EVF M rumoured

[Smogg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I would say it's closer to 400 out of 500 'good' shots. Where their superpowers lies is in 3-4 of them being truly amazing photos - and the ability to edit what they've taken down to those. 

I have heard more than once in interviews or films that they are happy to take 40-50 good photographs in a year. 400-500 is a good result for the whole career

Edited February 19 by Smogg

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

1 hour ago, Smogg said:

I have heard more than once in interviews or films that they are happy to take 40-50 good photographs in a year. 400-500 is a good result for the whole career

The Magnum Contact Sheets appears to support this view.

[Derbyshire Man]

What's more, pro's don't typically edited their own photo's, that's what photo editors are for!

[Smogg]

31 minutes ago, Derbyshire Man said:

What's more, pro's don't typically edited their own photo's, that's what photo editors are for!

I would differentiate between pro’s and famous photographers. Professionals are first and foremost good craftsmen. Like a good shoemaker who makes shoes using someone else's patterns. Anyone who shoots weddings for money is considered a pro. Not everyone does it well and very few whose work is of interest to art.

[Derbyshire Man]

5 minutes ago, Smogg said:

I would differentiate between pro’s and famous photographers. Professionals are first and foremost good craftsmen. Like a good shoemaker who makes shoes using someone else's patterns. Anyone who shoots weddings for money is considered a pro. Not everyone does it well and very few whose work is of interest to art.

Agree, I was referring to Magnum style photographers/news smudgers rather than wedding/headshot/highstreet/parties etc.

[Jon Warwick]

2 hours ago, Smogg said:

I have heard more than once in interviews or films that they are happy to take 40-50 good photographs in a year. 400-500 is a good result for the whole career

As a non-related (non-Magnum) example, Avedon - for his multi-year and very famous American West project - shot c 17,000 sheets of B&W 8x10, and curated it down to just over 100 final images (and apparently destroyed the rest of the negatives). Now that’s hard work and control over a legacy, IMHO.

Edited February 19 by Jon Warwick

[Derbyshire Man]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Jon Warwick said:

As a non-related (non-Magnum) example, Avedon - for his multi-year and very famous American West project - shot c 17,000 sheets of B&W 8x10, and curated it down to just over 100 final images (and apparently destroyed the rest of the negatives). Now that’s hard work and control over a legacy, IMHO.

Interesting in the book On Being A Photographer it was suggested that the last person who should be editing photographs on projects like that was the photographer and that images shouldn't be destroyed as it is impossible to know the importance of many of them until looking back from the distant future.

[pgk]

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, we must charitably assume that they are Magnum photographers for a reason. 😉

The world changes, as we are seeing. The outlets for photography have and are changing. I just don't see any work from Magnum except occasionally in photo related stuff.

[pgh]

1 hour ago, Derbyshire Man said:

What's more, pro's don't typically edited their own photo's, that's what photo editors are for!

A typical editorial photo editor will assign a shoot and choose what is published only after the photographer has submitted a narrowed selection of what they produced. The better the photographer is at editing their own work, the better the photo editor looks. But yea, we absolutely do edit our own photos. 

[pgh]

With regards to an EVF M, the question I have to ask is why? What problem does it solve that an SL doesn’t? 

I will keep an open mind, but manually focusing on mirrorless is generally an inferior and slower experience to using the M rangefinders - a major point of using an M other than the IQ / Size ratio. But you’ll likely pay more money to not be able to use AF lenses.

If they can somehow make a fantastic focusing experience that is not slower than the RF, I could be interested. However, I really just don’t love looking at screens anymore than I have to. And if they’re going to make some new tech like this for old lenses, it better have IBIS. 

If not, there’s no reason not to just use an SL - which takes M lenses nicely, and in practical terms, esp carried in a bag is only negligible in its size and weight difference. If no IBIS than I wonder if what they are making is likely a differently shaped but worse SL variant. 

[adan]

2 hours ago, pgh said:

With regards to an EVF M, the question I have to ask is why? What problem does it solve that an SL doesn’t?

As a semi-neutral observer, I expect the rational responses will be to use M lenses (of any vintage and "look") without:

1. the SL camera size, form-factor and weight compared to "M-sized"

2. the requirement for an M-SL lens adapter

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

As a non-related (non-Magnum) example, Avedon - for his multi-year and very famous American West project - shot c 17,000 sheets of B&W 8x10, and curated it down to just over 100 final images (and apparently destroyed the rest of the negatives). Now that’s hard work and control over a legacy, IMHO.

