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

Dr_Q

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
United Kingdom of Englandlandshire
Car(s)
Horse & Cart
Actually, it's not specifically Leica cameras that can do this it's rangefinders in general, the key difference is that you always see what's going on. On an SLR, for a very brief moment after you've pressed the shutter you won't be able to see through the viewfinder so in theory it's possible that you've "missed the shot". The cameras are also extremely quiet which makes you stand out a lot less if you're in to street photography. If all you do is street work these cameras are expensive but pretty much perfect, for anything else the rangefinder system (in my opinion) is just too much of a hindrance and too inflexible. Obviously, a good photographer will get great results from literally anything.
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
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.
Unbunch your panties. There's nothing wrong with liking a particular style, I was just expressing how adamant you are about 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...
Now that just won't do. This particular section is better than most entire forums based on photography. It is comprised of level-headed, knowledgeable and talented members (some more talented than others, but we're all learning here) who understand that the most important aspect of any photographic system is the ball of noodles a few inches behind the camera. The only one bringing the bogus gear-is-everything argument here is you.

...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.
What are you on about? I'm simply giving you the facts, that's it. It seems like you're just butthurt more than anything else.

You gave us four photos that you liked and some parameters by which to constrain: style and price. Based on that, I gave you a perfectly reasonable and realistic suggestion with which you can achieve your desired results for a very affordable price. You actually suggested that some crappy, overpriced compact is going to get you anything near the results of a rangefinder.

I'm not the one here whose technical and artistic credibility is being questioned. Not to mention, I don't have an odd fetish with my keyboard's "enter" key.

Keep on, holding this place hostage, I won't be back.
Yay, everybody wins! :p

And both from Canada. WTF?

BTW...

5ulgmw.jpg


Vive Le Qu?bec Libre!

Oooooooooooh.... now that explains everything :lol:
 
Last edited:

Ramseus

Have you been high today?
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
5,605
Location
Derpronto
[quoting me]
Go fuck yourselves.
I write how I want to!

I admit I was feeling a bit irate,
but still,
the rest of my post stands dude man.
And seriously,
stop hitting enter all the time.
It actually makes it harder to read.
Though it is better than hitting enter every time you reach the bounds of the
text box like you've typed the message in notepad with word wrapping off
and don't know how to turn it on.

And lay off Epp. You're expressing a preference for muted colours, expired film is perfect for that.

And do you know what's even better than a rangefinder for inconspicuous, quiet shooting? Micro four thirds cameras. You can shoot from the hip and still see what the camera sees, 100x more inconspicuous than having a camera attached to your face.
 

TopGearManiac

Active Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Messages
252
what is going on in this thread. lol.

for me photography is lenses. bodies come and go, fanboys fight and cry but lenses will always make you happy. Personally If I would ever to leave canon land, I would probably go with hasselblad or something else from medium format. That said unless your printing that stuff your not really not gonna see that much difference from your consumer FF 1ds or D3.

Also, don't fight photoshop cause your gunna loose that battle. Embrace it to make your pics look better. You can hate it but thats the truth. Nowadays its 50% camera skill and 50% photoshop skill. It can go either way as some are better at different skillz. If you want fairness, then go shoot film ^^
 

Dr_Q

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
United Kingdom of Englandlandshire
Car(s)
Horse & Cart
Buggering around with film is annoying, having said that the latitude on HP5 can be mind boggling (at least 10 bazillion stops). Colour is even more difficult and frankly I've never bothered to process my own colour, the best I've done is feed it into a machine. Colour printing with enlargers is even more annoying again. I'm simply not practical or adventurous enough to do such things with film any more so I'm happy to be using digital.
 

evoWALO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,619
Location
Philippines / Naples, Florida
So, basically, Leica incorporates some non-optional in-camera processing. Great :rolleyes:

Plus you get the red dot.

It is like the difference between a Honda/Toyota Canon/Nikon to a Leica Porsche or a Casio to a Patek Philippe.

All of them gets you from point A to B or tells time but one of them is affordable to a small segment of society.

KFC original recipe is yummy the same way something created in El Bulli is yummy too. One is cheaper than the other.

I have yet to use a Leica but I may consider getting one just to see what the fuss is all about. I like how the photos of the Leica came out.

I see Leica as viable since the introduction of the M9 which is the company's first full frame range finder.

