Leica article in the New Yorker

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's an incredible amount of misunderstanding squeezed into a short post. Many of the photographers here(the LUF as a whole), at least those with whom I have become somewhat familiar, are more interested in the outcome than the fact that a Leica lens or body made it. Sure there are people more interested in the bling factor, but this forum is very much about learning about and learning how to appreciate photography. I don't think I've heard or picked up on any photographer who regularly posts in the photo section claiming to be the best simply because his finger pushes a Leica.

 

I tend to agree . i will use myself as a example . I come here to help and talk about the gear which is a common theme among forum members and i will be the first to admit about having more lenses than I need but at the end of the day and when i leave here i go work for my meal too just like everyone else but be it a hobby or a profession there is a shit load of great talent here and talking shop is just more for fun but we also do learn a lot and share a lot with information that is important to go out and work the camera. Now i am the worst at posting in the Photo forum but i have been glancing in there lately and sorry the talent far exceeds the gear head mentality. so yes maybe we talk gear too much but i certainly don't see it hurting ones images at all and if anything whatever we learn here we can apply it to our work and continue to improve oneself. Let me add one more thing just because we enjoy the most expensive gear there is there is nothing wrong with that we all enjoy nice things and many hobbyist will spend a lot of money on this stuff but hell i will be the last guy on the planet to say don't spend your money the way you want to live. screw that life is too bloody short and our average age is 43 on this forum, face the facts we don't have a lot of time left either, so go have some fun. You only die once.

[andybarton]

 

 

<snip>(Leica) even sponsor this website so they can get beaten up in public.<snip>

 

Leica have not been sponsors of this site for many months now.

[Advertisement]

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

[wparsonsgisnet]

Leica have not been sponsors of this site for many months now.

 

Thanks, Andy. They are now regular readers?

 

Who is footing the bill?

[andybarton]

I don't know whether they are regular readers, but I would expect so. Certainly, Leica UK's Customer Services people used to regularly read the old forum, when it was sponsored by Leica.

 

Andreas foots the bill, supported by the various advertisements and sponsored links which you will have noticed have appeared since Leica withdrew their support, back in the Spring.

[Guest Walt]

I'm going to assume that this is a real discussion intended to exchange and clarify ideas and not a shooting match. My original post was about Leica's conceptualization of its strengths and the future direction of its products, which I largely appreciate and would like to continue to use.

 

People value different things in a camera and, having used M cameras for over forty years, I have some idea of what they can do and what they have to offer me. This is not what Bill, John and Olsen apparently want from them, but mine is also a reasonable opinion on what might guide Leica's future. The qualities that have attracted me, most of the other photographers I admire, and most of the photographers mentioned in the TNY article having nothing to do with beautiful equipment, medium format image quality or "glass" that changes lives. If people are interested in those things, that's certainly fine, but it's not what many people have used Leicas for and are hoping for in the future. Traditionally, Leicas have been an agile, compact, durable camera that offered decent image quality--35mm quality, not medium format quality. If the lenses were "good," all the better, but in the kind of photography I am talking about a lens (or a camera) never once made or broke a photograph.

 

If Bill, John or Olsen and his "gear freaks" want something different in a Leica that's fine. I hope it is not the guiding principle for Leica's future, particularly if that is going to sacrifice the virtues I and some others are interested in. Maybe Leica is now pursuing something other than what actually gave them a position in 20th century photography. If so, it will be my loss and the lens collector's/medium format photographer's/gear freak's gain.

 

On the issue of the M8 itself and the constant accusations of too much criticism or too much reflexive defense of Leica, I have no idea what the balance of opinion is on this forum or in the world. I have been a user of the camera and bought two bodies, but I also think the camera has serious shortcomings. In a review of the Epson rangefinder camera, written before the release of the M8, Sean Reid listed four issues that he felt essential to the design of a successful M8. I agree with Sean's list. Leica delivered on not a single one of these. I think the M8 is a usable, first-off, flawed design and probably the best that a crippled company could manage. It could have been worse and it could have been better.

 

I do, somehow, expect to be able to have an opinion about these kinds of relatively unimportant issues without inciting insults. It is incredible that a discussion about *a camera* could provoke such ill will and nastiness. Anyone who has $5,000 to spend on a camera is leading a very privileged life and might be expected to retain some perspective on the human condition in the larger world. Decency would go a long way..

 

Walt

[hankg]

What's not good is the new Summarit lenses with their metal hoods and traditional Leica type face and what this suggests about Leica's future......

 

The M9, if they get to that, will tell the story. If it's got brass top and bottom plates and it's too slippery to hold on to without a tube appended to the brass bottom plate, the likes of you and I are finished in Leica's order books.

 

I wouldn't read so much into the typeface chosen for the Summart's let's see how they perform. Retro design as an affectation and replacement for real innovation should be avoided but the desire to use a rangefinder to focus and things like aperture rings does put us all in the retro camp in the positive sense of the word.

 

Image quality and handling on the Leica improved greatly between the first Leica and the M3 due to improved finder accuracy, film emulsions, optics, film winders and lens coatings. It's normal that this should continue in the digital age. The problem starts when the quest for resolution, fine grain and lack of 'imperfections' increases the size, weight and price of the lenses and impacts the ergonomics of the camera to the point that the original reason for being - a small discreet reportage camera is lost. I don't think we are quite there yet especially relative to 35mm DSLR's that are bigger then a medium format Rollei TLR but it is a realistic concern.

 

On the issue of IQ -in film I'm for 35mm in B+W and medium format in color. They are very different mediums and the high accutance noise that is beautiful with Tri-X is ugly mush with color negative emulsions. So on the M8 I'd like as much IQ as can be had with out compromising the camera's mission. You can always loose information in post. Perhaps the future could see a digital Tri-X reportage B+W camera that improves on Ricoh's camera which is only innovative in so far as it's got no competition (a bit like the position of the M8). Unfortunately there is not a lot of development and innovation for this type of photography.

 

I understand with the position Leica was in the reason for the silly removable bottom brass plate, and retro affectations, etc., but hopefully Leica is becoming a more financially secure company that can express a confident vision for the future preserving and improving what is functionally good in the M. I have hope, there isn't much in the way of alternatives.

[Guest Walt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hank-

 

I pretty much agree with your analysis. I wouldn't have mentioned the typeface on the Summarits if Leica hadn't mentioned it--it's their emphasis on something like that feels like it forbodes ill for the company's direction. I don't think of the rangefinder and aperture ring as nostaligc because they are actually functional. I don't think of the brass as nostalgic either, just primitive. It's too heavy and too soft and we have much better materials than we had in 1954, including magnesium and some plastics.

 

On "improving" image quality, I completely agree with you. That's a fine pursuit and I don't have to use it. Like you, I am concerned that this effort will potentially sacrifice the virtues of the camera--particularly the agility and size. If Leica is aiming at the Canon DSLR market, that could eventually turn the whole system into something else. The M8 has not done this and for me, image defects aside, the image quality is more than high enough as it is. I don't need or what a bigger sensor, higher ISO, "better" file, finer "grain," etc. if that means sacrificing anything in the form or function of the camera.

 

In any case, Leica is going to do whatever it does and people are going to clamor for whatever they want to clamor for.

 

Walt

[hankg]

If Leica is aiming at the Canon DSLR market, that could eventually turn the whole system into something else.

 

While they may or not be successful in innovating a 21st century M. I'm pretty sure they are not going after the Canon DSLR market as that would be suicide. Leica's hope is in being the alternative, the think different comapany. They do claim they want to put Leica back in the mainstream of photography and that suggests a turn from being a luxury 'lifestyle' company to being a maker of high quality tools, it shouldn't mean one more NiCanon clone. As to the typeface business you can't stop an ad agency or marketer from trying to capitalize on the brand mythology usually in a shallow way.

 

As you point out with the example of the finder and aperture ring there is function that should be preserved and extended as not every development in camera ergonomics has been positive from the M users point of view. But we haven't had any improvement since the M3 and if Leica has a future it will develop a camera as innovative and useful as that one was at it's introduction using the latest technolory be it lcd's, ceramics, plastics, new alloys, etc., The legacy it needs to preserve is not in brass plates, black paint or a camera design frozen in time it's the functionality and ergonomics that made the small, quick and reliable little camera the tool used for the most iconic images of the last century.

[Guest Walt]

Hank--

 

A great description of the issues, and I hope you're right about what Leica will do. That would be terrific. Maybe they'd hire you, the sooner the better.

 

Walt

[sean_reid]

In a review of the Epson rangefinder camera, written before the release of the M8, Sean Reid listed four issues that he felt essential to the design of a successful M8. I agree with Sean's list. Leica delivered on not a single one of these. I think the M8 is a usable, first-off, flawed design and probably the best that a crippled company could manage. It could have been worse and it could have been better.

 

 

Walt

 

Hi Walt,

 

Now I need to look at that list again. Let's see, I wrote:

 

" My suggestions to Epson, Leica, Zeiss and any other maker who might choose to enter this arena are:

 

1. Concentrate on making a camera with a very quiet shutter. There are many uses for such a camera and a digital camera with both a very quiet shutter and exceptional high ISO performance does not currently exist. The Canon 10D comes close. The benchmark for shutter noise should be the Olympus E-1, a very quiet camera despite being an SLR. Shutter noise has been a traditional advantage of rangefinders over SLRs and should continue to be so."

 

Its true that the M8 is not as quiet as an E-1 but its shutter sound is less noticeable, in my testing, than many DSLRs. So, Leica is maybe half-way there with the shutter noise. I would like to see a quieter M9. Mark Norton's "Adventures Inside the M8" suggest that it is possible for the camera to get quieter.

 

"2. Increase the accuracy of finder framing lines. Since digital files do not go into slide mounts (as much of 35mm film did) it isn’t necessary to be so conservative with frameline coverage. Give the photographer the best possible sense of where his or her picture edges are going to fall."

 

Are they accurate? At .7 meters (1 meter for the 90), yes. I do think most of us would prefer to see them accurate at 1 - 2 meters. So, no, I think they're not all that accurate for many of us - simply because they're set too close.

 

"3. Continue to improve high ISO quality. Rangefinders excel for use in existing low light. Clean files at true ISO 3200 and 6400 speeds should be the next goal."

 

They did OK in this respect.The M8 is a lot better at high ISO than the DMR. They probably have a ways to go to catch up with Nikon but they're fairly new to this and I imagine their high ISO performance will keep improving. I'm talking about signal to noise ratio, not smoothing.

 

"4. For the high-end digital rangefinders, make them with effective weather/dust seals. Traditional Leica rangefinders have a reputation for remaining reliable even in extreme weather. Even though moisture and dust may enter the body, the camera continues to function. Needless to say, a digital camera cannot function with moisture and dust entering the body. The only way to make a digital camera that is reliable in challenging weather is by designing it with seals such as are used on the Canon 1D and 1Ds professional SLR bodies as well as the Olympus E-1. Although existing rangefinder lenses are not weather sealed, future rangefinder lenses with weather seals could be developed and sold to professionals who need all weather capability. Without a sealed body and sealed lenses, a rangefinder can only be a “fair weather” camera. A professional quality rangefinder shouldn’t have that limitation."

 

You're right about this. I told them this in 2004 and yet they did blow it in this respect, as I said in my first M8 review (and have told them directly). The M9 should be sealed and sealed lenses should be available for it. Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax all realize the importance of this for their pro bodies.

 

------

 

And yet...the M8 really is, for me, the best digital camera I've ever used - despite the filters and frame lines and lack of seals. I have no problem at all with the shutter release. And I think that most of the ergonomics on the M8 are far better (for my use) than either the GR or the GX. As you know, I've been one of the few reviewers to find anything special in those two Ricohs. Yet, recently, I went back and forth between the M8 and the GX while photographing the Tunbridge World's Fair. And there was absolutely no contest for me, the M8 was a far better tool for me to work with.

 

Since my first M8 review, I've talked about the ways in which the M8 should improve but as a first-generation digital M, its pretty good.

 

I'd like the forum to keep in mind that Walt isn't trying to bash the M8, per se. He's a very accomplished and talented photographer who really does care more about pictures than about equipment. And, at the end of the day, he really needs the M8 to be as good as it can be. He's using it to make exceptional work. And, as can happen with many of us, I think Walt tends to take some of the M8's strengths for granted while being quite troubled about its weaknesses. So, he tends to talk about the weaknesses - especially because he very deeply wants the M8 to work better for his photography. And, while I may not always agree with his take on the camera, I think he has every right to express his thoughts and feelings about it, as we all do.

 

As for Walt's quote: "Yes, I know that there are photographer's here too, but that's really not the gist of the forum. I used to write about wristwatches and this forum often reminds me of that: people buying expensive equipment, "the best." My experience there was that people bought such products in hopes that they would feel differently about themselves for owning the best. This is a lot of what luxury products are about. So, if many people show photographs here, it is to show what the equipment can do, that the equipment is the best and, by association, the owner is the best."

 

I think this is, perhaps unintentionally, an over-generalization. Some people here may think of the M8 (and Leica lenses, especially) as status symbols but many of us really don't see things that way. So I think Walt is, perceptively, discussing something many of us may have noticed at times but is then applying the description too broadly. We can't really read each other's minds but Walt is describing something that a lot of us may have sometimes noticed *in certain posts*.

 

Live and let live, right? I have a lot of respect for Walt even we don't agree. And, on many important things, we do agree.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hankg]

And yet...the M8 really is, for me, the best digital camera I've ever used

 

I'd agree with that and if I didn't I'd be using something else.

 

One thing to keep in mind - making innovative break through products is a risky business. I think Leica will tend to be more conservative until they are on more solid footing. So I wouldn't be surprised if the M8-2 or M9 was evolutionary rather then revolutionary. But even if there are only incremental improvements as long as they are in the right direction I'll be happy for now.

 

I'd like to see a 21st century equivalent of the M but it's easier said then done. With each generation of Leica the camera grew in size and complexity until the M5 which was a step to far. That is a lesson Leica won't soon forget. Leica could do some outside the box stuff with lower risk projects like making a competitor to the Ricoh GRD. They could take more chances with something like that for starters and it would provide a design testing ground for some future M.

[Guest Walt]

Thanks Sean and Hank for the substantive replies. You've managed to fish this thread out of the water.

 

Yes, I'd agree that the M8 is the best digital camera I've used, but by a hair. The camera a hair behind, because of its small viewfinder and poorer high ISO performance is, a Sony point and shoot, the DSC W-100. At ISO 100 or 200 and for prints at 16 x 20, this little camera is neck and neck with the M8 for print quality. At ISO 400, the Sony looks like the M8 at 1250 or a little worse--pretty poor. The viewfinder is leagues behind the Leica's (though the framing is more accurate) but it's adequate. That two stop advantage is what keeps me with the M8 because I use it a lot. On other issues, like operational ones, the Sony and Leica have different strengths and weaknesses and I feel a slight preference for the Sony. It is simply less obstrusive to the photographic process than the M8 and has none of the M8's design glitches. I now have a lot of experience with both these cameras. I know that people will attribute this opinion to ignorance or rhetoric, or just ignore it, but there's not much I can say about that.

 

Michael Friedberg, a friend, a photographer (he uses an M8) and very serious collector of photographs, told me this morning of a conversation he had with Andre Kertesz over lunch. "I asked him if he still used a Leica. He responded by saying something like 'Actually, no. I use an Olympus now, because Olympus pays me to use their cameras. They're fine --but it's really not the camera that matters when you take a picture.'" I know people will attribute this opinion to avarice or rhetoric, or just ignore it, and there's not much I can say about that either.

 

Walt

[sean_reid]

Thanks Sean and Hank for the substantive replies. You've managed to fish this thread out of the water.

 

Yes, I'd agree that the M8 is the best digital camera I've used, but by a hair. The camera a hair behind, because of its small viewfinder and poorer high ISO performance is, a Sony point and shoot, the DSC W-100. At ISO 100 or 200 and for prints at 16 x 20, this little camera is neck and neck with the M8 for print quality. At ISO 400, the Sony looks like the M8 at 1250 or a little worse--pretty poor. The viewfinder is leagues behind the Leica's (though the framing is more accurate) but it's adequate. That two stop advantage is what keeps me with the M8 because I use it a lot. On other issues, like operational ones, the Sony and Leica have different strengths and weaknesses and I feel a slight preference for the Sony. It is simply less obstrusive to the photographic process than the M8 and has none of the M8's design glitches. I now have a lot of experience with both these cameras. I know that people will attribute this opinion to ignorance or rhetoric, or just ignore it, but there's not much I can say about that.

 

Michael Friedberg, a friend, a photographer (he uses an M8) and very serious collector of photographs, told me this morning of a conversation he had with Andre Kertesz over lunch. "I asked him if he still used a Leica. He responded by saying something like 'Actually, no. I use an Olympus now, because Olympus pays me to use their cameras. They're fine --but it's really not the camera that matters when you take a picture.'" I know people will attribute this opinion to avarice or rhetoric, or just ignore it, and there's not much I can say about that either.

 

Walt

 

A friend of mine knew Kertesz as well. He also, I'm told (and if memory serves), switched to Canon EOS late in life because his eyesight was weakening and auto-focus became an asset to him.

 

I think that the camera one uses certainly can be important but it is not the most important part of photography.

 

I, also, need the M8 to be as good as it can be.

 

Robert Frank and Helen Levitt still work with Leicas.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[michael friedberg]

Robert Frank and Helen Levitt still work with Leicas.

 

And Lee Friedlander abandoned his Leica for a 6x6. Really, I'm not sure the issue is equipment but rather vision. More so, even, than technique. I recall one museum curator who criticized an art critic for having an "amateur's preoccupation with technique".

 

While I love my M8, one of my best photos, assuming I have any, was taken with a Canon Powershot S800. And that was more luck than vision. Diffferent cameras and different lenses do serve different purposes, but the ultimate standard must be the image standing alone.

[Guest malland]

Friedlander in his book on the Sonora desert wrote that he started shooting with the Hasselblad SWC when, disatisfied with the Leica 21mm lens,after asking what the best super-wide lens was and found it was the SWC's 38mm f/4.5Zeiss Biogon. I think that he has continued to shoot with Leica Ms as well: his book "Stems" is shot with both cameras, and his book on sakura in Japan is shoot with the Leica. On the other hand, "Sticks and Stones" (wonderful work) is all shot with the SWC.

 

But as this thread is on the New Yorker article, I must say that it well-written, yes; excellent, no. A bit too breathless and too shallow to be excellent. The Leica myth is fine, but it does not need to be puffed up this much.

 

Also, the article could be more factual: the assertion that the D-Lux 3 could not have taken the picture the author discusses at the end is simply untrue: it could if manual pre-focusing was used, which many people do with this camera because of it's huge depth of field. Similarly, writing that Leica makes some small digital cameras — including the D-Lux 3 — is simply not true. That never would have passed in New Yorker in the days of William Shawn's editorship. Also, the article could be more factual: the assertion that the D-Lux 3 could not have taken the picture the author discusses at the end is simply untrue: it could if manual pre-focusing was used, which many people do with this camera because of it's huge depth of field. Similarly, writing that Leica makes some small digital cameras — including the D-Lux 3 — is simply not true. That never would have passed in New Yorker in the days of William Shawn's editorship.

 

My real problem is the shallowness of the article. A much more interesting article could have written by dealing woth some of the issues of the company in a real way, and still bring across the enthusiam of Leica users. The New Yorker used to be better than this. Sorry, but I like accuracy and real anaysis with my enthusiasm.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[zlatkob]

He also, I'm told (and if memory serves), switched to Canon EOS late in life because his eyesight was weakening and auto-focus became an asset to him.

 

According to Wikipedia, Kertesz passed away in 1985, so that would be before the Canon Eos system was introduced in 1987. Wikipedia mentions that he experimented with the Polaroid SX-70 and that camera did have autofocus as of its introduction in 1978.

[michael friedberg]

According to Wikipedia, Kertesz passed away in 1985, so that would be before the Canon Eos system was introduced in 1987. Wikipedia mentions that he experimented with the Polaroid SX-70 and that camera did have autofocus as of its introduction in 1978.

 

Yes, he published a book of SX-70 photos ":From My Window" if I recall the exact title, which was a tribute to his deceased wife and while he was mostly housebound (I have a copy inscribed to me). If I recall my meeting with Kertesz was arund 1982; it actually was a dinner (and not a lunch) arranged by a dealer after a Kertesz show.

 

But to me the issue is not what someone used, but rather that he believed that different cameras all could produce could excellent images in the hands of a skilled photographer. The camera has some role, sure, but might not even be secondary. One well-known British curator said that Kertesz could take a line for a sprint" --and that skill wasn't equipment dependent.

[hankg]

A camera can't make you more talented or a better photographer but having to use one you are uncomfortable with can certainly get in the way.

[sean_reid]

According to Wikipedia, Kertesz passed away in 1985, so that would be before the Canon Eos system was introduced in 1987. Wikipedia mentions that he experimented with the Polaroid SX-70 and that camera did have autofocus as of its introduction in 1978.

 

I'll talk to my friend and find out, I must have remembered something incorrectly.

 

Thanks,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[doug_m]

The New Yorker article is really excellent even if it is not absolutely perfect. Its hard to take those on this thread who think otherwise seriously.