Waist level

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While I understand the usefulness to some photographers of a tilt screen and many have expressed a desire for their required or favorite feature to be included Leica has been very judicious in adding features.  Other manufacturers have put every feature possible into their bodies with the resultant menu systems and complexities that Leica has singly resisted.  The Leica M is what it is, appreciated by it's loyal base for staying true to it's essentials in these digital times.   

[MarkP]

I found the waist level finder attachment for my old Nikon F3/T, or at times just removing the prisim, very useful for discrete waist level or above head shooting. With the latterI’d hold the camera overhead but upside down and look up at the focusing screen to frame.

Probably  not suitable for the M due to added bulk from an adjustable back screen m. The Visoflex does the job.

 

However I think I’d have liked it on the SL2 for increased versatility (trade odd with added bulk and a fragile component), even just to avoid stooping to frame on a lower tripod position, etc.  Fotos just doesn’t do it for me.

Edited July 5, 2020 by MarkP

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Robert Blanko]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb johnwolf:

For those of you citing GDPR, could you tell me if this IDPC article reflects the current reality?

My reading of it supports Robert Blanko's position stated above. I was not aware of this implication of the regulation. Thank you.

John

 

 

For Germany, I would say it does. Any photo of a person which is identifiable constitutes „personal data“ subject to the EU data protection directive.

 

Regarding the technical question, for waist level photography any system other than the M camera would be better, if tiltable screen is a must.

[Simone_DF]

13 hours ago, strangeboy said:

With all due respect... this idea sounds just vomitous.
IMHO, the only reason to shoot a rangefinder camera, is to create your composition within the rangefinder.
So much has already been ruined by the relentless pursuit of convenience.
This is like drilling a hole into the side of a Stradivarius so as to add a pick-up and plug it into an amp. 

Thank you for telling me how I have to use my camera!

[Simone_DF]

Many of you are considering only street photography, but a tilt screen is useful also whenever a low angle is needed. Think landscape, macro, cityscape, astrophotography. 
Or maybe shooting above a big crowd from a street level. There are countless possibilities where it can be very useful, but I forgot that the M has to be used only as a street photography camera 😛

[Simone_DF]

Oh and one more thing. This is Jason Momoa on the official Leica page. Is he focusing with the rangefinder? No. He's focusing with live view.

This hard-on some of you have for the rangefinder as the only way to use a M is something just in your mind. Not even Leica cares about it for their official press, as you can see.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Simone_DF

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Oh and one more thing. This is Jason Momoa on the official Leica page. Is he focusing with the rangefinder? No. He's focusing with live view.

This hard-on some of you have for the rangefinder as the only way to use a M is something just in your mind. Not even Leica cares about it for their official press, as you can see.

 

 

He's young enough to shoot straight off a rear screen 30cm from his nose.

[farnz]

8 hours ago, johnwolf said:

For those of you citing GDPR, could you tell me if this IDPC article reflects the current reality?

My reading of it supports Robert Blanko's position stated above. I was not aware of this implication of the regulation. Thank you.

John

 

 

Hi John,

This is a document issued by a body claiming to be the (Maltese) office of the Information and Data Protection Commissioner and (presumably)* would apply when in Malta and is (presumably) an ancillary document in Malta's application of GDPR.  *I say "presumably" because it turns out to be the IDPC for the Maltese "Institute For Education", which is probably a government body taking into account its "ife.gov.mt" domain name.  So this appears to be Malta's Institute for Education's interpretation of GDPR - and not necessarily the Maltese government's interpretation; it's notable that the document has a different logo at top left from the logo on the Maltese office of IDPC's own website.

Section 2 of Malta's 'Data Protection Act 2018' authorises the office of the IDPC (not to be confused with the ife's idpc) so if the provenance of the document is confirmed, ie it's a bona fide Maltese IDPC document and it is current, then it would apply in Malta but nowhere else.

Hope that helps.

Pete.