As for Photoshop it was said by one long time famous Brit photographer that the retouchers are more important than the photographer. I believe this to be true. But I did not get into photography to fiddle around with Photoshop. I got into it for the photography.

I am happy film is dead and I would probably not be shooting as much if it was still the relevant technology. Don't even get me started with Lomography.
 

evoWALO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,619
Location
Philippines / Naples, Florida
who said film is dead?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622

Yes there are specialized uses for film and developing nations still buy more film cameras than digital but the future is digital.

You could show me some wacky looking medium format camera with some out of this world aspect ratio but it doesn't change the fact that demand for film is dwindling.

Film is as relevant today as Betamax or the Laser Disc.
 

Dr_Q

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
United Kingdom of Englandlandshire
Car(s)
Horse & Cart
Any "photographer" that states that retouchers are more important than the photographer would be in a very small minority, I've only ever heard the opposite. Film is dwindling but I can see it still being around for years to come. CDs were supposed to be the death of records but in recent years sales have surged and I can see the same happening for film. There are even some manufacturers bringing out their own new film stocks, granted not very many but it still happens.

I started off using film and processed (badly) and printed from my negatives on enlargers and it's a really fantastic experience. You get none of the excitement, smells or swear words when someone fogs your paper with digital and I often miss it. I shoot digital purely for the convenience of it but I believe that it probably hasn't really helped my photography on the whole, I often shoot hundreds of shots and end up with little or even no keepers. It would be prohibitively expensive to do that with even home processed black and white film.

There are many pros and cons to both digital and analogue and I see neither as the clear winner.
 

evoWALO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,619
Location
Philippines / Naples, Florida
As for lenses I love the modern ones vs the antique ones unless of course you are going for a 'period look' in which the photo looks like it was taken in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s or 50s or earlier.

Though I find lenses without focus motors inconvenient to use I do love my Carl Zeiss ZE lens and look forward to getting my hands on the Voigtlander lens for Canon mount in the near future. I like them for the images they can produce.

Oh yeah... film is dead. :D Lomo is... well something I don't have to do. :D
 

evoWALO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,619
Location
Philippines / Naples, Florida

Dr_Q

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
United Kingdom of Englandlandshire
Car(s)
Horse & Cart
I just read the article, David Bailey seems to be criticising the industry for what it has become, it's not an overall statement about Photography in general, just how he views fashion photography today.
 

evoWALO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,619
Location
Philippines / Naples, Florida
I just read the article, David Bailey seems to be criticising the industry for what it has become, it's not an overall statement about Photography in general, just how he views fashion photography today.

By being critical he shows where photography in general is heading towards. I've seen so many shots online that is photochopped that it makes me wonder why bother with good glass or good bodies when an iPhone 2G photo with photoshop can make it look like gold.

Heck why bother with light.
 
Last edited:

Rooster

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
56
Location
Indiana
Got lost in the vat of bullshit that is this thread...forgive me if my post is on topic per the original post...

I've used some of Canon's finest lenses, including the 17-40L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, etc (not at the same time, mind you...Money doesn't grow on trees). I don't own a single one of them now. There is something about the designs used by both Leica and Zeiss that is just, IMHO, better. You use certain lenses built by those companies 20-50 years ago, and you realize that Canon and Nikon still just don't quite have what they did. There is glass out there that can render colors and shadow detail that Canon and Nikon just can't.

Currently, I have three lenses in my bag. Leica Summicron 90/2, Contax Distagon T* 28/2.8, and a Helios 50mm (a USSR copy of a Zeiss design) as a cheap focal length stop gap. Not a single AF lens at all...For me, the loss of AF is worth what I gain with these lenses.


Here's a quick example or two of what I'm talking about. Contax Planar T* 100/2. Built by Zeiss if you didn't know. A lot of people talk about 3-D feel when using some of these lenses, but it's hard to accurately define it. I feel these shots have it. I've never seen anything like it using Canon glass.

4017159881_b597610a7d_b.jpg


4101260533_d55b68dd42_b.jpg



Last one is another Contax shot. 50mm f/1.7. $200 something from KEH.

3978522904_47dc3e7d14_b.jpg




Anyways, the moral of my story is that I really want an M9 and a set of 2-3 lenses to shoot with anytime I'm not on a paid job. I wouldn't miss much from Canon.
 

LeMans GTR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
4,910
I know next to nothing about photography but I see what you mean. The colours are very, very vivid and rich while stuff we usually see is very flat.
 
Top