The Leica M-D thread - merged.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Could someone explain to me why "chimping" is considered a bad thing?

The word even sounds like a bad practice....a hindrance rather that an asset.

 

I honestly don't understand why checking your work is considered a bad practice?

I've got an open mind and can see there are enough of you on this threat ......Help me out.

 

If the pace of your work is good with 'chimping', worry not. Some who do, or think they do Decisive Moment photography need not be bothered with reviewing, then there are the old farts like me who never had it, don't need it.

 

The world is big. Enjoy.

[jaapv]

For me the Achilles' heel of the M60, and presumably, a consumer version of that camera, is the lack of Auto ISO. In certain circumstances being able to precisely control the aperture and shutter speed and allow the camera to pick the ISO, while being able to use EC, is a brilliant convention. 

 

BUT, I can see how this would be an appealing camera to some M fans. For those who don't like the M240's live view and video there is the 262. Now we may have a camera for those who want to feel like they are shooting a film M. If it makes Leica money so they can stay in business and keep producing M bodies, I'm fine with that.

This suggests that (Auto-)ISO is an exposure parameter. It is not.

The amount of light striking the sensor, i.e. exposure, is  controlled by aperture and shutterspeed, nothing else. Digital ISO value is a virtual one, being just the amplification of the sensor  output.

It is highly debatable  whether this amplification is better done by the camera processor or by the more powerful and versatile postprocessing software. In fact, one can argue that the sole function of the ISO setting on the camera is to get a decent signal for the LCD. Thus, on a camera without LCD, ISO settings and Auto-ISO are meaningless.

 

Note that film is different. With film ISO values actually denote the sensitivity of the film.

[ECohen]

 

 

If the pace of your work is good with 'chimping', worry not. Some who do, or think they do Decisive Moment photography need not be bothered with reviewing, then there are the old farts like me who never had it, don't need it.

 

The world is big. Enjoy.

 

 

 

That explain it...When I work that way I don't chimp either.

I think what ticks me off is that chimping is looked at as a bad thing.

 

Thanks pico for that explanation...I do love this group.

[JonPB]

I honestly don't understand why checking your work is considered a bad practice?

I've got an open mind and can see there are enough of you on this threat ......Help me out.

 

As others have said, this is an issue that applies differently to different photographers. But, since you asked, chimping allows me to review the exposure and framing from each shot. With exposure, chimping helps me see whether I'm clipping important highlights (and how much contrast there is in a scene when I might want to stop down and thereby increase internal reflections and boost the blacks on lenses that behave that way). After using my camera for a while, I'm comfortable with how the meter usually operates so that I can visualize which scenes will require manual intervention before I raise the camera to my eye in the first place; therefore, chimping is only useful in a few edge cases for me, and I can walk away from those images (or manipulate them appropriately in post if the image warrants it, which they never yet have). For framing from shot to shot, chimping requires moving the camera away from the eye; therefore, the camera is no longer in the same spot; therefore, precise framing is unlikely to be achieved; therefore, chimping has little value to me. Again, there are edge cases where boundary subjects are important and need to be balanced, but then I know this, balance them, and take the picture.

 

For studio work, especially work that requires thin depth of field and/or multiple and precise lighting sources, I can see chimping as an invaluable asset. For anyone getting paid to create images: yes, being able to review in seconds rather than minutes can make all the difference between "professional" and "amateur." I make no argument that others should be willing to walk away from chimping. Personally, though, for how I shoot, if a camera only had enough of a display for menu options, I'd be fine; but then, might as well add a review screen, and then you get to the M9, which is what I (happily) shoot. I use the screen to set ISO (obviated by the Edition 60's wheel), check battery life, play with menu options (because I'm of the Nintendo generation and that's what I do), and occasionally review images in the field when I'm not sure what my eye is telling me. (Not to say that my eye is neigh on infallible; it isn't, by a long shot; just, I'm not aware of its failings as much as I'd like to be, so I don't know when I really ought to have chimped that last shot.) 

