IkarusJohn Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2561 Posted January 25, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... It's for fear of being presented with the SL and Q as the "advanced" alternatives to the M, suggesting that further development of the M might now be limited now that the popular goal of the digital M6 has been achieved. I'm very pleased that Leica continues to develop and improve the rangefinder viewfinder system. The M10 is a very attractive camera indeed, with one or two minor reservations that are not terribly material... Peter, I think you're conflating the limitations of the manual, crf system that is the M camera with technical advancement. Leica has made further improvements to the viewfinder and has given the M the best processorand sensor it can. Similarly, the EVF is better than most - if you look at it, it's huge on the M camera. The SL based add-on EVF would have been about a third of the size of the camera. In terms of what Leica has provided in the M10, I'm not sure you could say they've been stingey on providing the best technology they can. However, they have not provided more MP (obviously, they don't think it's a good idea), nor have they provided for AF, video, image stabilisation or a lot of other things, not because they don't want the M to be technologically advanced or becausethey want it condemned to be a traditionalist camera. They do clearly want it to be the best it can be, and apparently they will continue to do so. Sticking with the coupled rangefinder core of the camera, and not trying to turn it into something more, does not make it a dead end; nor do the Q, TL, SL or S comprise saps or compromises for those who wanted a more technically capable M. They all sit together. I'm not so sure there is an all singing, all dancing M version coming any time soon. More M variants, I'd assume so, but what will they be? Monocrom, P version? Perhaps. Others? Not so sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thighslapper Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2562 Posted January 25, 2017 Sticking with the coupled rangefinder core of the camera, and not trying to turn it into something more, does not make it a dead end; nor do the Q, TL, SL or S comprise saps or compromises for those who wanted a more technically capable M. They all sit together. I'm not so sure there is an all singing, all dancing M version coming any time soon. More M variants, I'd assume so, but what will they be? Monocrom, P version? Perhaps. Others? Not so sure. .......mmm ...... I think we are looking at a dinosaur that has successfully avoided the extinction of it's contemporaries ....... but is still an evolutionary dead end. If Leica stick with the M film camera size, the M mount, the mechanically coupled rangefinder (all of which are the species hallmark features) then there is precious little left in terms of actual innovation that is possible without sacrificing one or more of these key things ...... so that leaves just replacing the digital bits as technology allows ...... and that is invariably several years behind the competition (including their own cameras) from past and current experience. New M's will be like a trusted elderly wife having a hip replacement and cataracts done ..... good for a few more years yet, but not a patch on a racy younger model ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2563 Posted January 25, 2017 .......mmm ...... I think we are looking at a dinosaur that has successfully avoided the extinction of it's contemporaries ....... but is still an evolutionary dead end. If Leica stick with the M film camera size, the M mount, the mechanically coupled rangefinder (all of which are the species hallmark features) then there is precious little left in terms of actual innovation that is possible without sacrificing one or more of these key things ...... so that leaves just replacing the digital bits as technology allows ...... and that is invariably several years behind the competition (including their own cameras) from past and current experience. New M's will be like a trusted elderly wife having a hip replacement and cataracts done ..... good for a few more years yet, but not a patch on a racy younger model ...... I can't tell you how badly I disagree (Oh Well, I suppose I can as I just did). Sure - with the development of digital we needed lots of new stuff . . but now we've got it (haven't we). Doesn't seem to me that the M is at any more of an evolutionary dead end than an Oak tree - it works great for taking pictures in a certain way - and it'll carry on doing that. In fact, digital has given it a real new lease of life (it was really rather difficult with a film camera). Sure - there will be another M with a faster processor, better high ISO, maybe more resolution - EVF without blackout - and all of those things are worth having . . evolution indeed . . what it doesn't need is a revolution. . it isn't broke. best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2564 Posted January 25, 2017 .......mmm ...... I think we are looking at a dinosaur that has successfully avoided the extinction of it's contemporaries ....... but is still an evolutionary dead end. If Leica stick with the M film camera size, the M mount, the mechanically coupled rangefinder (all of which are the species hallmark features) then there is precious little left in terms of actual innovation that is possible without sacrificing one or more of these key things ...... so that leaves just replacing the digital bits as technology allows ...... and that is invariably several years behind the competition (including their own cameras) from past and current experience. New M's will be like a trusted elderly wife having a hip replacement and cataracts done ..... good for a few more years yet, but not a patch on a racy younger model ...... Hurray! The digital M is approaching perfection. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2565 Posted January 25, 2017 New M's will be like a trusted elderly wife having a hip replacement and cataracts done ..... good for a few more years yet, but not a patch on a racy younger model ...... As my wife is unlikely to read this thread... I think I can get away with a good laugh without being accused of being a misogynist! ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2566 Posted January 25, 2017 I have a great book called the Davinci Notebooks, excerpts from his notebooks and a fascinating read. It struck me as remarkable that probably the greatest ever inventor said something along the lines of "In a day so advanced I can only succeed in taking existing inventions and making them a bit better" He later went on to invent the Helicopter, submarine, the diving suit, the first car (a self propelled cart). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2567 Posted January 25, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...If Leica stick with the M film camera size, the M mount, the mechanically coupled rangefinder (all of which are the species hallmark features) then there is precious little left in terms of actual innovation that is possible without sacrificing one or more of these key things ...... so that leaves just replacing the digital bits as technology allows ...... and that is invariably several years behind the competition (including their own cameras) from past and current experience... I think that is overly pessimistic. Yes, Leica has made the decision (it seems) to stick with the size, form factor, M mount and coupled rangefinder - departing from those core values opens pandora's box (which we saw with the M(240)). Sure, that excludes "innovation" which is inconsistent with that fundamental decision, but that does not mean a dead end; it just means a clearly defined product. I doubt the M system will miss out on sensor, processor, EVF and other technological advances. Why would they? But I don't think they will turn the camera into something else. I believe you are overlooking the fact that this is a stills camera with fantastic manual M lenses, capable of delivering image quality as good as any other camera (within its fcoal length range etc) if not better. The fact that the camera is still around after 60 years would suggest that there is demand for it ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2568 Posted January 25, 2017 What real photography for me is ... Taking out the film from the box and loading the film on the camera ( I love the smell of the film when taking out of the box ) Getting the challenge of shooting the film with a limited choice being Colour or B&W or it being on one ISO. Having a very limited exposure count to nail at least one or a few ( very rarely) winning photos to include into the keeper's list. After finishing the film after few days/ weeks or month go the dark room ( Basically my toilet ) develop it in my photo-cocktail ( miss the smell of the photochemist, best part of the REAL PHOTOGRAPHY ) And then once in a way to spend a half day in frustration to try a print of two to develope ( to have much pleasure and joy of experience of seen the photo emerge on the paper for the first time . For me this is real photography. But it is me my personal experience that I cherish and redo it anytime I have the opportunity to do it anytime. I can't express how I am totally at odds with this, but I just have to accept that everyone is different. Real photography, for me, is none of this and everything you don't mention. It is: - composition, light, colour, shading, subjects, people, and interacting with them, it's ideas, stories and records, it's a new way of looking at a familiar subject, it's using one's eye. I don't call it "real photography" to myself - but it's the only aspect that counts for me. All the rest is just casual entertainment with toys! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2569 Posted January 25, 2017 What real photography for me is ... Taking out the film from the box and loading the film on the camera ( I love the smell of the film when taking out of the box ) Getting the challenge of shooting the film with a limited choice being Colour or B&W or it being on one ISO. Having a very limited exposure count to nail at least one or a few ( very rarely) winning photos to include into the keeper's list. After finishing the film after few days/ weeks or month go the dark room ( Basically my toilet ) develop it in my photo-cocktail ( miss the smell of the photochemist, best part of the REAL PHOTOGRAPHY ) And then once in a way to spend a half day in frustration to try a print of two to develope ( to have much pleasure and joy of experience of seen the photo emerge on the paper for the first time . For me this is real photography. But it is me my personal experience that I cherish and redo it anytime I have the opportunity to do it anytime. Forgive me but that's not real photography, that's real chemistry Photography is capturing a static 1 dimensional array of photons How that's done, processed and presented is another thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2570 Posted January 25, 2017 I can't tell you how badly I disagree (Oh Well, I suppose I can as I just did). Sure - with the development of digital we needed lots of new stuff . . but now we've got it (haven't we). Doesn't seem to me that the M is at any more of an evolutionary dead end than an Oak tree - it works great for