Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Why do you own a digital M Leica?  (Voting closed: October 30, 2011, 07:03:58 AM)
Because I prefer shooting with a rangefinder. - 9 (45%)
Because I want to use Leica and other M lenses. - 11 (55%)
Total Voters: 20

Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?  (Read 69750 times)
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643



WWW
« Reply #180 on: May 20, 2013, 02:21:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund,

If I was shooting mostly for pleasure and did walk around photography like you, the OMD would be my first choice.

BC


James,

 I will look at it; at least carrying an OMD is feasible. What I like about the "big" bodies is that when a situation is accidentally good, you can flash-freeze it, then crop and postprocess it to death.

 I think in walkaround, as in sports, the body is as important as the lens if you are the type that catches the moment.

 I remember coming on a roller skater doing backflips, and caught him upside down in mid-air with the 1Ds at a second's warning, no effort,  and the print got hung in a gallery window, bought within the week.

 Speed is also really useful in improvised portraits - there is sort of a fifth of a second where people have a spontaneous expression, then they present a different, composed visage.
 
Edmund
 
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 02:37:24 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 993


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #181 on: May 21, 2013, 04:52:11 AM »
ReplyReply

James,

 I will look at it; at least carrying an OMD is feasible. What I like about the "big" bodies is that when a situation is accidentally good, you can flash-freeze it, then crop and postprocess it to death.

 I think in walkaround, as in sports, the body is as important as the lens if you are the type that catches the moment.

 I remember coming on a roller skater doing backflips, and caught him upside down in mid-air with the 1Ds at a second's warning, no effort,  and the print got hung in a gallery window, bought within the week.

 Speed is also really useful in improvised portraits - there is sort of a fifth of a second where people have a spontaneous expression, then they present a different, composed visage.
 
Edmund
 


Edmund,

As I mentioned the GH3 is better at focus at shoots at something like 15 to 20 fps, full rez.  I don't think you'd miss much.

The only issue is the camera is kind of like a 10% smaller 5d with a better build quality and they have two f 2.8 zooms that cover an effective 24mm to 200mm.

Two small lenses, one camera, that covers a lot of territory.

If your good at post, and are careful with the files I think you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between a 4-3 file and almost any sub 20 mpx camera.

Still, for sheer enjoyment, I'd go with the omd.

The omd is a walther ppk, the gh3 a glock 27.  (sorry for the evil gun comparison)

With the Leica mount you could find some very interesting older lenses and produce some very interesting imagery.

IMO

BC
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #182 on: May 21, 2013, 02:42:15 PM »
ReplyReply


Edmund,

With the Leica mount you could find some very interesting older lenses and produce some very interesting imagery.

IMO

BC


Saw this programme on tv; very interesting tale about a Leica fan with penchant for older lenses.

http://banyak.co.uk/#/james-ravilious/

Rob C
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643



WWW
« Reply #183 on: May 21, 2013, 05:26:47 PM »
ReplyReply


Saw this programme on tv; very interesting tale about a Leica fan with penchant for older lenses.

http://banyak.co.uk/#/james-ravilious/

Rob C

Incredible trailer. What is interesting is the way they manage to match the B&W shots with their contemporary film - point a decent cinematographer at something and he can do it.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 993


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #184 on: May 22, 2013, 02:11:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Incredible trailer. What is interesting is the way they manage to match the B&W shots with their contemporary film - point a decent cinematographer at something and he can do it.

Edmund

This is such beautiful work and shows me how important a story is to a photograph, moving or still.

I don't mean the voice over, i mean every still image has a story.

We all go on about cameras and detail and . . .   though we all know cameras don't make the photograph, but something small and personal like a leica always seems to to somehow force it's personality on the photographer.

IMO

BC

Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #185 on: May 23, 2013, 08:54:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Incredible trailer. What is interesting is the way they manage to match the B&W shots with their contemporary film - point a decent cinematographer at something and he can do it.

Edmund



For quite some time I have been convinced that cine guys do landscape better.Yes, I accept that the budgets are usually far higher, and that air shots are often used, presenting a paradigm that's usually far more exciting than what's visible from the ground. But I think it's deeper: I think it's probably much to do with BC's point about telling a story: it's what movie folks do and most of us still folks don't really consider - we tend to go for the beauty shot. At least, if I do anything, I do that.