 

In other words, chimping for me isn't just unnecessary, it is a distraction. I adore the "flow" that the window-finder helps me achieve in relation to a subject, particularly moving subjects. Reviewing images, whether on Polaroid, tethered, or the back of the camera, simply breaks that continuity. My images seem to be, and my experience of shooting definitely is, superior when I disregard what I've already done and simply focus on what I want to do next.

 

I hope that contained a sufficient number of caveats, yet was still useful. I'd be happy to read replies as to how I'm off my rocker from those who disagree. :-) One of the beautiful things about being a fan of photographic gear is that I get to learn how other people have put their gear to different or even better use than I do.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[pico]

[...] Thanks pico for that explanation...I do love this group.

 

We appreciate you, too.

.

[Jeff S]

One thing's pretty much for certain: despite the rumour of "M-A size and appearance" it will have the same form factor as the M240/262 platform.

 

Indeed.....the rumor has changed....  http://leicarumors.com

 

Jeff

[ECohen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As others have said, this is an issue that applies differently to different photographers. But, since you asked, chimping allows me to review the exposure and framing from each shot. With exposure, chimping helps me see whether I'm clipping important highlights (and how much contrast there is in a scene when I might want to stop down and thereby increase internal reflections and boost the blacks on lenses that behave that way). After using my camera for a while, I'm comfortable with how the meter usually operates so that I can visualize which scenes will require manual intervention before I raise the camera to my eye in the first place; therefore, chimping is only useful in a few edge cases for me, and I can walk away from those images (or manipulate them appropriately in post if the image warrants it, which they never yet have). For framing from shot to shot, chimping requires moving the camera away from the eye; therefore, the camera is no longer in the same spot; therefore, precise framing is unlikely to be achieved; therefore, chimping has little value to me. Again, there are edge cases where boundary subjects are important and need to be balanced, but then I know this, balance them, and take the picture.

 

For studio work, especially work that requires thin depth of field and/or multiple and precise lighting sources, I can see chimping as an invaluable asset. For anyone getting paid to create images: yes, being able to review in seconds rather than minutes can make all the difference between "professional" and "amateur." I make no argument that others should be willing to walk away from chimping. Personally, though, for how I shoot, if a camera only had enough of a display for menu options, I'd be fine; but then, might as well add a review screen, and then you get to the M9, which is what I (happily) shoot. I use the screen to set ISO (obviated by the Edition 60's wheel), check battery life, play with menu options (because I'm of the Nintendo generation and that's what I do), and occasionally review images in the field when I'm not sure what my eye is telling me. (Not to say that my eye is neigh on infallible; it isn't, by a long shot; just, I'm not aware of its failings as much as I'd like to be, so I don't know when I really ought to have chimped that last shot.) 

 

In other words, chimping for me isn't just unnecessary, it is a distraction. I adore the "flow" that the window-finder helps me achieve in relation to a subject, particularly moving subjects. Reviewing images, whether on Polaroid, tethered, or the back of the camera, simply breaks that continuity. My images seem to be, and my experience of shooting definitely is, superior when I disregard what I've already done and simply focus on what I want to do next.

 

I hope that contained a sufficient number of caveats, yet was still useful. I'd be happy to read replies as to how I'm off my rocker from those who disagree. :-) One of the beautiful things about being a fan of photographic gear is that I get to learn how other people have put their gear to different or even better use than I do.

 

Cheers,

Jon

 

 

In other words, chimping for me isn't just unnecessary, it is a distraction. I adore the "flow" that the window-finder helps me achieve in relation to a subject, particularly moving subjects.

 

​Very helpful...next shoot .....I'm turning off the screen ....I've been working this way for so long maybe I don't even notice the distraction? 

Really good explication  ..... Thanks You

[IkarusJohn]

 

 

Could someone explain to me why "chimping" is considered a bad thing?

 

 

 

Wow, big letters.  It must be important.  I hate to sound unhelpful, but you seem to have very strong opinions over an LCD-less camera and how other people take pictures.  Don't hold back.

