What's so great about Leica? Newbie here.
- Thread starter TrailsofLife
- Start date
- Status
Voigtlander
New Member
I do not want to start a holy war here on the Leica vs Other Rangefinders issue but the below exerpt from www.dantestella.com is illuminating on the mentality of most Leica users. I do not dispute that Leica is an excellent rangefinder with a great heritage and I would definitely buy one if I could afford it. But what is important about photography is the photographer. All the Leicas in the world could not make a bad photographer take good photos. A friend of mine from another forum remarked to me: 'Peter have you noticed something? Most Leica photographers on the forum extolled its virtues but seldom post their work!'. In my humble opinion, photography equipment fetish is akin to masturbation, unproductive and potentially harmful to ones physical and mental health! ;p
Leica users are too emotionally invested in their equipment to believe that anything could be better. Leicas are expensive pieces of hardware. Although some pros use them, the market is has a fair number of other professionals and everyday people who feel like they have worked themselves silly, have been dreaming about Leicas for years, and want some leisure. They lack the time, training or inclination to muck around with testing, and they want to buy something that they can be confident will take the best possible pictures. The whole point for them of buying a Leica is that there is nothing better.
Leica users are too emotionally invested in their equipment to believe that anything could be better. Leicas are expensive pieces of hardware. Although some pros use them, the market is has a fair number of other professionals and everyday people who feel like they have worked themselves silly, have been dreaming about Leicas for years, and want some leisure. They lack the time, training or inclination to muck around with testing, and they want to buy something that they can be confident will take the best possible pictures. The whole point for them of buying a Leica is that there is nothing better.
This all sounds rather patronizing doesn't it?waileong said:
To start off, the canon P was the first 1:1 VF although i'll concede that it wasn't an M-mount. But it was leica mount nonetheless.
The leica being the last of the jedi is hardly through. If nothing, 35mm RF is making a revival with cosina, rollei and now zeiss introducing their own varients. So it is definitely not the last around. As for the leica being a more elegent weapon from a more civilized time, isn't that rather odd? We are currently at the peak of civilization, and the leica being from the past would hardly have come from a more civilized time then now could it? On the other hand, are you then trying to say that mordern day leicas (m6, m7, mp) are not as elegent since they arguably come from our time and not the past? The designs (mechanical) sure as hell aren't old even if the outlook is.
In a world of disposable plastic digital cameras? Well for the same amount of money forked out on a M body, one can today buy a few, full metal, full manual SLRs. And nikon and canon are still making metal bodied cameras. In fact, if leicas are to be deemed as professional eqt, and is then compared against professional eqpt, it is only following the norm and making it metal.
Contrast, saturation, flare, bokeh? The first two can be tweaked and is highly dependent on the film you use to start with. Flare and bokeh? Note that SLR lenses today are probably less flare prone then RF lenses, even the latest ones. Bokeh can be achieved using some of the better lenses. Just as how not every leica lens has good bokeh, not every non-leica lens has bad bokeh (85, f1.2L, 85, f1.4Zeiss,etc)
The other thing that makes leica great is its history? Well it might make leica famous, but hardly great. For the record, there were as many famous photogs who used contax rf, and nikon slrs from history. Heck, the nikons have made it to space and back so many times, Capa used a contax, HCB used a zeiss 50mm mounted on a leica. It was more a case of professionals of that time using the best that they had available cos SLRs then were not as well made. Can't be said the same now. Besides, a good history does not gurantee good photos.
i own a leica. Why i bought it? God knows. has my photography improved, no way in hell. Is it nice, yes. Cos i like how quiet it is. I'm still considering a compact digital to replace it though. Noise is everything to me. But thats just me.
I previously owned a M4-P with the 50mm summicron and 35mm summicron ASPH lenses. Leicas are definitely nice cameras. You get the remarkable build quality and the resale price is always good. You also enjoy all the advantages of RFs (see beyond framelines, quiet shutter).
But all the hoohah about image quality - overhyped. Good but by no means the clear winner. And isn't that what counts in the end?
But all the hoohah about image quality - overhyped. Good but by no means the clear winner. And isn't that what counts in the end?
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
Guys, don't fight :nono: . Ha ha.
Waileong, I like your 'light saber' metaphor, it does make thing easier to understand. The truth is most prefer to use guns, because it shortened the steps to get to the 'kill'. But definitely, 'fighting' with a laser sword is more stylo.
Szekiat, I agree with you, I go for tools that make my hobby more enjoyable and help me shoot with ease, so I can just concentrate on what to shoot, and not busy fiddling with light meter, buttons and switches. :thumbsup:
Nonetheless, both of you does makes thing pretty clear for me, just two different discipline of photographers,
Cheers!
Max 2.8
Waileong, I like your 'light saber' metaphor, it does make thing easier to understand. The truth is most prefer to use guns, because it shortened the steps to get to the 'kill'. But definitely, 'fighting' with a laser sword is more stylo.