Post script (edit) The document states that as long as a photographer takes a picture of a person for his personal use then it doesn't transgress this interpretation of GDPR.  The take-away from this is that as long as the picture is not published then GDPR has not been transgressed and therefore there is nothing to stop a photographer from taking pictures of strangers in public.  It's what the photographer does with the picture afterwards that might be a problem. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by farnz

[roelv1]

2 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

For Germany, I would say it does. Any photo of a person which is identifiable constitutes „personal data“ subject to the EU data protection directive.

 

 

No, it does not. This data directive is not aimed for what we discuss, like Farnz explained. Philip also was right. The lawyers in the two  lawsuit cases that I mentioned didn't even refer to the data directive. Once again: It is always permitted to take pictures of people in the public space. Problems can only occur when pictures are published. But than the subject has to prove that his or hers reasonable interest is harmed. A judge will than consider the interest of free news gathering, freedom of speech and expression, against that reasonable interest. The complainant must have had real harmful consequences. Only the fact that he is photographed without knowing will give him no case. 

[lanetomlane]

I'm not a big fan of the Visoflex but have used it on the M10 for low level viewpoints.

https://photographybytomlane.com

[Glasauge]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I guess these have been shot without a tilt screen  ...

stay safe

Hans

[Robert Blanko]

vor 22 Minuten schrieb roelv1:

No, it does not. This data directive is not aimed for what we discuss, like Farnz explained. Philip also was right. The lawyers in the two  lawsuit cases that I mentioned didn't even refer to the data directive. Once again: It is always permitted to take pictures of people in the public space. Problems can only occur when pictures are published. But than the subject has to prove that his or hers reasonable interest is harmed. A judge will than consider the interest of free news gathering, freedom of speech and expression, against that reasonable interest. The complainant must have had real harmful consequences. Only the fact that he is photographed without knowing will give him no case. 

There exist court decisions in Germany (cf. for instance https://openjur.de/u/2181591.html ; it‘s in German, but Google might help) which refer inter alia to the EU data protection directive in the grounds for the decision.

Publishing street photography shots including identifiable people which mostly even constitute the main object of the photo without consent is - apart from the ethical aspect - legally problematic.

 

[farnz]

12 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

- apart from the ethical aspect -

I do not share your view about the ethical aspect.  There is no expectation of, or right to, privacy in a public place.  So it must be expected that, for example, strangers will look at you, strangers will speak to you, strangers will photograph you, strangers will video you, and you will be unknowingly recorded in CCTV footage.

It is every person's right to wear in public something to obscure their face if they choose (apart from in some banks and other sensitive locations).  You might feel that it is unreasonable to need to wear something to obscure your face in public but that is the choice that anyone can make.  With the prevalence of face masks in response to the pandemic I imagine it will become much more acceptable to wear a face covering from now on.

Pete.

[roelv1]

24 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

There exist court decisions in Germany (cf. for instance https://openjur.de/u/2181591.html ; it‘s in German, but Google might help) which refer inter alia to the EU data protection directive in the grounds for the decision.

Publishing street photography shots including identifiable people which mostly even constitute the main object of the photo without consent is - apart from the ethical aspect - legally problematic.

 

What I understand is that the complainant was photographed inside a hairdresser's. That is not a public space. And the hairdresser used the material on her website and facebook. Probably for commercial purposes. In that case other rules do  count.

[Robert Blanko]

vor 31 Minuten schrieb roelv1:

What I understand is that the complainant was photographed inside a hairdresser's. That is not a public space. And the hairdresser used the material on her website and facebook. Probably for commercial purposes. In that case other rules do  count.

One may also find court decisions which rule that the rules of the data protection directive apply to public events as in such exemplary case: https://www.datenschutz.eu/urteile/Foto-Veroeffentlichung-auf-Facebook-Fanpage-einer-Partei-Verwaltungsgericht-Hannover-20191127/ 

[Robert Blanko]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb farnz:

I do not share your view about the ethical aspect.  There is no expectation of, or right to, privacy in a public place.  So it must be expected that, for example, strangers will look at you, strangers will speak to you, strangers will photograph you, strangers will video you, and you will be unknowingly recorded in CCTV footage.