The entire film is really gripping, and his widow, Robin, comes over as a very kind and good lady. Support from a spouse is so invaluable  in life, especially for the lone wolf worker: emotional security back at the ranch is beyond price.

Rob C
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643



WWW
« Reply #186 on: May 23, 2013, 04:07:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob,

 I think you may be right, the cine guys may just be better at it - maybe playing a story in one's head, and then summing it up in a shot may help, but I guess it's no alternative to filming, filming, filming and then cutting.

Edmund



For quite some time I have been convinced that cine guys do landscape better.Yes, I accept that the budgets are usually far higher, and that air shots are often used, presenting a paradigm that's usually far more exciting than what's visible from the ground. But I think it's deeper: I think it's probably much to do with BC's point about telling a story: it's what movie folks do and most of us still folks don't really consider - we tend to go for the beauty shot. At least, if I do anything, I do that.

The entire film is really gripping, and his widow, Robin, comes over as a very kind and good lady. Support from a spouse is so invaluable  in life, especially for the lone wolf worker: emotional security back at the ranch is beyond price.

Rob C
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 993


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #187 on: May 29, 2013, 02:52:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund,

I think your looking at this in a traditional way.

In fact maybe your not, because this off link is a documentary about a still photographer, that is more than a traditional documentary, it's a multimedia show, because it features a still photographer.

Now take this up double speed and that's the present.

That's what we do now . . . multimedia, video, stills, both, it doesn't matter, other than creative content needs to tell a story.

The days of  . . . "that's a pretty picture" are fading fast, not that what is shot can't be pretty, but it has to be interesting.

That's why my latest camera is a Panasonic.  cough, choke, wheeze.

It's the last brand I ever thought I'd buy, but the GH3 is a multimedia camera.  Horizontal, vertical, 4:3, 16x9, art filters, stabilized video and stills, it's a camera for it's time.

I'm not in love with the camera, I'm in love with what it does.

The world's changed, really, really changed and whether it's one of those crappy repeating gifs, or a real story telling multi media piece, what commercial clients, or even amateur blogists want to see is something that is more than that one photo, regardless of how beautiful.

Look at Leica's next new M.  It won't even have a traditional viewfinder.

For someone like you, that shoots for enjoyment, you should look at some of these new mirror less cameras.

In fact if I want to find interesting, inspiring content, I don't look at traditional websites or portals.  I look at tumblr.

My camera of the future?  I don't know, probably a camera that shoots a real 4:2:2: 12 bit video, a 18 to 20 mpx stills, fast, really fast zoom lenses and electronic finders that wi-fi.

Lighting, needs to be adaptable, but moveable.   Not huge 40lb strobe packs, but Lightpanels that work off of v-locks. 

IMO

BC



  

« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 02:55:39 PM by bcooter » Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643



WWW
« Reply #188 on: May 29, 2013, 05:40:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund,

I think your looking at this in a traditional way.

In fact maybe your not, because this off link is a documentary about a still photographer, that is more than a traditional documentary, it's a multimedia show, because it features a still photographer.

Now take this up double speed and that's the present.

That's what we do now . . . multimedia, video, stills, both, it doesn't matter, other than creative content needs to tell a story.

The days of  . . . "that's a pretty picture" are fading fast, not that what is shot can't be pretty, but it has to be interesting.

That's why my latest camera is a Panasonic.  cough, choke, wheeze.

It's the last brand I ever thought I'd buy, but the GH3 is a multimedia camera.  Horizontal, vertical, 4:3, 16x9, art filters, stabilized video and stills, it's a camera for it's time.

I'm not in love with the camera, I'm in love with what it does.

The world's changed, really, really changed and whether it's one of those crappy repeating gifs, or a real story telling multi media piece, what commercial clients, or even amateur blogists want to see is something that is more than that one photo, regardless of how beautiful.

Look at Leica's next new M.  It won't even have a traditional viewfinder.

For someone like you, that shoots for enjoyment, you should look at some of these new mirror less cameras.

In fact if I want to find interesting, inspiring content, I don't look at traditional websites or portals.  I look at tumblr.

My camera of the future?  I don't know, probably a camera that shoots a real 4:2:2: 12 bit video, a 18 to 20 mpx stills, fast, really fast zoom lenses and electronic finders that wi-fi.

Lighting, needs to be adaptable, but moveable.   Not huge 40lb strobe packs, but Lightpanels that work off of v-locks.  