taking pictures in a certain way - and it'll carry on doing that. In fact, digital has given it a real new lease of life (it was really rather difficult with a film camera). Sure - there will be another M with a faster processor, better high ISO, maybe more resolution - EVF without blackout - and all of those things are worth having . . evolution indeed . . what it doesn't need is a revolution. . it isn't broke. best No it is not evolution ........Leica knows that handing out a bit of candy and a glass bead or two will keep its customer base and maybe snag a few new ones on the way. The real gems will be devices that are not ruled by mechanically coupled rangefinder systems there lies the evolution. The best part is that Leica are well on the way with the SL line which will no doubt expand with a camera that contracts(in size). Any revolution will come from non camera manufacturers as they in a position to create or even accidentally stumble on something that just goes wow Enjoy your image making with the M10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2571 Posted January 25, 2017 Sure, but shooting film is fun with a different look in the result. The process certainly influences the outcome. ... I never said it wasn't fun, or that it didn't have a different look. The process certainly does influence the result, as do all the wonderful defects that film has. They're different defects compared to digital capture, however, to be used to advantage when apropros. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2572 Posted January 25, 2017 Shoot film, process into digital and show on a back lit screen that's how most use film these days ................a far cry from printing on a opaque surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2573 Posted January 25, 2017 No it's not silly. What you are saying is like Oil Painting is unnecessary because we can just draw on a computer. Selection of medium and format is a part of the expression you list as important.If you haven't got a decent photo to begin with then it will not make much difference and I can't imagine that is much surprise to anyone. But to suggest that format does not contribute to the overall whole on a deeper level is untrue. Process is an important part of how an artist works and the tools, the medium, it all contributes to the final work so what ever works, they should do it. It's not that aesthetics of film make the difference by its self, it's the process, the mindset it puts you in - but in saying that the aesthetics of film can make a big impact too which is why so many spend so long trying to make their digital images look more like film. There is no denying the beauty of Film. Then there is the nature of unintended consequences. Digital has a lot of these. You're reading a whole lot of stuff into my statements that I didn't say at all. First off, I wasn't talking about Oil Painting or drawing at all, I was talking about Photography. Different genera. Then: Drawing is drawing ... whether using a pencil or a computer, it's still drawing ... and utterly different from Oil Painting. And drawing is utterly different in every way from Photography. And so on. I'm not in the mood to do a complete deconstruction of your objection, but perhaps you should read what I said without laying into it your own presuppositions and interpretations first. But the basic notion is that making photographs with film is no more real than making photographs with tin types, or daguerreotypes, or bromine solutions on paper, or with a digital camera. They're all functional ways of making photographs. Of course, you pick which of the recording mediums and processing workflows, and what sort of output you want, to suit your subject and intent. It's all still Photography and just as "real" as any other form of Photography. You can't do oil painting with anything other than oil paint ... that, by definition, is the nature of the art form: painting with pigmented oil medium. Anything you do on a computer with a graphic arts program is only a simulation of oil painting. On the other hand, "Photography" is defined, in part, to be the art of capturing light and shadow and creating images—admitting a broad range of capture and output mediums in which to work. Whether I record the light with a piece of cattle bone covered with photosensitive chemicals or by sensing it with something electronic and storing it as 1s and 0s in a computer is completely irrelevant to the art and is just a matter of choice ... as in "what kind of oil paint do you want to use." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2574 Posted January 25, 2017 You're reading a whole lot of stuff into my statements that I didn't say at all. First off, I wasn't talking about Oil Painting or drawing at all, I was talking about Photography. Different genera. Then: Drawing is drawing ... whether using a pencil or a computer, it's still drawing ... and utterly different from Oil Painting. And drawing is utterly different in every way from Photography. And so on. I'm not in the mood to do a complete deconstruction of your objection, but perhaps you should read what I said without laying into it your own presuppositions and interpretations first. But the basic notion is that making photographs with film is no more real than making photographs with tin types, or daguerreotypes, or bromine solutions on paper, or with a digital camera. They're all functional ways of making photographs. Of course, you pick which of the recording mediums and processing workflows, and what sort of output you want, to suit your subject and intent. It's all still Photography and just as "real" as any other form of Photography. You can't do oil painting