Robert Frank exposed 767 rolls of film through his Leica over 9 months, and published 83 images in The Americans.

[jakontil]

M with EVF is the more budget line to the RF

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Robert Frank exposed 767 rolls of film through his Leica over 9 months, and published 83 images in The Americans.

With digital, the photographer tends to shoot more than with film, but digital does not increase the number of excellent shots. So, the ratio is even worse.

For some photographers, the ratio of the number of shots made to the number of excellent shots is infinity :).

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

With digital, the photographer tends to shoot more than with film, but digital does not increase the number of excellent shots. So, the ratio is even worse.

For some photographers, the ratio of the number of shots made to the number of excellent shots is infinity :).

Perhaps. The quality ratio doesn’t seem to have kept pace with the explosion of digital photography. 

But I don’t think that’s the point. Would Robert Frank have taken more images if he had a digital camera?

Somehow, I doubt it.
 

[Chris W]

For me there is a confusion here between firing off multiple shots of a subject and shooting a lot of pictures in a day.

The contact sheets I've seen usually only have five or six shots of a subject, sometimes only one or two. The skill of the pro-photographer is seeing the moment, then taking the shot. It isn't firing off a blizzard of shots and hoping to see something good back at the computer. They also see a great location and stand around for hours waiting for a good subject to appear. Some classic shots were created when the photographer kept going back to the same location for several weeks until the perfect subject appeared.

I do know a few professional photographers and photo journalists. The days of press photo editors are basically over. Not many people are commissioned and even fewer just hand over hundreds of raw images for someone else to deal with.

A lot of photographers work for their agency, then when a great image comes in the agency shops it around the news organisations. Everyone I know edits and processes their own images, just hours after shooting them. They'll send the best 12 - 20 images (completely processed) off to their agency or directly to a magazine or news editor IF there is one.

[Chris W]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Robert Frank exposed 767 rolls of film through his Leica over 9 months, and published 83 images in The Americans.

Yes, he had his camera in his hand for many hours every day and shot hundreds of different scenes and subjects. It's not about taking dozens of shots of the same subject the way most digital amateurs do.

[pgk]

9 minutes ago, Chris W said:

The skill of the pro-photographer is seeing the moment, then taking the shot.

It only takes a few moments to look at a news website and realise that today the 'skill' of photography has been replaced by the reality of 'being there'. Many poor images are now used simply because they are actual records of a newsworthy event taken by people involved or close by, or by CCTV. As with many genres of photography, the role of the photojournalist is changing (or has changed). Most of the comments here relate to times gone by. I used to do newspaper work at one time, never well paid and often recording locations and people in the news rather than events (of which there were some). Things shifted, I found other niches more to my liking and stopped shooting as a freelance news photographer. As with most aspects of professional photography today, its not a career I would advise for anyone other than the absolutely driven to take up. Of those that do such work today, I doubt any are interested in an evfM.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Smogg]

25 minutes ago, pgk said:

It only takes a few moments to look at a news website and realise that today the 'skill' of photography has been replaced by the reality of 'being there'. Many poor images are now used simply because they are actual records of a newsworthy event taken by people involved or close by, or by CCTV. As with many genres of photography, the role of the photojournalist is changing (or has changed). Most of the comments here relate to times gone by. I used to do newspaper work at one time, never well paid and often recording locations and people in the news rather than events (of which there were some). Things shifted, I found other niches more to my liking and stopped shooting as a freelance news photographer. As with most aspects of professional photography today, its not a career I would advise for anyone other than the absolutely driven to take up. Of those that do such work today, I doubt any are interested in an evfM.

As I imagine (and I may be wrong), the EVF-M is aimed primarily at enthusiasts who shoot wide open and those who like to explore the aberrations of older lenses.

[UliWer]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb adan:

As a semi-neutral observer, I expect the rational responses will be to use M lenses (of any vintage and "look") without:

1. the SL camera size, form-factor and weight compared to "M-sized"

2. the requirement for an M-SL lens adapter

As one might even be able to use M lenses with an M camera with optical viewfinder, the rational response narrows down to lenses which are better used with an EVF. For me these are only lenses with focal lengthes of 50mm or longer and an extremely narrow depth of focus. As these lenses are rather or very large the form-factor of an M compared to an SL becomes less important.