Szekiat, I agree with you, I go for tools that make my hobby more enjoyable and help me shoot with ease, so I can just concentrate on what to shoot, and not busy fiddling with light meter, buttons and switches. :thumbsup:
Nonetheless, both of you does makes thing pretty clear for me, just two different discipline of photographers,
Cheers!
Max 2.8
I have been to Dante Stella's website many times and really like his views, eg. on "Digital, maybe later", "The Guerilla Darkroom", "The myth of mechanical cameras", etc.
However, in this case, I think I have to respectfully disagree with him.
Saying that the photographer determines the quality of the picture is stating the obvious. Few people who buy a Leica believe that it will automatically improve their photography. We know we are buying a very good camera, but not a magic camera.
Where I disagree with Stella is that the quality of the photo not only determined by the photographer, but by the weakest link in the entire chain. Sure, the photographer determines composition, exposure and sharpness, but the quality of the final output depends on the type of film, the lab, the freshness of the chemistry, your darkroom skill, the enlarger/lens, the paper you use, etc. So if a Leica user has uninteresting composition, don't blame the camera. If he has interesting composition but lousy prints, don't blame the camera either.
So if buying a Leica does not automatically guarantee better pix, why spend $$$? The answer is that, because it is a good camera, and those who fork out the money believe it's worth it (at least, at the time of purchase). Most of them know how to use such a camera and/or are looking to improve their photography and the M system helps them return to the basics and frees them to impose their own creativity.
Are Leica users too emotionally involved to believe that their lenses are not the best in every category? While it may be true of some, I don't think it's true of most. Remember that most of these people have gone thru various systems-- SLRs and DSLR's-- before choosing Leica. Some of them use Canon/Nikon for paid work and Leica's for personal work. They know quality when they see it.
As Stella pointed out, most lenses today are so good there's really microscopic differences when stopped down to f8 or so. However, head to head, I don't think Leica will lose out in any optical bench test against any other manufacturer when shot wide open. And wide open is where the Leica excels, for low light photography.
Why don't Leica users post their work? First, they do post a lot of pixs-- just visit photo.net Leica forum for the W/NW sections. Second, and more fundamental-- tiny images on the web is no way to judge the quality of a picture. As Michael Reichmann (pro Canon DSLR user of Luminous Landscape fame) says, you can only judge the quality of a pix through a large enough enlargement (at least 11x16) or through projected slides.
Third-- and it's a pet peeve of Leica owners all the world over-- whenever pixs taken with Leicas are posted, a smartaleck will inevitably comment that this pix could have been taken with an SLR/DSLR. What they mean, of course, is why pay so much more for a Leica when the pix does not show any difference. Notwithstanding that it's impossible to see the true quality of a pix via a small web image, whether the pix could have been taken by an SLR depends on the both the aperture/shutter speed used and the circumstances surrounding the pix.
Do you have 35/1.4 or 50/1.0 or 90/2.0 or your SLR? Can you handhold an SLR at 1/8 and still obtain sharp results? Can you take the pix quietly, without disturbing the subjects with the loud SLR noises and/or flash?
Would you even be carrying an SLR in the first place? I can fit my M4 + 28, 50 and 90 lenses in a fanny pack and carry it all over the place, but you can't carry your 20D + 28-70L + 100/2.8 lenses without a camera bag. Your setup is also heavier too. So the chance of you not having your SLR when the pix opportunity arises is greater.
With these in mind, it's hard to say that any pix could always have been taken with an SLR. At best, it's a hypothetical/theoretical assertion.
The implied criticism that the Leica picture is no better than the same picture taken with an SLR is harder to prove (since it's usually impossible to take the exact picture again with an SLR). And as mentioned, there's many points in the chain from camera to print which determine the quality of the final output.
Ultimately, as you pointed out, most Leica users know that their work represents their quality as photographers, not the quality of their camera. So posting good work does not mean that Leica is a good camera. Posting bad work should also not mean that Leica is a bad camera. If so, there would seem no point in posting work, when it doesn't help answer the critics of Leica cameras.
Lastly, is Leica better than Voigtlander? Of course. The build quality is much better--no pretensions there because Bessas are selling at US$599 compared to $2,500 for the M7. Is the M7 4x better than a R3a? Of course not. Then is it worth it? That's up to you. What we can say is that quality costs a lot, and the last 5% of quality costs a hell of a lot. The world is full of examples-- Bally shoes cost 5-10x more than Hush Puppies, Patek Philippe watches can cost 20-100x more than Seikos. If it's worth it to you, then you'll gladly pay for it.
However, in this case, I think I have to respectfully disagree with him.
Saying that the photographer determines the quality of the picture is stating the obvious. Few people who buy a Leica believe that it will automatically improve their photography. We know we are buying a very good camera, but not a magic camera.
