Leica SL a real camera for the pro.

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am curious to discover what you think the SL cannot do that the M can do (aside from "be a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder", that is...  ). 

If you take into account only the time from pressing the shutter until the picture is taken, then there are (presumably) very few things the M can do and the SL can not.

 

However, like every tool the camera supports many more parts of the process of taking a set of photographs. Traveling to the place where the photographing is to be done, setting the distance, aiming and even holding it to your face until the decisive moment is perceived are as crucial to the success of the venture as is the moment when you release the shutter. This is where the two cameras are different. This also is where people insist that one does not replace the other.

[colonel]

I am waiting to see the first al a carte camera with the viewfinder properly on the right.

I mean BMW can put the steering in the right for counties that drive on the correct side of the road ...

[Manoleica]

I am waiting to see the first al a carte camera with the viewfinder properly on the right.

I mean BMW can put the steering in the right for counties that drive on the correct side of the road ...

And there you have it" - some are Left out" as are the ambidextrous!! A beemer with an EVF & auto WB.. Hopefully my new M will have antiFreeze" get it, got it" good...

[Peter H]

I've made no claims for what the SL can do that are not substantiated by its instruction manual or by using one for five minutes. Which of my "claims for what the SL can do" do you think are unsubstantiated? 

 

Really, Peter, you've become very emotional about this. Take a deep breath. 

 

I agree that the M and the SL are two different cameras, and that there are some things I prefer to use the M to make photographs of because it's more suitable, more comfortable, easier, etc. However, there's nothing that the M "can do" that the SL cannot, and there are a few things that the SL can do that the M cannot, as I mentioned in my first post on this subject. 

 

There's a difference between getting emotional and taking something seriously. I own up to the latter!

 

I do think you are mistaken in a few ways, but maybe it is just a matter of words and interpretations in the end.  

 

We'll probably never see eye to eye over this and I certainly don't want to fall out with you over it, so I'll try not to point out to you every time you're wrong!   

[ramarren]

If you take into account only the time from pressing the shutter until the picture is taken, then there are (presumably) very few things the M can do and the SL can not.

 

However, like every tool the camera supports many more parts of the process of taking a set of photographs. Traveling to the place where the photographing is to be done, setting the distance, aiming and even holding it to your face until the decisive moment is perceived are as crucial to the success of the venture as is the moment when you release the shutter. This is where the two cameras are different. This also is where people insist that one does not replace the other.

 

Pop and Peter H,

 

I've never said they weren't different nor that one replaces the other. I've said they complemented each other, repeatedly. 

 

The many other parts of the process of photography are not, by the definition of the words, "what the camera can do". I take words very seriously ... I'm a writer. The fact that the two cameras operate differently is an incontrovertible fact of their design and implementation; the fact that people will work with them differently is a consequence of that. But neither of those facts have any impact on "what the cameras can do" ... they have an impact on "what photographers can or will do with them" which is a totally different discussion.

 

At least for me it is. If you want to conflate these two very different things into one impossible to discuss amorphous ball of wax, I have nothing further to say on the matter. 

[dkCambridgeshire]

Pop and Peter H,

 

I've never said they weren't different nor that one replaces the other. I've said they complemented each other, repeatedly. 

 

The many other parts of the process of photography are not, by the definition of the words, "what the camera can do". The fact that the two cameras operate differently is a moot point of their design and implementation; the fact that people will work with them differently is a consequence of that. But neither of those facts have any impact on "what the cameras can do" ... they have an impact on "what photographers can or will do with them" which is a totally different discussion.

 

At least for me it is. If you want to conflate these two very different things into one impossible to discuss amorphous ball of wax, I have nothing further to say on the matter. 

 

 

That's a relief

 

dunk

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's a relief

 

dunk

 

Seeking the prize for snarky quip of the morning, dunk? 

[pop]

(...) the fact that people will work with them differently is a consequence of that. But neither of those facts have any impact on "what the cameras can do" ... they have an impact on "what photographers can or will do with them" which is a totally different discussion.

 

At least for me it is. If you want to conflate these two very different things into one impossible to discuss amorphous ball of wax, I have nothing further to say on the matter. 

That's settled, then. What prompted me to write what I did was this sentence of yours: "I can't think of anything I can do with the M that I cannot do with the SL" which seemed to preclude the possibility of working differently with them. If that's not what you meant to say, then we're in agreement and the point is kind of moot.

[ramarren]

That's settled, then. What prompted me to write what I did was this sentence of yours: "I can't think of anything I can do with the M that I cannot do with the SL" which seemed to preclude the possibility of working differently with them. If that's not what you meant to say, then we're in agreement and the point is kind of moot.

 

You interpreted that statement rather differently from its intent. Your interpretation seems to imply that I wrote "I can't think of anything I would do with the M that I wouldn't be able to do with the SL."

 

My question was about the perceived differences in camera capabilities suggested by in Peter H's original statement, not about the total experience of using the cameras. 

[firststream]

You are quite mistaken.

 

It is all to do with the photographs that the cameras can help me to take.

 

Are you deliberately misunderstanding this?

The advantage of the rangefinder viewfinder goes something like this:

 

Whereas the EVF or the (d)SLR OVF makes the photographer ask themselves "Should I go there?", the rangefinder optical viewfinder allows the photographer to think: "I should go there!". It is the slightest of advantages, important only to photographers who make - and appreciate - spontaneous photographs. This is not to say that the SL cannot record an image based on a spontaneous response from the photographer, but it is something that the rangefinder camera allows the photographer to do faster.

 

So far, the current collection of images in the SL Image thread seems to bear this out...or else SL owners posting images to the thread aren't the least bit interested in making spontaneously captured images.

[ramarren]

The advantage of the rangefinder viewfinder goes something like this:

 

Whereas the EVF or the (d)SLR OVF makes the photographer ask themselves "Should I go there?", the rangefinder optical viewfinder allows the photographer to think: "I should go there!". It is the slightest of advantages, important only to photographers who make - and appreciate - spontaneous photographs. This is not to say that the SL cannot record an image based on a spontaneous response from the photographer, but it is something that the rangefinder camera allows the photographer to do faster.

 

So far, the current collection of images in the SL Image thread seems to bear this out...or else SL owners posting images to the thread aren't the least bit interested in making spontaneously captured images.

 

Um, no. I really disagree with this idea.  

 

I don't sit with any camera glued to my eye looking to identify potential photo opportunities. I look around as I walk, or while I'm sitting. When I see something that I think might be worth a photo, I pick up my camera and take a photo. I usually try to minimize the time I have a camera to my eye in order not to attract attention to myself, so I make all my pre-set settings before looking through the viewfinder and frame with my eyes first. I do the same with SLR, RF, and EVF cameras, always have these past 50+ years.

 

All of these, amongst others, meet my criteria for "spontaneous images" taken with the SL, made the way I just described ... I've posted them here in other threads before:

 

 

 

 

 

I have not done much "street photography" (as in, people and crowds in public places with a lot of motion associated) with the SL so far, mostly because my mobility has been compromised in the past few months. (I had a hip replacement in mid-October and am just now getting around well enough to brave wandering the streets to make photographs again ... slowly.) 

 

I've heard this myth about the RF viewfinder many times over the years. It is just as patently untrue, IMO, now as it was the first time I heard it 50 years ago. 

[Peter H]

I tend to agree with Ramarren that the rangefinder is not definitively or universally better than any other form of viewfinder for spontaneous photography.

 

There are too many other variables at work, including personal preferences. But I do know from my own experience, that using an EVF can be quite a different thing from using an optical RF/VF. Neither is definitively better but they certainly are different, to the extent that some people find one far more appropriate for their style and usage than the other, while  many want both, because they are different.

 

Ideally, I'd have both in one camera.

 

Luckily, I have.

[firststream]

I suppose it all depends on how "spontaneous" is defined. For me, it's a combination of speed-to-composition and Winogrand's idea of an image "on the verge of failure".

 

Godfrey's examples seem to look as if he had all the time in the world to compose, even if he hadn't. It appears as if he is motionless-to-ground, even if he wasn't. He's caught out in image number 2. I don't see how these images disprove the idea that the rangefinder approach to composition is superior. I don't know how the idea could be.

 

I'm not saying spontaneous image-making can't be done with an EVF, just that it can be done faster with a rangefinder. It's an opinion difficult to prove, yet it's the foremost point of my appreciation for rangefinders and rangefinder photography. I'll stand behind Winogrand and Joel Meyerowitz on this...

[ramarren]

Another one: 

 

 

180mm lens on the SL. 

Walking along, saw bird land on light pole. 

Camera to eye, focus, click.

Refocus a touch, see plane, click.

Bird flew away. 

Total elapsed time: 10 seconds, max. 

 

... Godfrey's examples seem to look as if he had all the time in the world to compose, even if he hadn't. It appears as if he is motionless-to-ground, even if he wasn't. ... 

 

To me, that's what good photographic technique looks like. It happens instantaneously and doesn't look rushed, even though its often a split-second in the making. It happens with any camera once you know what you're doing. 

 

Hasselblad 903SWC

 

I wasn't even looking through the viewfinder when I made that exposure. I knew what the camera would see, and just took it. I'd just taken the camera off the tripod and turned around to put it back in the bag, and there they were. Click. 

 

 

 

 

Panasonic G1 

 

A guy sitting in the alley outside the restaurant where I had dinner in SF a few years back. "Can I snap your picture?" Click. 

 

 

 

Panasonic G1

 

In the airport waiting for my plane, saw this scene happening and acted fast. Click.

 

 

 

Ricoh GXR-M + Color Skopar 21mm f/4

 

Walking through the Tate Modern in London.

 

Spontaneous can be any time, any where, with any camera. 

[Peter H]

I suppose it all depends on how "spontaneous" is defined. For me, it's a combination of speed-to-composition and Winogrand's idea of an image "on the verge of failure".

 

Godfrey's examples seem to look as if he had all the time in the world to compose, even if he hadn't. It appears as if he is motionless-to-ground, even if he wasn't. He's caught out in image number 2. I don't see how these images disprove the idea that the rangefinder approach to composition is superior. I don't know how the idea could be.

 

I'm not saying spontaneous image-making can't be done with an EVF, just that it can be done faster with a rangefinder. It's an opinion difficult to prove, yet it's the foremost point of my appreciation for rangefinders and rangefinder photography. I'll stand behind Winogrand and Joel Meyerowitz on this...

Yes, There's a lot in what you say, though it's a hard thing to pin down.

 

I couldn't tell from looking at a photo what viewfinder was used in its making, but I do think the type of camera will inform the photographer's style over a period.

 

Spontaneity isn't just a question of whether a shot is planned or not. It's also most importantly to do with the photographer's relationship with his subject matter. Strictly that means it's not just spontaneity that were talking about, but things to do with intimacy and distance, and the purpose of the whole photographic enterprise.

 

And the greatest difference of all between an OV and an EVF is the at the very heart of all photography, because it is to do with transcribing a 3D reality into a 2 dimensional artefact. This is a big deal, of course.

 

But I'm in danger of starting something I can't finish without writing an essay. So I'll stop.

[firststream]

To repeat for the third time, it is the spontaneity of composition that is being discussed, not the speed at which the shutter button is pressed. The difference in the amount of time it takes to jiggle the EVF around to gain strongest composition, versus the amount of time to just move the rangefinder viewfinder straight to the right, the left, up, or down. It's a difference of a split second. I'd suggest that if the photographer has the technical discipline to make that kind of composition, then it's a short step to appreciate that kind of photography.

 

If the photographer has to focus on top of that, then the composition loses immediacy; ditto for waiting for subject engagement and their reaction. There's nothing wrong with the aesthetic that goes along with all that, just as there is nothing wrong with shooting blind, or from the hip. But these aren't the issues I'm talking about, here.

[ramarren]

To repeat for the third time, it is the spontaneity of composition that is being discussed, not the speed at which the shutter button is pressed. The difference in the amount of time it takes to jiggle the EVF around to gain strongest composition, versus the amount of time to just move the rangefinder viewfinder straight to the right, the left, up, or down. It's a difference of a split second. I'd suggest that if the photographer has the technical discipline to make that kind of composition, then it's a short step to appreciate that kind of photography.

 

If the photographer has to focus on top of that, then the composition loses immediacy; ditto for waiting for subject engagement and their reaction. There's nothing wrong with the aesthetic that goes along with all that, just as there is nothing wrong with shooting blind, or from the hip. But these aren't the issues I'm talking about, here.

 

Repeat it as often as you like: I completely disagree with this thesis. It is all just a pile of sophistic nonsense. ​

 

What you are really saying is that you prefer an optical tunnel viewfinder with a coupled mechanical rangefinder over anything else for reasons that are so refined that only you and the other cognoscenti who insist upon the same thing can understand what you're talking about. ​

 

Talk is cheap. Show the results and explain how they differ in concrete, demonstrable terms.

Or just admit that you like what you like and that's all that matters. I'm good with that. 

[LocalHero1953]

The difference in the amount of time it takes to jiggle the EVF around to gain strongest composition, versus the amount of time to just move the rangefinder viewfinder straight to the right, the left, up, or down. It's a difference of a split second.

This difference just doesn't exist with the SL EVF. If your comments are based on a real experience of the SL, | can only say that my experience (of M and SL) is different.

[Peter H]

edited- this whole thing became silly a long while ago when it stopped being a means to try to understand people's different ways of using different cameras and going about their photography, and became a sort of playground point-scoring argument.

 

Im sorry I ever tried to participate. I clearly made it worse.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[wattsy]

Repeat it as often as you like: I completely disagree with this thesis. It is all just a pile of sophistic nonsense. ​

 

I'm not sure why you feel the need to shout down a potentially interesting exchange (and in such an unnecessarily rude way)? Limiting an appraisal of the comparative capabilities of both M and SL cameras to simply questions of photographic output is IMO rather uninteresting to say the least. It is just another exercise in looking at pixels.