with anything other than oil paint ... that, by definition, is the nature of the art form: painting with pigmented oil medium. Anything you do on a computer with a graphic arts program is only a simulation of oil painting. On the other hand, "Photography" is defined, in part, to be the art of capturing light and shadow and creating images—admitting a broad range of capture and output mediums in which to work. Whether I record the light with a piece of cattle bone covered with photosensitive chemicals or by sensing it with something electronic and storing it as 1s and 0s in a computer is completely irrelevant to the art and is just a matter of choice ... as in "what kind of oil paint do you want to use." It's funny because I thought you'd come back with this. It was you who started this whole "going back to film to return to real photography" thing. You've misconstrued and twisted my words, removed the context and most likely didn't even read what I'd said. You could take your own advice and read before making such presuppositions and interpretations. You didn't mention oil painting, it was me - I used the analogy to draw parallel to your stated belief that - good photography transcends the medium: it's about expression, gesture, timing, seeing. - But a digital mimic of a film image in no way replaces it, and the same can be said for a digital mimic of an oil painting. Should we stop using oil paint because we can mimic it digitally? No! Should we stop using film because we can mimic it digitally? No! Medium and format is a key component of art and photography. Your sentence previous to that stated that the dominance of film was over a 30 year period - so what? This does not mean it's now irrelevant or unimportant. It's having a come back because people realise its value, they see how it is different, and how the process of using it is different, and they want it back in their work. Now you just wrote: "... Whether I record the light with a piece of cattle bone covered with photosensitive chemicals or by sensing it with something electronic and storing it as 1s and 0s in a computer is completely irrelevant to the art and is just a matter of choice.." No it's not completely irrelevant to the art! It's not just a matter of choice! It's these choices and decisions to do such things in certain ways that makes up the art. It is entirely relevant because an artist makes these decisions with intent. It is more irrelevant and simplistic to suggest that digital is the only thing to use because the medium is irrelevant, and that returning to film to get back to some thing of value is - in your words - "silly". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2575 Posted January 25, 2017 Injecting here - a studio pro who claims to employ 30 to 50 individuals for a shoot is stupid to use a Leica M. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2576 Posted January 25, 2017 I think that is overly pessimistic. Yes, Leica has made the decision (it seems) to stick with the size, form factor, M mount and coupled rangefinder - departing from those core values opens pandora's box (which we saw with the M(240)). Sure, that excludes "innovation" which is inconsistent with that fundamental decision, but that does not mean a dead end; it just means a clearly defined product. I doubt the M system will miss out on sensor, processor, EVF and other technological advances. Why would they? But I don't think they will turn the camera into something else. I believe you are overlooking the fact that this is a stills camera with fantastic manual M lenses, capable of delivering image quality as good as any other camera (within its fcoal length range etc) if not better. The fact that the camera is still around after 60 years would suggest that there is demand for it ... my tongue was slightly in my cheek ...... anyway ...... I think the M10 looks a great camera and is exactly what Leica should have done with it ....... give up trying to compete in a completely different race and concentrate on core values and users that appreciate them. despite what I say I am sure I will end up with one ...... and enjoy it like everyone else with a hankering for RF simplicity .... even if it is only for some of the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2577 Posted January 25, 2017 Injecting here - a studio pro who claims to employ 30 to 50 individuals for a shoot is stupid to use a Leica M. . in your opinion. In actuality it is not "stupid" it's a creative decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest )-( Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2578 Posted January 25, 2017 I prefer to think of film as a craft, and like all crafts there is an inherent kind of value in the time and effort invested but I don't think of that value as having any direct relation to artistic merit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2579 Posted January 25, 2017 in your opinion. In actuality it is not "stupid" it's a creative decision. Yeah, sure. If your Leica does not perform adequately for your constituency as a nikon/canon would it is simply a bad business practice to use a Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 25, 2017 Share #2580 Posted January 25, 2017 Yeah, sure. If your Leica does not perform readily for your constituency as a nikon/canon would it is simply bad business to use it. No Pico. When used with other tools, as I do use a Hasselblad and sometimes a Canon, it's a very effective tool in the right circumstances, for the right things. To suggest something is stupid, with no experience in such a shoot, and with no knowledge of how it's used, is both quite baffling and amusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.