the images into lightroom and did processing, is there really going to be that big of a difference for a hobbyist.

 

….I simply can't do it with 8000 USD bodies every 3 years

 

 

I tried to address these two points in my post. If you only post for screen and don't make prints, loads of cameras will give you adequate results. With prints, your PP skills can make a difference, but only if you learn how to use it to your advantage. That's no different than in the darkroom days….digital has only changed the tools. Some film users with expensive camera and darkroom gear never produce much, while others with minimum gear and materials make gorgeous prints. Not much new in that regard. A good eye and good judgment are key, not just PP skills.

 

And who said you have to buy a new camera every 3 years? My M8.2 still produces great files after 6 years….nobody forced me to get the M, which I did because I could, not because I needed to for great prints. Buy insurance that covers everything that the warranty doesn't, and relax and make pics…and prints.

 

Jeff

[pgk]

i was more interested in the basic idea of, if one took pictures with a 5d3 or an a7s or a m leica, and one put the images into lightroom and did processing, is there really going to be that big of a difference for a hobbyist.

This is the 'how long is a piece of string' question, to which the answer is 'it depends'. The simplistic answer is, in many instances, probably not. But its a seemingly simple question which ignores many of the other reasons for shooting on a specific camera and which will have a bearing on the final image. And so its a simple question to which there is no simple answer.

 

FWIW everything we acquire has a cost to pleasure ratio, somethings are very cheap and give a great deal of pleasure, others are very costly and do not. Only you can decide whether a Leica achieves a viable balance for yourself. The fact that you are questioning it makes me suspect that it is not.

[uroman]

Thanks so much for the insight again. it seems like there is a love for "the process" regardless of the outcome with Leica. In other words, the experienced photogs here, seem to be saying that they love the "process" of shooting Leica. That adds enjoyment and use of the camera. And even if a dslr or a mirror less produced the same pictures, the photog might just like the creative process with Leica better. I can see that, as certainly i enjoy shooting my leica more than i did my dslrs. Certainly there is a different creative process, even if the outcome is the same.

 

Insights like these are important for those of us who might be the next generation of Leica shooters. I hope that those who have been shooting leica for a long time, can continue to mentor this aspect of us who are newer to the brand. I imagine that if one loves the creative process better, it also would result in more loyalty to a RF camera system.

 

Happy new year to all.

[TomB_tx]

I agree - to many of us the process of capturing images is of value in itself. And for that I certainly prefer an M style RF body (although the IIIf & g have their own charm). For the same reason I prefer the film bodies to my M9, but it is the closest "experience" to film shooting in the digital world.

[pop]

... it seems like there is a love for "the process" regardless of the outcome with Leica. ...

 

That certainly does not apply to myself. It's perhaps a bit like a carpenter who makes tables with four legs of equal lengths because he uses the better tools; he would certainly "love the process" as well.

Edited January 1, 2015 by pop

[DLS]

i was more interested in the basic idea of, if one took pictures with a 5d3 or an a7s or a m leica, and one put the images into lightroom and did processing, is there really going to be that big of a difference for a hobbyist.

 

The question isn't whether photographs taken of the same view by three different cameras are significantly different, but whether I would take the same pictures carrying those three different pieces of equipment. The answer has led me to make a full commitment to using Leica hardware.

[250swb]

I understand the use of old lenses and used equipment. But i could upgrade a 2000 USD body every few years with little concern. At 8000 USD, it gets much more challenging.

 

This kind of implies you throw your old camera bodies in the trash when you buy a new one. Here is a tip, you can sell the old camera body! Yes, amazing but true.

 

So the only big bills purchase is the first camera body at $8000, then each time you want to upgrade you sell it and you have $6000 to put back into the new body, meaning it is only a $2000 top up which you can afford. Of course even if you move camera systems you don't need to lose all of your $15000 because you can use my tip again and sell your Leica equipment, only this time don't make the mistake of buying another Leica, ask for Canon!

 

As far as telling a Leica image from a Canon image is concerned it isn't possible most of the time with like for like images, but as soon as you see a scene containing action made using a telephoto lens you can suspect it will be a Canon. So the differences are exhibited in situations where one camera excels above the other. And this comes down to what sort of photographer you are. I tend to think M users are more wedded to the human scale and situations where the focal length of the lens and viewpoint are imaginable for the viewer of a print. Whereas I tend to think that DSLR users are experimenters and wanting to look beyond the immediacy of their surroundings. Neither is more laudable than the other, both are means of communication.

 

So you may discover you are not a Leica photographer, or that you are. But you don't do it by looking at prices, specification sheets, or comparing lenses, you find out by looking inwardly at what you want to communicate in your photographs, and then choose the camera that helps the most.

 

Steve

[pgk]

But there lies the rub - by enjoying the creative process more, the outcome can be better, perhaps not technically but in producing a finer, better composed and considered image.

[robert blu]

But there lies the rub - by enjoying the creative process more, the outcome can be better, perhaps not technically but in producing a finer, better composed and considered image.

 

I fully agree, if you like the creative process you work more and by working more you have more chances to get an excellent result :-)

robert

[MarkP]

But there lies the rub - by enjoying the creative process more, the outcome can be better, perhaps not technically but in producing a finer, better composed and considered image.

 

 

Agreed

[Gibbo]

But there are no guarantees

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mca]

Personally, I think the way you are looking at the problem, you won't be able to justify the additional cost of a Leica. Which means you will sell it and get a Canon or whatever, and in a few months you will understand that you don't get as much pleasure from your images as you did before.

 

What I mean is that, at least for me, the pleasure of using a Leica is some unmeasurable thing that's in the process of shooting and not so much on the end result, meaning you can't really see it when you compare images from several cameras like you say. It's in the process, it's in the way you shoot and it's in the way the process inspires you to make images, meaning it will afect the images themselves but not the techincal aspects of it.

 

For me at least, the Leica changes the way I shoot and so it changes the images I capture. It's the process, not the end result. With other cameras I captured images that did not inspire me as much and so even if technically they could be superior in terms of noise and autofocus and so on, they wouldn't be so interesting.

 

It's all very personal of course but for me, the added difficulty of manual shooting and manual focusing and the techniques you develop to overcome the difficulties change the way you look at things and the way you capture life around you and that is present on the final images.

 

This is my experience, I am not sure if I was clear or confusing but my point is that the process changes the final result, not just the techincal capabilites of the different cameras for which you wouldn't be able to say that the Leica M/M9 is superior to a Sony A7 or a Canon 5D3.