IMO

BC


James,

 I did training in video as an elective when I was at university; I have great respect for this discipline. I was the guy behind the camera in our street projects - but I think you guessed that already.
 However, what I like about still photography is that I can do it all alone. At one time I had to negotiate with a stylist, makeup, model, accessories, etc, but I was never good at that, and it's over. Now I can just hang a camera inside my coat, stuff a lens in a pocket, and walk. The moving picture is harder, one needs meticulous preparation and one cannot go it alone. And worse, how can one display it alone other than youtube?
 If I wanted to do movies, I think I would draw flipboard animations and do stop-animation photography, but I don't feel any real artistic need to *capture* moving images ... see, I'm old Smiley

Edmund
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 05:45:13 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Zerui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #189 on: May 30, 2013, 02:06:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I have owned an M8, upgraded to M9 and hope to upgrade to M next week. I have four lenses: 21mm, 35mm, 50mm & 90mm. 

I never use the 35mm. I know it was THE street lens in the days of film, but the 21mm offers so much more. It is a fabulous lens. The high resolution if the M9 allows cropping to the size of the 35mm with plenty of detail when needed. I'm selling my 35mm as an anachronism in the 21st century.

Why did I switch to Leica rangefinder after forty years of SLR (Nikon F to Nikon D3)?  Largely because I was getting older and using a wheelchair. I continue to do street and travel photography (three books last year) but the DSLR is nowadays too cumbersome. My wife has inherited the D3 and loves it.

On the other hand, I continue to use a Hasselblad for landscapes (specifically for landscapes with people, which is my passion). I have been using Hasselblad since 1968, and now have an H3DII-50 which I find ideal for my Landscapes with people. When going digital I looked at Phase One but found the body awful and the sales staff worse. Hasselblad UK provided one of their own staff to talk me through the system during photo shoots in the field on two separate days. They have kept up that level of excellent support ever since. The Hasselblad camera AND lenses are excellent.  But, excuse me Michael, you were asking about the Leica.

To answer your question: when I downsized from DSLR to mirrorless, I chose Leica for the lenses.  I was not enthusiastic about the rangefinder, but it works OK for all but the 90mm lens.  I'm hoping that focus peaking on the M will solve that problem. Meanwhile I have to stop down to f/8 when using the 90mm lens, which takes away one of the great advantages of Leica lenses: shooting with wide aperture for beautiful Bokeh.

Put me down as choosing Leica for the lenses, and tolerating the rangefinder.

Goff
Logged
mmbma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #190 on: September 05, 2013, 03:03:32 PM »
ReplyReply

The 24mm lux has been THE lens for me. I always found 35mm focal length a bit akward, and the 21mm too wide to compose properly on the fly.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643



WWW
« Reply #191 on: September 10, 2013, 07:36:20 AM »
ReplyReply

So, what are your experiences after the upgrade?

Edmund

I have owned an M8, upgraded to M9 and hope to upgrade to M next week. I have four lenses: 21mm, 35mm, 50mm & 90mm. 

I never use the 35mm. I know it was THE street lens in the days of film, but the 21mm offers so much more. It is a fabulous lens. The high resolution if the M9 allows cropping to the size of the 35mm with plenty of detail when needed. I'm selling my 35mm as an anachronism in the 21st century.

Why did I switch to Leica rangefinder after forty years of SLR (Nikon F to Nikon D3)?  Largely because I was getting older and using a wheelchair. I continue to do street and travel photography (three books last year) but the DSLR is nowadays too cumbersome. My wife has inherited the D3 and loves it.

On the other hand, I continue to use a Hasselblad for landscapes (specifically for landscapes with people, which is my passion). I have been using Hasselblad since 1968, and now have an H3DII-50 which I find ideal for my Landscapes with people. When going digital I looked at Phase One but found the body awful and the sales staff worse. Hasselblad UK provided one of their own staff to talk me through the system during photo shoots in the field on two separate days. They have kept up that level of excellent support ever since. The Hasselblad camera AND lenses are excellent.  But, excuse me Michael, you were asking about the Leica.

To answer your question: when I downsized from DSLR to mirrorless, I chose Leica for the lenses.  I was not enthusiastic about the rangefinder, but it works OK for all but the 90mm lens.  I'm hoping that focus peaking on the M will solve that problem. Meanwhile I have to stop down to f/8 when using the 90mm lens, which takes away one of the great advantages of Leica lenses: shooting with wide aperture for beautiful Bokeh.