It is every person's right to wear in public something to obscure their face if they choose (apart from in some banks and other sensitive locations).  You might feel that it is unreasonable to need to wear something to obscure your face in public but that is the choice that anyone can make.  With the prevalence of face masks in response to the pandemic I imagine it will become much more acceptable to wear a face covering from now on.

Pete.

Well, IMHO the decisive aspect is when taking pictures takes place in an obscured manner. Of course, when walking around in public places people look at you an you watch them when passing by. This is „symmetric“ and if one realizes that someone is taking photos one can avoid this or take a photo of the photographer as well or claim compliance with the law (data protection directive etc. etc.).

Taking photos of an individual  without consent, in a hidden manner and where the individual forms the main „subject“ of the photo and even publishing the same to hunt for „likes“ in social media or other reputation due to publication is beyond my personal ethical limits.

[johnwolf]

34 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

Well, IMHO the decisive aspect is when taking pictures takes place in an obscured manner. Of course, when walking around in public places people look at you an you watch them when passing by. This is „symmetric“ and if one realizes that someone is taking photos one can avoid this or take a photo of the photographer as well or claim compliance with the law (data protection directive etc. etc.).

Taking photos of an individual  without consent, in a hidden manner and where the individual forms the main „subject“ of the photo and even publishing the same to hunt for „likes“ in social media or other reputation due to publication is beyond my personal ethical limits.

Ethical considerations aside, it seem clear that there is no legal issue with TAKING candids of strangers in public places, even in the EU. What matters is what you do with those photos, and, in particular, whether any ban applies to personal web sites and social media, which are the ways most photographers publish today. In the USA such uses are protected as artistic expression, but the regulation in the EU still isn't clear to me. 

Apologies to the OP is this seems to have derailed your topic. But it really hasn't in my mind. Personally, I feel flip screens are one of the best inventions street photographers could have hoped for. Why not offer M models with and without, as is done with the LCD?

John

[TomB_tx]

Having used Leica Ms for over 50 years, I also use them almost exclusively with the RF. However, for wider than 35 used to use accessory optical finders, and with the M10 find the 020 EVF quite useful - not needing multiple optical finders. And I do use the tilt of the 020 often - low angle with a 21 is effective.

But I’ve always used an SLR as a companion for macro & tele, etc. Now I use a Sony A7 as my digital R solution (since before the SL), and often use its tilt LCD either overhead or low for awkward subjects. I don’t do “street” - but it is a useful tool.

I still prefer simple, single-purpose tools to those that try to cram in as many partly-useful functions as possible, so I’ll stick with an M for general purpose, and another type for specialty. I’d actually prefer an M without an LCD for most use, but not at the greater price. I expect the M10 will be my last RF, even though the P, D, M, etc are each appealing - the base M10 really does fine.

Edited July 5, 2020 by TomB_tx

[verwackelt]

I do not believe that Leica will ever put a tilt Display on a M. The M is a sacred cow that is not allowed to be touched.
I once hoped Leica is open minded and they put a tilt display at least on the SL2 or a tiltable EVF like Fuji GFX has.
It would be very useful for low position shots in general. Not only street!
Or over headshots in a crowd etc.
But Leica is stubborn  and wants to fulfill the wishes of most Leicaowners that better like to have a designobject than a perfect tool.
However, thats the reason why i do not have a digital Leica yet and live with Panasonic and an old M3…

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[farnz]

1 hour ago, Robert Blanko said:

Taking photos of an individual  without consent, in a hidden manner and where the individual forms the main „subject“ of the photo and even publishing the same to hunt for „likes“ in social media or other reputation due to publication is beyond my personal ethical limits.

I respect your view although it's not clear to me how it works with CCTV cameras recording you.  

I don't know if it's the same in the country you live in (Deutschland?) but in the UK in any town or city centre you will be recorded by several CCTV cameras at once the entire time you will be ther.  Certainly these cameras are intended for security and traffic management but often the recorded footage finds its way onto the internet or onto television programs.  

This a form of publishing and should not happen, although it does, so local authorities etc are resposible for breaking the GDPR regulations by allowing it to happen.

Pete.