Where I disagree with Stella is that the quality of the photo not only determined by the photographer, but by the weakest link in the entire chain. Sure, the photographer determines composition, exposure and sharpness, but the quality of the final output depends on the type of film, the lab, the freshness of the chemistry, your darkroom skill, the enlarger/lens, the paper you use, etc. So if a Leica user has uninteresting composition, don't blame the camera. If he has interesting composition but lousy prints, don't blame the camera either.
So if buying a Leica does not automatically guarantee better pix, why spend $$$? The answer is that, because it is a good camera, and those who fork out the money believe it's worth it (at least, at the time of purchase). Most of them know how to use such a camera and/or are looking to improve their photography and the M system helps them return to the basics and frees them to impose their own creativity.
Are Leica users too emotionally involved to believe that their lenses are not the best in every category? While it may be true of some, I don't think it's true of most. Remember that most of these people have gone thru various systems-- SLRs and DSLR's-- before choosing Leica. Some of them use Canon/Nikon for paid work and Leica's for personal work. They know quality when they see it.
As Stella pointed out, most lenses today are so good there's really microscopic differences when stopped down to f8 or so. However, head to head, I don't think Leica will lose out in any optical bench test against any other manufacturer when shot wide open. And wide open is where the Leica excels, for low light photography.
Why don't Leica users post their work? First, they do post a lot of pixs-- just visit photo.net Leica forum for the W/NW sections. Second, and more fundamental-- tiny images on the web is no way to judge the quality of a picture. As Michael Reichmann (pro Canon DSLR user of Luminous Landscape fame) says, you can only judge the quality of a pix through a large enough enlargement (at least 11x16) or through projected slides.
Third-- and it's a pet peeve of Leica owners all the world over-- whenever pixs taken with Leicas are posted, a smartaleck will inevitably comment that this pix could have been taken with an SLR/DSLR. What they mean, of course, is why pay so much more for a Leica when the pix does not show any difference. Notwithstanding that it's impossible to see the true quality of a pix via a small web image, whether the pix could have been taken by an SLR depends on the both the aperture/shutter speed used and the circumstances surrounding the pix.
Do you have 35/1.4 or 50/1.0 or 90/2.0 or your SLR? Can you handhold an SLR at 1/8 and still obtain sharp results? Can you take the pix quietly, without disturbing the subjects with the loud SLR noises and/or flash?
Would you even be carrying an SLR in the first place? I can fit my M4 + 28, 50 and 90 lenses in a fanny pack and carry it all over the place, but you can't carry your 20D + 28-70L + 100/2.8 lenses without a camera bag. Your setup is also heavier too. So the chance of you not having your SLR when the pix opportunity arises is greater.
With these in mind, it's hard to say that any pix could always have been taken with an SLR. At best, it's a hypothetical/theoretical assertion.
The implied criticism that the Leica picture is no better than the same picture taken with an SLR is harder to prove (since it's usually impossible to take the exact picture again with an SLR). And as mentioned, there's many points in the chain from camera to print which determine the quality of the final output.
Ultimately, as you pointed out, most Leica users know that their work represents their quality as photographers, not the quality of their camera. So posting good work does not mean that Leica is a good camera. Posting bad work should also not mean that Leica is a bad camera. If so, there would seem no point in posting work, when it doesn't help answer the critics of Leica cameras.
Lastly, is Leica better than Voigtlander? Of course. The build quality is much better--no pretensions there because Bessas are selling at US$599 compared to $2,500 for the M7. Is the M7 4x better than a R3a? Of course not. Then is it worth it? That's up to you. What we can say is that quality costs a lot, and the last 5% of quality costs a hell of a lot. The world is full of examples-- Bally shoes cost 5-10x more than Hush Puppies, Patek Philippe watches can cost 20-100x more than Seikos. If it's worth it to you, then you'll gladly pay for it.
Voigtlander said:
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
Just found out I actually have the right to close thread. So this thread is closed.
Sorry Mods if it causes any inconvenience, don't want to make this forum another canon(opps :sweat: ) forum. I don't want to be the culprit to start WWIII!
Leica users will say leica good, Voigtlander users will say voigtlander good, Canon users will say canon good, Nikon users will say nikon good. It will never end, its all personal preference, personal discipline of photography. So everyone, go out and shoot something and post here, stop hanging around here worshipping cameras :bsmilie: .
Cheers everyone, thanks for all the info.
:cheers: Max 2.8
Sorry Mods if it causes any inconvenience, don't want to make this forum another canon(opps :sweat: ) forum. I don't want to be the culprit to start WWIII!
Leica users will say leica good, Voigtlander users will say voigtlander good, Canon users will say canon good, Nikon users will say nikon good. It will never end, its all personal preference, personal discipline of photography. So everyone, go out and shoot something and post here, stop hanging around here worshipping cameras :bsmilie: .
Cheers everyone, thanks for all the info.
:cheers: Max 2.8
- Status
Similar threads