 

First, who considers chomping a bad thing?  I don't do it with my M cameras, as for me it is a distraction (as others have said).  I'm not a professional photographer needing to make sure that I produce what I'm paid for.  I don't travel to take pictures; actually, I don't do much with the express purpose to take pictures.  A camera is something I take with me all the time to capture what I consider to be interesting images - the camera comes up, I take the picture, and it goes down again.  In that context, I don't want to go through life peering at an LCD screen to see if I've got the shot, nor do I want people to see me that way.  That is the sort of thing which would drive my partner completely crazy (and her father was one of NZ's most important photographers).

 

Second, if I want to take a shot where framing and exposure is critical, typically I will be using a tripod - then I moist certainly will want to check the focus with magnification, check the framing, vary the metering, see the histogram and probably even the image on the LCD (on the SL it is almost indicative of exposure, though I'm not entirely convinced), and I will certainly check exposure if I'm using filters.

 

But I won't use the M60 for that ...

 

Not all photographers, and not all cameras are the same or used for the same purpose.  I'm aware that Ansel Adams went to great lengths when using a focusing screen, ensuring that everything was as perfect as it could be for his landscape shots, and the various versions of his Moonrise reflect that care.  But he used a view camera with a huge glass plate, not an M camera.  No one is suggesting, I think, that he should have used an M60, or an M-D with an iPhone.

 

So, what use is a digital camera without an LCD?  Well, for me, as I've said before, I have all the controls I want or need on my M60 and anything else on a camera like this is a distraction; and therefore, for me, a hindrance - it distracts me from the 5 things I need to be aware of:

• what is happening in front of me and where I want to put my camera
• what ISO (generally not changed much in a single outing)
• appropriate shutter speed for movement and hand holding
• aperture for depth of field
• focus and composition

Making the most of what the rangefinder has to offer, in the 28-90 range, fiddling about with white balance is a nuisance (I don't take Jpegs even with the SL), and adjusting all the other wonderful things doesn't improve the final image; I want to be thinking about what is happening in front of me, rather than having my nose glued to an LCD.

 

Now, maybe this will really only suit people raised and comfortable with film - I don't know.  I'm only a guy with two film M cameras, and black and white M digital and an M60 (for most, that makes me a bit odd, but then Leica caters for my oddness).  But, and here's the kicker, I also have an SL and an SWC (with ground glass focusing screen - I sold my Polaroid back) for when I want to do the things you describe.

 

Cheers

John

[DezFoto]

 

Could someone explain to me why "chimping" is considered a bad thing?

 

 

Well, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Some photographers can get very judgmental about people checking to see if they got the shot before they move on, which is kind of ridiculous. If it helps you to review your image, then do it, if it doesn't, then don't. Just don't worry about what other people have to say about it because it's not really relevant, do what works for you. 

[don daniel]

You will have to wait until 28 April to know what comes up 

[menos I M6]

The issue with chimping is not for everyone to be judged by others as per being glued to that LCD screen (who cares really?).

 

For me the problem with chimping is that IT (chimping) is taking over subconsciously and does indeed distract me from the actual process of photographing.

 

It is a weakness of character maybe, that distracts me. With film cameras this issue of course simply does not exist.

With some really well designed digital cameras it can be largely ignored but still as long as the possibility of checking up the image on the LCD exists I find myself taking a peek from time to time even though it really gives me nothing.

the image I took doesn't magically transmorph into a masterpiece by the act of simply looking at it immediately on the back of my camera - it has already been taken after all!

 

On all my digital cameras, image review is shut off.

The very only two photographic disciplines where I do use the benefit of chimping conciously is when doing product shots or when doing motor sports shots but both of them under certain quite strict rules (you don't want to chimp at the racetrack and actually miss an important shot or waste your time chimping instead of getting a move on to the next spot, …

 

For such purposes I do have specialized cameras.

The Leica M is not such a camera - I want the Leica M to be as unobtrusive to my process as possible.

 

The very best match so far for this purpose is actually my M7 but I simply do love the output of my old MM yet cannot have that currently without the annoyance of that LCD screen.

 

If Leica will offer a reasonably priced production model of a back to basics digital M that removes all the clutter the M10 generation of cameras have introduced, and make it work like one of my film M bodies, I won't hesitate to buy one.

 

I really do see Leica reasonably diversifying the Leica M lineup with an additional screen- less back to basics model as simply put their slogan "Das Wesentliche" used with the M10 generation cameras is simply a straight lie as these cameras do not at all resemble "Das Wesentliche" but rather "Das Kuddelmuddel -iche".

[pop]

There's quite a simple advantage to a digital camera not having a screen or, indeed, any display at all. If the camera is well made, its user interface (all the things used to control the camera) must be designed in such a way that the camera can be operated without effort and without any auxiliary apparatus.

 

Such  a camera might have a decisive advantage for some users over one controlled by using a GUI.

[kkonkkrete]

I don't think anyone who sees an advantage in not having an LCD has any problem with other people who do prefer to have one.  It makes perfect sense to me why some people want an LCD.

 

Indeed, I don't want all my cameras not to have an LCD.  But I do think it would make the M better for me, for the way I shoot.  It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how the camera looks, or wistfulness or nostalgia or fashion or 'hipness' or kitsch or any other frivolous reason that some people seem to be suggesting.  For me it is simply a matter of how it makes me work with the camera.  I love shooting film, but I also like the advantages of storing digital images.  I just want an 'analogue rangefinder camera' with a digital sensor: 100% focus on the subject, no gui, no menus, no chimping.  For studio work, I want cameras with screens.  But for the context in which I want to use the M, I know it will make me take better shots.  I know that based on experience with shooting film and digital in those contexts and comparing.  Not sure why anyone else has a problem with that?  Why does it bother some people that a product exists that doesn't meet their own needs, but does meet the needs of other people?  It's not a zero sum game: I'm pretty sure Leica will continue to make other products with screens. 

[jaapv]

Indeed.....the rumor has changed....  http://leicarumors.com

 

Jeff

So it is just a 262 with brass instead of aluminium parts at a higher price?

[pop]

If I could afford it, I would like an M much like the Typ 240 plus a much reduced one without both RF and display (with an optional EVF) which is controlled entirely wirelessly, i.e. using the phone, tablet or plain PC. Obviously, I would use them for very different things.

[menos I M6]

So it is just a 262 with brass instead of aluminium parts at a higher price?

 

What many people simply get very wrong when looking at an LCD-less digital camera vs the same camera with an LCD is that the final sales price does not figure simply like: (camera with LCD) = X vs. (camera with LCD) - (LCD) < X

 

It is not that simple.

 

When Leica does indeed issue a series production LCD less model, chances are marketing & sales will estimate sold units/a at a conservative low quantity.

As the LCD will be missing (and probably other changes to the camera be necessary), there will likely be costs for new tooling for this different product.

 

The costs to amortize this new set of tools will be depreciated over a much smaller number of units during the product life which simply leads to an end product that is likely more expensive to sell then the long produced M240 or it's derivative models.

 

So a product, to the user simpler and less technically complicated can indeed for a good reason be more expensive than a more feature packed similar product, not because the manufacturer decides to earn a higher profit on the "lesser" new model or someone in marketing things this new more essential product needs to stand above established products in price.

 

The very reason why the first Leica MM was indeed more expensive in it's introductory price then it's derivative Leica M9 model is exactly just that - scaling in production over a much smaller quantity in estimated production units over product life and additional costs in production.

 

Comments on the net often read like: "Look Leica took the color out of the digital camera and charges more!" and "Look, they plan to leave the LCD out of the thing and will charge more, …"

[Exodies]

So my M 240 has a screen? I prolly should have read the manual.

[-Lss-]

So my M 240 has a screen? I prolly should have read the manual.

 

Spoken like a true selfie shooter. 

[enboe]

Now let's get back to the important questions, like what finish do you want?  Personally, I like silver chrome, but who knows, they could offer black paint, black chrome, olive/safari paint, hammertoe, anthracite, or even gold.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ecaton]

I'm afraid I can't join the discussion. Am out taking pictures with M9 and M60........

Edited April 22, 2016 by Ecaton