What's the secret of Leica? ...and else.

[MamesJay]

Hey, I've just noticed this forum, on the board here.


So, I'm kind of interested in photography.
I don't want to turn it into a profession, but I'm interested to learn a little about substantial parts. Like lens and colors.

Flickr.com has groups for certain cameras. So you can look at examples from only one model.
I've looked at the group for the Leica M8, after I heard about the camera.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/leica_m8/pool/

I think the colors, that the Leica produces, are stunning.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23314901@N06/3475780034/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23314901@N06/4250538083/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23314901@N06/4049464501/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30725437@N05/4218862604/sizes/l/in/pool-32246684@N00/

How does the camera do that? What is it that other companies don't get?
Like the last picture on the subway; every other camera would have produced a bland, boring, nothing.
But the Leica managed to capture real people, feeling, and emotion.

How?

---

A Leica M9 (the latest digital model) and a 50mm lens add up to about 4000$-5000$. So that's like totally out of the question right now.

I have found this other camera that seems to be perfect for an ambitioned purist. The "RICOH GR Digital III".
http://www.flickr.com/groups/grdigital3/pool/

It doesn't have that Leica tone, but, talking about capturing colors, detail, and plasticity in an incredible way.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marser/4211139340/sizes/l/in/pool-1117041@N21/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bata/4210202567/sizes/l/in/pool-1117041@N21/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kusakari/4194687651/sizes/l/in/pool-1117041@N21/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grd3/4154519155/sizes/l/in/pool-1117041@N21/

At about 600$/? it's not exactly a bargain. Even I had to slave away for that. But that camera is sooooo on my list.
BTW, 28mm/F1.9 (for the ones who know what that means), and the display of the camera has 900000(!) pixels.

---

I have checked out a lot of digital cameras on the net (sample pictures).
The cheap consumer cameras always produce some sort of a haze,
that you have to wipe away on the computer (PhotoImpact has an easy "one-click" fix for that).
But even some of the much ballyhooed expensive digi-cams, seem to be oblivious to something like a 3rd dimension.
Whatever is in the front seems to be OK, but the 2nd row is already as flat as a pancake.
For example a group of people, and whatever happens in the background.

It's all about being able to capture light (aka colors), that's what I have realized for myself.

All those consumer cameras and their little gimmicks. I couldn't care less.
"Face detection". WTF?
CAMERA: "The third guy on the left. You owe him 500$. Run!!!".

:lol:

 

[jayjaya29]

Good glass/lenses are what you are looking for I suppose.

 

[sifu]

does the leica group allow postprocessed pictures? if so, the pictures do not tell anything.

 

[Dr_Q]

I believe it's mainly the Leica lenses, different lenses can have very different results. I've only seen this with the "high end" manufacturers such as Leica, Carl Zeiss and to some degree Voigtlander. They all have their own unique characteristics which some love but some hate. I looked into Zeiss lenses quite a bit recently and I've been incredibly impressed by what I saw, sadly you will always pay far over the odds for them .

 

[Top Geek]

Like the last picture on the subway; every other camera would have produced a bland, boring, nothing.
But the Leica managed to capture real people, feeling, and emotion.

Hogwash.

The M8 has a 1.33x crop sensor and those photos were made using fast glass (which means shallow depths of field where a subject is in focus and everything else is pleasantly blurred). Use a full-frame digital or film with a fast 50 and you'll find that there's even more of this three-dimensional depth characteristic.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The M8 is a shit camera for the price, I used one for a while and pretty much hated it. If you want to shoot Leica, buy an M7.

 

[MamesJay]

does the leica group allow postprocessed pictures? if so, the pictures do not tell anything.

Yes they do, I think the first picture went through some processing.

But it's just like, a lot of the Leica photographies in b/w still have these certain characteristics. The images retain them, even when turned to b/w.
It is some way of capturing light.

I have a feeling that it has to do with the original Leica lenses.
I've seen pictures taken with the M8, but using a Voigtlaender lens.
The "magic" wasn't exactly missing, but it wasn't (at least) as present as with the original Leica lens.

---

...sadly you will always pay far over the odds for them .

Yeah, going analog would be a possibility.
Analog cameras and equipment, they're basically giving that stuff away on eBay.
Cameras that must have cost a fortune, not to long ago.
Not for me though. Too much of a hassle. It has to be digital for me.

I think I would like the RICOH a lot, that's what I'm aiming at.
Just a no-nonsense, purist, WYSIWYG camera.
I'm impressed with the pictures at the GRD3-Pool.

And if I keep the interest up, maybe one (rich :lol day, it will be the latest digital Leica.

---

Hogwash.

As far as the Leica, I'm talking about a camera that is able to capture colors and emotion.
Are you following? Apparently not.
I'm not in the business of looking for a camera that is able to shoot the next Abercrombie & Fitch campaign.

BTW, while we're wasting time with technicalities; the M9 I mentioned, is the first digital rangefinder camera with a full-frame. Duh.

Like I haven't noticed technical imperfections.......

 

[Ladamaha]

As far as the Leica, I'm talking about a camera that is able to capture colors and emotion.
Are you following? Apparently not.

Meaning everything captured with with worse camera is dead and soulless?

 

[MamesJay]

Meaning everything captured with with worse camera is dead and soulless?

You would have to define worse.

But I'm sure if you look around Flickr.com, at all kinds of posted pictures, you would have to agree, that there are tons of dead and soulless photographies.

It is one thing to take a picture of somebody, and another to capture the essence of that person.
And the camera plays a part in that too.

 

[NecroJoe]

I'm still not seeing exactly what is so far above and beyond a typical, say, Nikon in the right lighting with the right filters and the right post.

 

[Ladamaha]

You would have to define worse.

But I'm sure if you look around Flickr.com, at all kinds of posted pictures, you would have to agree, that there are tons of dead and soulless photographies.

It is one thing to take a picture of somebody, and another to capture the essence of that person.
And the camera plays a part in that too.

I'd say lens is a much greater part than the camera. I don't see what is special about the shots to be honest, but then, I'm not a person who sees soul and passion.

If you want to get in to photography, an entry level DSLR with a good prime is a good way to start and something you probably are looking for.

edit. What epp_b says after this post under there in the next post ->

about there
|
V

 

[Top Geek]

As far as the Leica, I'm talking about a camera that is able to capture colors and emotion.
Are you following? Apparently not.

Yes, I am following. I'll agree the photos you pointed out appear to have a specific quality about them, but nothing that couldn't have otherwise been done with any other SLR or rangefinder. That said, you can't just pick up a Leica and expect to magically make amazing photos. There are many, many aspects that go into making photos like the ones you pointed out, only a small part of which is the camera and lens that were used.

But I'm sure if you look around Flickr.com, at all kinds of posted pictures, you would have to agree, that there are tons of dead and soulless photographies.

Most of the photos on Flickr are dead and soulless not because they were made using apparently lesser cameras, but because they were taken by hipster teens who think their $400 SLR and kit lens has just morphed them into $famous_photographer.

Case in point: barring a select few people on Flickr who are truly talented and original, stay away. Visit 1x.com and prepare to be amazed. In fact, find a photo you think is amazing (it won't take long) and peer into the EXIF data. I'll bet you any money that the make and model lines don't say "Leica" and "M8".

It is one thing to take a picture of somebody, and another to capture the essence of that person.

Neither of which a camera can do on its own. It takes the imagination and creative ability of a skilled operator to do so at all.

 

[Jay]

I think you are putting too much faith into a brand and it's name, MamesJay.

I have seen stunning photos done with a Casio point and shoot, and horrid photos with a high end Nikon. Or Leica, take your pick. It really comes down to, from least important to important: camera body, post processing, lighting around the subject, lenses, camera operator.

 

[NecroJoe]

Just anyone can't pick up a Gibson Les Paul and expect to sound like Jimmy Page...but Jimmy Page will sound like Jimmy Page no matter what guitar he picks up. Something to think about.

 

[Top Geek]

inb4 KR "Your Camera Doesn't Matter" link :lol:

(seriously, though, please don't)

 

[MamesJay]

I'd say lens is a much greater part than the camera. I don't see what is special about the shots to be honest, but then, I'm not a person who sees soul and passion.

Yes, I think the lens plays a major role.

I can only point out the pictures that impressed me personally.
If they don't do the talking for you...
On top of that, you might have your own standards, where my preferences have no impact.

---

Yes, I am following. I'll agree the photos you pointed out appear to have a specific quality about them, but nothing that couldn't have otherwise been done with any other SLR or rangefinder.


Most of the photos on Flickr are dead and soulless not because they were made using apparently lesser cameras, but because they were taken by hipster teens who think their $400 SLR and kit lens has just morphed them into $famous_photographer.


Case in point: barring a select few people on Flickr who are truly talented and original, stay away. Visit 1x.com and prepare to be amazed.

I think it would be safe to say that Leica's have a certain characteristic.
I don't buy into this total interchangeable theory.
Just like microphones have their characteristics.
Otherwise "Neumann" could just hand over the business to the Chinese.

The lens has to play a big role.

Off course the artist is needed to bring out the results.

The lens you had posted for a moment, was that the lens that costs as much as a small car? It must be genius at capturing light.
But just as well as I don't have any wallpapers of super cars on my computer-desktop...

I checked out some portraits on 1x.com. Interesting.
A lot of heavy ones though.
Those faces that look like carved out of stone, and their heavy message of life. There is only so much I can take of that at a time.
Or, you can probably tell that too, if the handwriting of the photographer is all over a portrait, and the model is just another item of the arrangement.
But the site is interesting.

I credit most of the bland pictures on Flickr to point and shoot orgies.
Everybody has a camera, and taking hundreds of pictures doesn't cost anything anymore. That produces a lot of "noise".
As long as their friends know what it is...
Really boring are the ones that put an effort into it, just to mass-produce the same old clich?s.
Somebody in New York, taking the 1000000th picture of the Statue of Liberty, for example.

If that's not every photographers (amateur or pro) nightmare, just to add to the noise.

I'm not looking for a DSLR. That's a whole thing again...

I pretty much have my mind made up for the RICOH, I want to save money for that.
It doesn't come with built-in magic. But I like the pictures I've seen in the GRD III group.
Clarity, nice colors, plasticity.
I like the reduced approach that focuses on quality, too.
It's supposed to take a good picture. The end!
All those consumer-feature-monsters. If a digital camera starts talking to me, that's where I draw the line.

:lol:

 

[Ramseus]

Stop.
Fucking.
Hitting.
Enter.
After.
Every.
Fucking.
Sentence.
Fuckbag.

Sorry.
You deserved that.
But sorry anyways.

So, you don't want a SLR, but you want to spend thousands upon thousands on a pretentious digital rangefinder when you've even said that a high end compact would be a stretch for you to afford. What? And Ricoh's cameras are like ass. Overpriced obscure ass. If you want a compact, get a Panny LX3 (24-60mm equivalent, f2.0-2.8), far better than any Ricohs.

The pictures you posted: there is nothing special about them. The colours are muted and dull.

And

It is one thing to take a picture of somebody, and another to capture the essence of that person.
And the camera plays a part in that too.

No it fucking doesn't. The camera plays no part in that other than doing it's thing once you press a button.

 

[NecroJoe]

Unless you're talking about a Lomo...but that's a fish of a whole 'nother feather.

 

[Top Geek]

^^ Totally needed to be said :lol:

Do you realize that the Ricoh is just an overpriced point-and-shoot? Even with an f/1.9 aperture, you're still going to get depths of field spanning the width of the galaxy because of the tiny sensor and necessarily wide focal length of 6mm.

The first set of photos you pointed out are all taken at huge apertures on a camera with a large-enough sensor to manage shallow depths of field.

Seriously: go buy an old mechanical 35mm SLR or rangefinder and a 50/1.8 for $100 on eBay, some really cheap (and maybe even expired) film for that dull, muted look you seem to have a hard-on for and be done with it. Trust me, it's exactly what you're looking for.

 

[MamesJay]

...for that dull, muted look you seem to have a hard-on for...

That is the kind of diction you want to pull out of your hat, if somebody has a different, artistic point of view?
I've been around musicians a lot. People who are supposed to have an understanding when it comes to personal opinions and believes.
And I can say that narrow minded artists, who valued their own opinion as the only legitimate one...., didn't have IT.

You have found a forum about photography, on a board that deals with motor sport.
Finally a place where you can impress people with your knowledge, cause...I don't know, you have a dedicated place in your basement, and you have a website?
I have noticed that you're all over this section of the board with your "critiques". Nobody is allowed to miss your gospel.
Worry no more. I'm too familiar with self appointed experts on Internet forums, and their archaic behavior. It's the kind of pattern that bores the hell out of me.
Keep on, holding this place hostage, I won't be back.

---

Fuckbag.

Go fuck yourselves.
I write how I want to!

---

And both from Canada. WTF?

BTW...

Vive Le Qu?bec Libre!