I know I shouldn't take any pleasure in others' displeasure but...

[logan2z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't help but be amused at the already heated discussions about the M11 on the new M11 sub-forum at LUF.  I'm just glad that I don't have to be concerned with any of the issues being discussed there when using my film Ms (issues with the sensor-based metering system, unpleasant electronic shutter sounds, missing menu features, SD card accessibility, firmware problems, limits on exposure time, etc,).   I pick up the camera, compose, focus, press the shutter, and done.  Nothing needs recharging, I don't care about battery life, my shutter has no lag and is pleasantly quiet (click), it stays open as long as I want it to, I don't need to futz around with SD cards or cables - I can just focus on photography (remember that?!). 

On that front, I had to laugh at the Leica Store Miami's live stream yesterday that introduced the M11.  I watched the first 90 mins just to see what all the fuss was about and... not a single photograph was shown.  The entire discussion revolved around the technology of the camera - the sensor technology, the way it buffers internally, pixel binning (whatever the hell that is), including 10 minutes just discussing the type of cables that should be used to transfer data from the camera to a computer.  It was both funny and sad at the same time.

I don't know when photography became all about the technology and no longer about the art of picture making.

The only positive Leica-related thing I saw this week was this YouTube video about a slide film workshop at Leica Wetzlar.  At least Leica hasn't completely lost touch with the world of analog photography...

 

[Alan Zheng]

I don’t blame you, I have gone from dslr to mirrorless to digital rangefinder, and now I’m finally settled with my film rangefinder. It seems like the less “assistance” I get from the camera, the better photographs I make. But I also understand why digital is the mainstream, nothing wrong with neither, different strokes for different folks, but I’m happy with my decision. 
 

Lastly, if I have to guess, among all the consumers, there’s probably more pixel peepers than photographers. And among those peepers, probably only a few of them are Leica shooters.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

Either of you using any film Leicas, or lenses, made since 2006?

Edited January 15, 2022 by adan

[aksclix]

The world caters to different tastes.. if everybody sees what you see, where is the fun? Thank goodness for that.. or we will still be stuck with film cameras!!  I’ve shot on film for a handful of times in my life probably… 

People just take what bits they want from these content makers and thats about it.. there shouldn’t be any place for criticism in that.. nobody charges you anything to watch anything.. it’s your choice to watch it.. 

I am not an M shooter.. I didn’t watch it. I don’t find anything that you mentioned sad though.. photography and technology are better together.. 

[logan2z]

31 minutes ago, adan said:

Either of you using any film Leicas, or lenses, made since 2006?

I feel like this is a trick question 😉 But yes

[kivis]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Either of you using any film Leicas, or lenses, made since 2006?

Leica M-A and a current 'Cron 50/2

[malligator]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What did people expect? Once the M went digital it's just a matter of time before it is fully digital. It will eventually have an EVF.

I'm glad my obsolete camera is as obsolete as it's going to get.

[arichter]

I bought a few rolls of Adox Scala 50 and the development kit myself just before Christmas. Also stumbled upon the same video. Was surprised how they used the phone flash light to expose the film second time.

Edited January 15, 2022 by arichter

[adan]

2 hours ago, logan2z said:

I feel like this is a trick question 😉 But yes

Sort of.

Just remember that without the subsidy and profits from the digital M's (and other digitals), an M-A wouldn't exist. MPs would be rare as hen's teeth (and collector-expensive). Leica would have gone bankrupt around 2006±. (Absolute best-case scenario - it would cost $20,000 to cover overheads, and/or still be made in the Solms garage - no Leitz Park Wetzlar).

A plain vanilla 50mm Summicron would exist (it was made as far back as 1995 or so in current form)  but would be at least 15 years old by now, and only available used.

But APO-Summicrons later than the 75/90? - never would have existed. Summarits - what are they? 21/24/28 f/1.4 ASPHs? Never created. 75 Noctilux or 90 Summilux - what are those?

50mm Noctilux f/1.2, or 28mm Summaron (no -M) or 90 Thambar (no -M)?  - oh yeah, those were old collectors' lenses made in the 1930s-40s-50s-60s, weren't they?

Voigtlander? I know them - but now they make lenses only for Sonys and Fujis and a handful for Nikons, don't they?

Yeah, the M11 response has been, well, entertaining.

But it is also keeping the film Ms alive. So don't laugh too hard.

Edited January 15, 2022 by adan

[malligator]

6 minutes ago, adan said:

Sort of.

Just remember that without the subsidy and profits from the digital M's (and other digitals), an M-A wouldn't exist. MPs would be rare as hen's teeth (and collector-expensive). Leica would have gone bankrupt around 2006±. (Absolute best-case scenario - it would cost $20,000 to cover overheads, and/or still be made in the Solms garage - no Leitz Park Wetzlar).

A plain vanilla 50mm Summicron would exist (it was made as far back as 1995 or so in current form)  but would be at least 15 years old by now, and only available used.

But APO-Summicrons later than the 75/90? - never would have existed. Summarits - what are they? 21/24/28 f/1.4 ASPHs? Never created. 75 Noctilux or 90 Summilux - what are those?

50mm Noctilux f/1.2, or 28mm Summaron (no -M) or 90 Thambar (no -M)?  - oh yeah, those were old collectors' lenses made in the 1930s-40s-50s-60s, weren't they?

Voigtlander? I know them - but now they make lenses only for Sonys and Fujis and a handful for Nikons, don't they?

Yeah, the M11 response has been, well, entertaining.

But it is also keeping the film Ms alive. So don't laugh too hard.

You using any digital Leicas, or lenses, made since 1954?

[frame-it]

3 hours ago, Alan Zheng said:

the less “assistance” I get from the camera, the better photographs I make.

+1

[adan]

18 minutes ago, malligator said:

You using any digital Leicas, or lenses, made since 1954?

Everything I use now is made since 1954.

Even my brain was made since 1954 (just barely) - although it has had periodic firmware upgrades along the way.

[logan2z]

47 minutes ago, adan said:

Sort of.

Just remember that without the subsidy and profits from the digital M's (and other digitals), an M-A wouldn't exist. MPs would be rare as hen's teeth (and collector-expensive). Leica would have gone bankrupt around 2006±. (Absolute best-case scenario - it would cost $20,000 to cover overheads, and/or still be made in the Solms garage - no Leitz Park Wetzlar).

A plain vanilla 50mm Summicron would exist (it was made as far back as 1995 or so in current form)  but would be at least 15 years old by now, and only available used.

But APO-Summicrons later than the 75/90? - never would have existed. Summarits - what are they? 21/24/28 f/1.4 ASPHs? Never created. 75 Noctilux or 90 Summilux - what are those?

50mm Noctilux f/1.2, or 28mm Summaron (no -M) or 90 Thambar (no -M)?  - oh yeah, those were old collectors' lenses made in the 1930s-40s-50s-60s, weren't they?

Voigtlander? I know them - but now they make lenses only for Sonys and Fujis and a handful for Nikons, don't they?

Yeah, the M11 response has been, well, entertaining.

But it is also keeping the film Ms alive. So don't laugh too hard.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a minute suggesting that Leica should be an analog camera company in 2022 and hope to survive.  I guess what I'rm really commenting on is this relentless obsession with the technology that, at least IMO, amounts to a distraction from what is really important - making good pictures.  And by good, I don't mean the sharpest with the widest dynamic range and the most vibrant colors.  A film camera eschews all of that and allows one to focus on the act of picture making - composition, content, emotion, rather than megapixels, file size, startup and download times.  The fact that not one of the videos I've seen so far on the M11 launch has shown pictures made with the camera is telling - just endless blathering on about the camera's specifications as if they were describing the latest computer from Apple.  And that I do find sad.

But I am thankful that Leica continues to produce and support two film cameras.  If the sale of digital cameras is what allows them to do that, then bring 'em on.  In the meantime, I'll be happily shooting with my M-A, the Mechanical Anachronism 

[logan2z]

3 hours ago, kivis said:

Leica M-A and a current 'Cron 50/2

Same for me.  And an Elmarit 28mm/2.8 ASPH.

[aksclix]

It is funny to see some folks have this utter disregard for technology that has helped make photography better.. it didn’t take ANYTHING from the “art” form.. it gave more!! A lot lot more! One can still make use of the basic camera settings and create “art” without indulging in all kinds of tech.. Those who made it trusted photographers are smart enough to adapt to these changes.. lack of appreciation for technology baffles me quite a bit.. film takes time to process and you can’t even see what you shot for a while!! I find that LAME!! I don’t go around mocking film photography.. it has its place and I might even enjoy an occasional outing with a film camera.. 

I find it way more amusing when some think that the cameras today are all about tech.. if it didn’t take good pictures or if it couldn’t create “art” there would be no talk about it in the first place!! 

Edited January 15, 2022 by aksclix

[adan]

It's true that 35mm film is a "mature technology." Not going to be a lot of surprises (assuming the same lens and film) between an M-A and a 1954 M3. Nor between 2021 and 2051 (we hope.)

Digital is still evolving, so at introduction, there can be significant changes to study, not only regarding IQ, but regarding operation or functionality.

Things one has to understand before getting around to the simple taking of pictures.

it's like - in 1905, if one could ride a horse, one didn't need to learn (much) to ride a newer horse. But each new automobile was a whole different world to discover.

Electric vs. steam vs. gasoline. Tillers vs. steering wheels; pedals or levers or knobs for gears, brakes, chokes, and so on. A seething sea of ideas and designs being "filtered" by Darwinian selection.

For any given camera, that will wear off in a few months, and part of the crowd will hare off after "The M12 - your next Leica?"

And others will just get down to taking pictures again.

Me - I spent about 2 months "getting to know" the M-10. And after that, it has been all about the pictures for 4.7 years. And may be for another 5 years.

And I do shoot film in 6x6 as well - I find film and digital "inform one another." The more I shoot of either, the better I get at the other.

[logan2z]

24 minutes ago, aksclix said:

film takes time to process and you can’t even see what you shot for a while!! I find that LAME!!

As strange as it may seem, many people, including myself, find that a benefit of film photography.  Horses for courses...

[Fotoklaus]

To be honest: Why is somebody using an M-A and no used Bessa R? Of course it is NOT all about taking pictures. It is a hobby and especially male users are interested in Equipment and technology. And who would buy a 10k- Body/ lens combination for 35mm- Film in 2022 without the magic and marketing around this brand?

We had the same rally all the time. Think about the mid-late 90s, when film cameras have reeached their peak: Ultra 3D- Color-Matrix Auto exposure, ultra fast eye- controled AF,

and on and on. Leica was almost on the ground, nobody would have paid thousands of dollars for a used M2 oder M4.

If it´s just all about pictures: Spend your money for travelling and film, take any mid-range 35mm Camera and go.

But I just love handling my M2/ M6/ M4 and that´s enough of a resaon for me.

 

 

[Al Brown]

5 hours ago, adan said:

Either of you using any film Leicas, or lenses, made since 2006?

Absolutely we are. Also compact film cameras and medium format film cameras.

 

1 hour ago, logan2z said:

relentless obsession with the technology that, at least IMO, amounts to a distraction from what is really important - making good pictures.

I feel your gist of the original post but from a corporate field of view, there are two main points: 1.Below the line profits 2.Building brand identity and addiction. You get my drift.

 

10 hours ago, logan2z said:

Nothing needs recharging, I don't care about battery life, my shutter has no lag and is pleasantly quiet (click), it stays open as long as I want it to, I don't need to futz around with SD cards or cables - I can just focus on photography (remember that?!). 

Well technically, you need to load the film, use a meter to expose (if you do not have a built-in meter), rewind the film manually, take it to the lab, maybe do a clip test to determine exposure, pick it up from the lab and scan it into your digital device (unless yo urder prints). So the process is definitely there.

 

10 hours ago, logan2z said:

The entire discussion revolved around the technology of the camera

It is all that matters now, we are in 2022 after all. It will get worse once the smartphones take the lead role in photography (and they will!)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

It is funny to see some folks have this utter disregard for technology that has helped make photography better.. it didn’t take ANYTHING from the “art” form.. it gave more!! A lot lot more! One can still make use of the basic camera settings and create “art” without indulging in all kinds of tech..

But 99.9% of shutter actuations are used to record simple things, not to create art, unless your benchmark of art is abysmally low brow. I think your definition of how digital cameras have enabled art confuses accidental 'art' with the intentions of an artist. So a photo that turns out pretty, easy on the eye, is colourful, etc. usually has very little to do with art, just as a pretty or colourful painting by a chimpanzee or a toddler isn't art. Isn't the buffoons reaction to a Picasso typically 'a child could do it', which equates a simple visual metaphor with the work of an artist?

Improvements in digital cameras simply extend the range in which accidental art can be made, night becomes day because of higher ISO, what do we learn, nothing that we can't intuit anyway because the aim 99.9% of the time to demonstrate the cameras abilities, not the abilities of an artist. So given how little digital cameras encroach on the work of art and artists (the 0.1% of shutter actuations) it's hyperbolic to suggest they make a significant contribution to art of any sort, other than the 'art' Granny would like.

Edited January 15, 2022 by 250swb