colint544 Posted October 3, 2018 Share #1 Posted October 3, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) When the Leica M Monochrom was announced in the summer of 2012, I knew I had to have one. I sold some equipment, traded other stuff in, even sacrificed my Noctilux E58, a lens I now could not afford. That's how much I wanted an M Monochrom. I'm now in my seventh year of M Monochrom ownership. I wouldn't swap that camera for anything, and hope that it continues to serve for many years to come. It cost more than my car, but as the years go by, and the pictures mount up, the cost of ownership is gradually coming down to a justifiable sum. New digital cameras are announced weekly, megapixel counts climb, frames per second increase. People upgrade their camera every year or two. We're at a point now where you can hold down the shutter release, and get more shots in a second than you could with a movie camera. You're effectively shooting a movie. Just go through the frames and pick the best shot. The Leica M will get there too. The decisive moment is history. When digital cameras came out, the goal was to beat film. Arguably we're way past that point now. But does it matter? How sharp does a picture need to be? And how far is too far for dynamic range? Are we chasing the law of diminishing returns? I look at Bruce Davidson's photograph of the girl with the kitten - it's brimming with atmosphere. Would that shot benefit from more dynamic range and extra sharpness? What do you think? https://www.instagram.com/colintempleton/ Edited October 3, 2018 by colint544 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 Hi colint544, Take a look here The digital arms race. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted October 3, 2018 Share #2 Posted October 3, 2018 Meanwhile, most people (including those who never took pictures) are now using the camera in their phones. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 3, 2018 Share #3 Posted October 3, 2018 Meanwhile, most people (including those who never took pictures) are now using the camera in their phones. Cameras in phones which are far, far better than many-a proper digital camera from only a few years ago. Some of my favourite photos were taken with my phone. But, I'm not sure what your point is, Jeff. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 3, 2018 Share #4 Posted October 3, 2018 I look at Bruce Davidson's photograph of the girl with the kitten - it's brimming with atmosphere. Would that shot benefit from more dynamic range and extra sharpness? What do you think? Absolutely not. It is perfect just as it is and would probably be worse if it were taken with modern equipment. It's been said a million times before, sometimes on this forum. The kit doesn't matter. If you can see a great photograph (and that really is one), and if you have the skills to take it with a box brownie or a Monochrom, it's still a great photograph. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 3, 2018 Share #5 Posted October 3, 2018 Just adding context to the gear battles, which now includes the phone race. As for Colin’s broader question, this TOP discussion is interesting... http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/09/best-comment-ever.html Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted October 3, 2018 Share #6 Posted October 3, 2018 Absolutely not. It is perfect just as it is and would probably be worse if it were taken with modern equipment. It's been said a million times before, sometimes on this forum. The kit doesn't matter. If you can see a great photograph (and that really is one), and if you have the skills to take it with a box brownie or a Monochrom, it's still a great photograph. That is the crux of the matter. Many hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of iconic photographs have been made with "backward" and "inferior" film cameras and film. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 3, 2018 Share #7 Posted October 3, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, the kit does matter! But not in terms of absolute technical perfection. Equipment should suit the photographers way of working. So each to their own. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 3, 2018 Share #8 Posted October 3, 2018 Well, the kit does matter! But not in terms of absolute technical perfection. Equipment should suit the photographers way of working. So each to their own. That expresses nothing except impotent relativism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted October 4, 2018 Share #9 Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) This guy has accomplished more with way less camera gear than probably 95% of us have in our bags: http://121clicks.com/articlesreviews/interview-with-master-photographer-daido-moriyama Edited October 4, 2018 by Herr Barnack 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colint544 Posted October 4, 2018 Author Share #10 Posted October 4, 2018 I suppose the cameras in phones will continue to improve. I love my iPhone 6s for its camera, and I use it all the time. But I also love shooting with a Leica M, either digital or analogue. I just find it interesting that cameras get better and better, and we keep buying them. I know a guy who bought the Fuji X-Pro1 around the time I bought my M Monochrom. Two years later he changed it for a Fuji XT1, and the other week, he swapped that for an XT3. He'll keep doing that, and I know lots of others are the same. But yes, there's never been a better time to have options on how to take pictures. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted October 4, 2018 Share #11 Posted October 4, 2018 For several decades as consumers we have been “culturally conditioned” to value “new and improved” over current. Manufacturers and their senior employees are incentivized to develop “new and improved” products so tend not to ask consumers in new product research if they are happy with what they currently have. They are only asked if they would like the following improvements. (You can read about the flaws of that thinking in the “New Coke” story!) Companies have yet to recognize and value comments you can read here from people like Colin and others across the sub forums who are perfectly happy with what they have and have no desire to upgrade or just change. Satisfied “Ambassadors” for companies like Leica (and Lange in the watch world) are priceless in making others feel comfortable and content in their choices. I hope they recognize that contribution. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colint544 Posted October 4, 2018 Author Share #12 Posted October 4, 2018 The onslaught of consumerism, and how we have been conditioned to play the game, is a fascinating subject. This BBC programme I found to be absolutely illuminating - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFUt1iGxPvE Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 4, 2018 Share #13 Posted October 4, 2018 I have just been given (as in; free) a working Nikonos RS camera and two lenses, plus a load on ancillaries. It is of course as capable a camera as it ever was, and it was the 'top' underwater camera of its day. Its perceived usefulness is what makes it worthless, not its capabilities. There was a time when I would have been over the moon to have been able to afford one and to use it. Whether I will ever actually use it now I don't know, because my current cameras suit me better (most anyway, except for the horrid Sony UI anyway). In the meantime it can join the digital camera housings I have on the shelf - all perfectly good but all built to only take now obsolete, low MPixel and mostly no longer working dSLRs - and all of which are also worthless too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 4, 2018 Share #14 Posted October 4, 2018 That expresses nothing except impotent relativism. To you perhaps, but not to everyone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.