Put me down as choosing Leica for the lenses, and tolerating the rangefinder.

Goff
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
vaphoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


WWW
« Reply #192 on: November 03, 2013, 12:26:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I used Nikon's with everything from macro to long telephoto for years. In 2009 when Leica announced the full frame M9 I knew it was time to switch systems. I had been looking for sometime for a high quality smaller, lighter and gadget free system. The reasons were many but primarily IQ, lenses, size and simplicity. Today I have both the M9 and M with 4-Lieca lenses and 1-Zeiss lens. This change required me to shift from lots of wildlife and bird photography, but still allowed me to do my landscape work. At the same time I added more urban, street and people photography. I feel I am a better photographer now because I am in control and I know what the camera is and is not doing. As an example of simplicity, if I reset the Leica M9 to the default settings I can completely customize it in less than 10-minuets without the manual. Try that with any DSLR or ever MFT. I am also having more fun and carrying a lot less weight.
Bob
Logged

Bob
vaphoto
wlemann
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


« Reply #193 on: February 11, 2014, 10:46:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Got my first M4 (used from Ken Hansen) along with used 35 and 90 lenses.  Then M6 + other lenses.  Leica contacts made an F4  I got on a lark look like the latter were shot through cheesecloth.
BUT about 2 years ago got M9 and could not focus at all!.  Problem was me....now 60 year old eyes, one with cataract, not made for rangefinder anymore... Cry
Logged
jankap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #194 on: March 06, 2014, 12:30:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Change lenses! In your eyes to heal your cataract!
I haves used specs for 60 years of my life, now I am free of them.
Jan
Logged
barnack
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #195 on: April 14, 2014, 11:12:54 PM »
ReplyReply

A Poll For Those Owning a Leica M8 or M9 Only

I'm working on an article on the future of rangefinder cameras. I have my own ideas, but I am therefore curious as to what you think.

If you own (or have owned) an M8 or M9, I'd like to know whether this is primarily because you like shooting with a rangefinder / viewfinder style camera, or because you want to be able to use Leica M lenses (including Voigtlander and Zeiss).

While I do not fit the strict criteria of your questions, I will offer you my thoughts in the hope that this information will be of benefit to your article.

I do not/have not owned an M8 or M9.  I do own an M4-P and four Leica M lenses and recently was extremely fortunate in acquiring a Leica M 240 body - after much deliberation and the trading off of hard-won Nikon equipment that I have acquired over the past two decades.  

I cannot say that ultimately it comes down to either the cameras or the lenses; the reason I am drawn to Leica M gear is both the cameras and the lenses - and the benefits offered by both.  

The Leica M advantages have been well documented by legions of Leica users over the past decades.  Among those advantages are the small size and light weight of both the cameras and lenses, the simplicity of the gear, the ease of operation of the cameras and lenses, the unobtrusiveness of the M cameras, the nearly silent operation of the cameras (particularly the older film bodies), the fast glass  and outstanding low light performance of the lenses, the astounding image quality produced by Leica M glass, the quality, durability and reliability of both M cameras and lenses and the shallow depth of focus performance of the lenses.  

Taken together, the strengths of the Leica M system are greater than the sum of its parts.  For travel, documentary, street and reportage photography, one would be hard pressed to find a system that comes close to the M system in terms of simplicity, functionality, performance and reliability.  

The M system is not for everyone, though.  Whatever their reasons, some people just simply cannot abide a rangefinder camera; they are too different from what many are accustomed to using.  For some, rangefinder cameras are just flat out weird.  For some, the maximum focal length of 135mm is too short (but the M 240 is capable of using long Leica R glass, at least partially negating that issue).  

For wildlife and sports photographers, the 600mm f/4 autofocus lens is a must have.  For macro photography, Nikon's 200mm f/4 micro lens that is capable of 1:1 image making is second to none in the field of macro photography.  Macro and super telephoto are two of the few weaknesses of the M system.  If you have to have either, a Leica M is admittedly not the best choice for your needs.

To each his or her own; but when you look at the strengths of the Leica M system as a whole, those strengths are compelling.  For some, they are irresistable.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 11:19:04 PM by barnack » Logged

'Shooting with a Leica is like a long tender kiss, like firing an automatic pistol, like an hour on the analyst’s couch."             - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad