The Leica M-D thread - merged.

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can you explain why you would want  to "fly without a net" if you don't have to?

... 

 

I don't want to "fly without a net", nor do I see an LCD as a safety net. When appropriate to what I'm doing, I find the LCD an invaluable tool. 

 

However, I don't always need every tool in my toolbox. It would be nice to have the choice to leave one behind when I don't need it. 

[Herr Barnack]

Can you explain why you would want  to "fly without a net" if you don't have to?

 

I'm not suggesting anything bad about this camera. I can see many of you like the idea. I even understand why.

But as Carlos suggests  "a display screen is a security blanket or safety net" (..... to me it's more of a tool)

Photography is not gambling, its a creative expression. The picture is not better and I don't think one is a better photographer because you don't have an LCD.

Remember no LCD is a choice.....in the old days you didn't have a choice so it not the same thing.

 

So why "fly without a net" if you don't have to?  

 

OK to be clear this next statement  is just a joke:

​The real skill comes in fixing your photographs in Post that should have been fixed in the camera.  

 

To answer your question,

 

 

"...I find the concept of "no screen/no chimping, wait till you get home and download to see" appealing.  Some may think this an impediment; I think it is an arrangement that pushes the photographer to be better and demands a higher level of skill. 

 

In some ways, a display screen is a security blanket or safety net.  When you remove the safety net, the price of poker goes way up.  The camera requires more of you as a photographer and makes you strive to be better at your craft..."

 

If a photographer uses the LCD as a tool rather than as a crutch, it can serve a constructive purpose. 

 

Many photographers use the LCD as a crutch rather than a tool.  Used as a crutch, the LCD ends up being counterproductive; it tends to hobble a photographer's growth and the honing of photographic vision.  That's my take on it at least.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Carlos Danger

[jaapv]

I find it a bit strange "many photographers use the LCD as a crutch" To me an LCD is certainly not good enough to judge exposure or focus.  "Many photographers" must have different standards than I do or  i am clearly  overly anal about the technical quality of my images.  If a shot is worth taking it is worth taking well in my book. However, I suspect that I have this in common with quite a few fellow members here.

That leaves setting the camera parameters quickly, judging framing  and roughly checking  composition and/or facial expression, using as a viewfinder in a tight spot and such. It hardly seems to have  an impact on "photographic purity", whatever that may be.

The M-D seems to be a tool for photographic asceticism, an approach that appeals to some. I guess it is better than becoming a begging monk...

Having said that, it is a beautiful camera, which I wouldn't mind owning. It would do nothing to change my photography but hamper it a bit, though.

 

As an aside, Carlos, the contents of your post above appear to be at odds with the quote at the bottom

[wattsy]

To me an LCD is certainly not good enough to judge exposure or focus.  "Many photographers" must have different standards than I do

 

 

Yes, I must have very low standards compared to you, Jaap.

 

With a little experience, it is IMO quite easy to make a judgement about both exposure and focus based on what can be seen on even a crappy LCD like the one on the M8/9. With better LCDs like that found on a contemporary DSLR, it is even easier. There is no need to carry around a calibrated Eizo monitor to make a meaningful decision.

[Adam]

+1

 

For me the zoom function on the LCD preview, as well as histogram work pretty well. I doubt they were designed to lower standards. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Adam

[Exodies]

Leica kept throwing curve balls at him.... everything from central veiling flare to bling without threaded releases and screens. No wonder he doesn't know which way to turn, poor man.

 

At least Huff has being as thick as pigshit in his favour.

 

 

Tee hee. You naughty boy.

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find it a bit strange "many photographers use the LCD as a crutch" To me an LCD is certainly not good enough to judge exposure or focus.  "Many photographers" must have different standards than I do or  i am clearly  overly anal about the technical quality of my images.  If a shot is worth taking it is worth taking well in my book. However, I suspect that I have this in common with quite a few fellow members here.

That leaves setting the camera parameters quickly, judging framing  and roughly checking  composition and/or facial expression, using as a viewfinder in a tight spot and such. It hardly seems to have  an impact on "photographic purity", whatever that may be.

The M-D seems to be a tool for photographic asceticism, an approach that appeals to some. I guess it is better than becoming a begging monk...

Having said that, it is a beautiful camera, which I wouldn't mind owning. It would do nothing to change my photography but hamper it a bit, though.

 

 

 

Well said Jaap, as pretty much always........I totally agree with your LCD comments.

I too wouldn't mind owning the MD if it fell into my lap, but it's not worth the cost of buying one for me however much I applaud Leica for bringing it to market. It lacks too much, and not only the LCD.

I use mainly wide lenses on the M's, 50mm, ( rarely ), and under, so without the option of being able to use an attached EVF for the wider glass I'd have to use clip-on OVF.......Nothing wrong with that, I often use a 28mm clip-on OVF on my Q at times rather than that camera's EVF which I'm still ambivalent about. So it seems that the MD is good for 28mm Leica glass and up, for me that's too restrictive when my Leica and Voigtlander 24/21/18's wouldn't be as usable as they are on the M240.

Then there's the camera set-up on the MD. I do like how simplistic it appears to be and mostly when I've set up my M240/MM1's they stay in that mode 90% of the time, so the MD's limited set-up options wouldn't likely be too much of a problem.....But I do use a number of uncoded lenses on my digital M's, the MD's lack of accommodation there may prove to be a problem, I'd be interested to learn how MD owners deal with that, if at all.

So for me the MD whilst without doubt being a camera I would like to own does lack too much that is useful, and as I said before if and when I want to go out with such a camera my film M's are close to the MD function wise even though of course films need developing after exposure, ( which in fact isn't really a chore ), and scanning......and any individual film camera does have a wide choice of "sensors". Film.....

Horses for courses.......

Edited May 5, 2016 by Guest

[sumolux]

The M-D does not support JPEG image processing. It produces only raw files, in DNG format. 

 

 

Absolutely true...

However the confusion for some comes directly from the Leica technical sheet for the M-D which states:

 

Data format DNG™ (raw data), compressed loss-free, JPEG

[jaapv]

Yes, I must have very low standards compared to you, Jaap.

 

With a little experience, it is IMO quite easy to make a judgement about both exposure and focus based on what can be seen on even a crappy LCD like the one on the M8/9. With better LCDs like that found on a contemporary DSLR, it is even easier. There is no need to carry around a calibrated Eizo monitor to make a meaningful decision.

Or less paranoid about image quality. Ian.  Or maybe you don't take bad photographs - I do Have  you never opened up an image in ACR that you thought was fine on the LCD and found it rather disappointing? I have -regularly- and actually that is a good argument for the M-D. I hardly ever use the LCD to judge an image.

[enboe]

England, Austria, Italy, when are they arriving across the pond?  Don't they know people have vacations at the end of the month? 

[colonel]

So for me the MD whilst without doubt being a camera I would like to own does lack too much that is useful, and as I said before if and when I want to go out with such a camera my film M's are close to the MD function wise even though of course films need developing after exposure, ( which in fact isn't really a chore ), and scanning......and any individual film camera does have a wide choice of "sensors". Film.....

Horses for courses.......

This is a good point, the difference between an M-D and film

 

Although I still use film and will continue to do so for its own niche, the advantages of the M-D if you see it as a competitor for film is:

 

1. Saving £1000s of film and development cost

2. Better ISO performance and ability to change between shot

3. No development time and risk

 

Not wanting to start a film vs digital, again as I use both, but if you wanted to go back to basics and be isolated from editing whilst taking, which frankly is what a picture review is, then the M-D makes a reasonable case

 

Of course as a substitute for the "film experience", eg the loading and winding of film, which I love, and the oddly appealing uneven golf ball size grain which I love for people shots , it isn't

Edited May 5, 2016 by colonel

[ECohen]

"To me an LCD is certainly not good enough to judge exposure or focus"......jaapv

 

Remember how bad polaroids were? The LDC preview is pretty much the same thing .

You learn to judge......or if you like the polaroid your love the final.

[ECohen]

My  blanket apology to all MD  M60 lovers and users...and to a simpler life.

 

I finally get it, or more importantly I get why I don't get it. I spent 35 years as an assignment photographer ...someone always looking over my shoulder to be sure his assignment and job were secure...that I got the shot.

 

From my point of view the LDC/Polaroid was my insurance to keeping the client happy.

 

That's not how you all see this. For the most part you only have yourselves to please. I'm not saying the work is better or worse but you don't need to prove in the moment, to someone else that its OK to move on.

 

Although I don't think I would go out and buy an LCD less camera, I completely see how shooting in the moment and processing later makes for a very liberating experience .....Not at all like film because you have the luxury and  flexibility of  the digital RAW file. 

 

I learn so much from this group and appreciate you all putting up with me. 

Sincerely 

EC

Edited May 5, 2016 by ECohen

[Guest]

This is a good point, the difference between an M-D and film

 

Although I still use film and will continue to do so for its own niche, the advantages of the M-D if you see it as a competitor for film is:

 

1. Saving £1000s of film and development cost

2. Better ISO performance and ability to change between shot

3. No development time and risk

 

Not wanting to start a film vs digital, again as I use both, but if you wanted to go back to basics and be isolated from editing whilst taking, which frankly is what a picture review is, then the M-D makes a reasonable case

 

Of course as a substitute for the "film experience", eg the loading and winding of film, which I love, and the oddly appealing uneven golf ball size grain which I love for people shots , it isn't

 

 

Hello Colonel' just right of the bat I will say again that I love the fact that Leica has pushed this camera out and if I could justify doing so I'd leap at the chance of owning one, but for me that's not really feasible. For my use it doesn't make sense.

 

I've always earned my living with my cameras, both stills and movie gear, and as much as I'd love to be able to take an MD out on a paying shoot with clients etc etc that would be borderline nuts to do so. It's too restrictive. Nowadays a camera without an LCD, ability to tether or have live-view on board would be hard to work with on set. Of course there's a way or two around this, an assistant with a Mac processing cards as they're shot is one maybe, but that's too much of a hassle I feel. The glorious days of film when you and your clients had to wait for the processed negs and first proofs to come in a day or more later are well behind us now.

 

However the MD as a camera to do one's personal work, sure I can see the attraction of that even though I don't fully agree with your 1/2/3 reasons why the MD is a better choice over film for such usage. And like you while not opening up that film v's digital Pandora's Box I'll just say that I still find the 36 exposures per' load, ( and the limiting 400' and 800' mags on my S16 gear ), a great way to focus fully on how and when I shoot images with film rather than the "spray and pray" method that digital acquisition can allow without too much penalty.

[edwardkaraa]

 

My blanket apology to all MD M60 lovers and users...and to a simpler life.

I finally get it, or more importantly I get why I don't get it. I spent 35 years as an assignment photographer ...someone always looking over my shoulder to be sure his assignment and job were secure...that I got the shot.

From my point of view the LDC/Polaroid was my insurance to keeping the client happy.

That's not how you all see this. For the most part you only have yourselves to please. I'm not saying the work is better or worse but you don't need to prove in the moment, to someone else that its OK to move on.

Although I don't think I would go out and buy an LCD less camera, I completely see how shooting in the moment and processing later makes for a very liberating experience .....Not at all like film because you have the luxury and flexibility of the digital RAW file.

I learn so much from this group and appreciate you all putting up with me.

Sincerely

EC

Well said!

[AAK]

 

 

Not at all like film because you have the luxury and  flexibility of  the digital RAW file. 

 

 

The luxury of film is having a real negative and the flexibility of digital scanning and/or real optical printing!

[jcraf]

I've just spent the best part of a very pleasant and sunny day in London with my M-D.  I have thoroughly enjoyed myself with it.

 

I suppose I am learning to take a little more care over composition and framing, and well, thinking more about the shot. That might sound as though I take a scattergun and careless approach with my other digital Leicas; I don't. I just feel the M-D is making me think a little more. Goodness me, today I even racked the ISO down to 200 because of the sunny day.  I'm normally an auto ISO guy. 

 

And I've hardly tried the futile gesture of chimping at all, so that habit is dying. 

 

Mind you, have yet to see my results! 

[Herr Barnack]

I find it a bit strange "many photographers use the LCD as a crutch" To me an LCD is certainly not good enough to judge exposure or focus.  "Many photographers" must have different standards than I do or  i am clearly  overly anal about the technical quality of my images.  If a shot is worth taking it is worth taking well in my book. However, I suspect that I have this in common with quite a few fellow members here.

That leaves setting the camera parameters quickly, judging framing  and roughly checking  composition and/or facial expression, using as a viewfinder in a tight spot and such. It hardly seems to have  an impact on "photographic purity", whatever that may be.

The M-D seems to be a tool for photographic asceticism, an approach that appeals to some. I guess it is better than becoming a begging monk...

Having said that, it is a beautiful camera, which I wouldn't mind owning. It would do nothing to change my photography but hamper it a bit, though.

 

As an aside, Carlos, the contents of your post above appear to be at odds with the quote at the bottom

 

@jaapv,

 

In reading your reply and thinking about this, I have realized that I was not sufficiently specific in my comments, and for that I must apologize. 

 

In stating that "many photographers use the LCD as a crutch," I have seen that behavior a fair amount in the form of chimping, as we all probably have.  The thing is, chimpers are almost always using miniature digital cameras (held at arm's length) and/or entry level up to and sometimes including what is referred to as prosumer level DSLRs.  I have never seen a person who is shooting with a digital M engage in chimping.  I did not make that clear in my post.

 

When a person makes the kind of cash investment that is necessary to acquire a digital M and a couple (or more) lenses, I have an idea that they have progressed beyond the level of photographic skill that includes chimping.  Investing in a digital M and lenses indicates a level of commitment to image making that is not widespread in our world; at least that's my take on it.  I would agree with your comment that  "...I suspect that I have this in common with quite a few fellow members here..."  At least I hope that I have that in common.

 

I would agree 100% with your thoughts in saying   "...or i am clearly  overly anal about the technical quality of my images.  If a shot is worth taking it is worth taking well in my book..."  That too describes my approach to making photographs:  Instant OCD - just add an M camera (in the interest of full disclosure, I do own a couple of other cameras besides my M-P and M4-P although I hardly ever use them these days; interestingly, they are all rangefinders).

Edited May 5, 2016 by Carlos Danger

[ECohen]

Gosh I hate the word "chimp" 

I dont chimp...I check

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mmradman]

Out of curiosity and haven't seen clarification on this; does M-D allow selection of either compressed or uncompressed DNG file? Thanks.