Leica Outing!!!

[alien]

I did it!!!
I finally bought a Leica R 6.2 - and boy? do I love it!!

Have it with the Summicron 50 - and ran two films through it already.

I am so happy!!!

)))

 

[mono]

Congratulations!!
I had one - and gave it away ;-((
Missing very much...

 

[alien]

oh man, what a pity!

I started photography with my dads pentax mx - and now I know what I have been missing all these years, with loads of auto functions...

All of a sudden Photography becomes intense again!! Great!!

 

[df cardwell]

Have a great time: with today's films,
your Leica really DOES deliver Hassie results.

.

 

[Amund]

Have a great time: with today's films,
your Leica really DOES deliver Hassie results.

.

Eh, don`t forget you can use those films in a Hassie too

 

[gnashings]

Have a great time: with today's films,
your Leica really DOES deliver Hassie results.

.

Yeah, and physics be damned...

 

[Robert Budding]

Have a great time: with today's films,
your Leica really DOES deliver Hassie results.

I knew you guys wouldn't let this statement get buy (Nor should you have)!

 

[df cardwell]

I'm a photographer, not a physicist.

.

 

[gnashings]

I'm a photographer, not a physicist.

.

I know, its just unfair that the laws of that discipline still apply to you - I would have thought a round, red badge would repel them like holy water does vampires

 

[df cardwell]

The other day I thought to go for a walk. I took a camera.

Here's the picture (attached below).

Exactly what I felt the picture wanted to be. Leica + 35/1.4, resting on a sturdy branch, TMY, 1/4 @ f/1.4.

Oh, after walking 5 miles, and 4 left to get home to make dinner. The picture is just a souvenir from a nice, cold January day. Made the exposure 15 minutes after sunset, 15 minutes prior to the end of civil twilight.

The 25 mm aperture of the Summilux at f/1.4 would equate to a f/2 on the lovely Distagon on a Hassie. Well, it's an f/4 lens, which is fine. A little more depth of field wouldn't hurt, although it isn't much of an issue. Throw in a roll of TMY and shoot at f/4. Lessee ( counting on my fingers ) expose for 2 seconds. I think TMY is secure from reciprocity failure, so it won't have to be longer. I wonder if I could have held the camera securely, braced against a branch, or whether with mirror lockup, I could have framed it as well. Well there are are ways.

No, actually I don't think ANYBODY could have made the picture on a Hasselblad. But the print from the Leica is perfectly satisfying.

Now, this thread is about "Alien the Appugger" who just got a nifty camera and was happy about it.

The website is about film photography, and ( at a subtextual level ) encouraging photographers to make pictures with film. It is NOT, and please correct me if I am wrong, a venue for bashing, hating, and mindless orthodoxy.

Yeah, and physics be damned...

its just unfair that the laws of that discipline still apply to you - I would have thought a round, red badge would repel them like holy water does vampire

Alien, don't let these guys get you don't down.

 

[alien]

Hi guys,

don't get upset about all this..I am just majorly happy about my purchase and how it seems to fit perfectly!
There are plenty of super cameras out there - I am shooting 6x7 and 4x5 as well and know how satisfying a great large negative can be.

Nevertheless, the Leica is just good fun, and that is what counts - at least for me!

have a look at one if the pix from the weekend!

All the best and good light to all!

Ansgar

 

[alien]

oops, the picture, did not appear...let me try again!

I think the file was too large...

 

[df cardwell]

The best picture I've seen all year ! FANTASTIC !

.

 

[Lee L]

I told Don that I don't like to get involved in these arguments because they usually go nowhere, and there's no convincing those who argue theory against practice. I don't know how many hundred rolls of high resolution, fine-grained film like Kodachrome 25, Velvia 50, APX 25, etc. gnashings or Robert have put through a Leica on a solid support, but I do know that 35mm Kodachrome shots from Leicas (and I believe other brands) have been used for huge murals in Grand Central Station. I suspect that Don has put a lot of film through both MF and 35mm cameras. I've shot hundreds of rolls of that kind of film through multiple brands of lenses, and many thousands of frames through Leicas.

The problem comes when people apply theory blindly, without regard for practical circumstances, and willfully misprise what someone else has said. I'm not a Leica junkie or collector, but as far as I know, Leica uses both physics and aesthetic judgement, and with fewer cost constraints than other manufacturers, in their lens design process. This is more of a case of physics be exploited with less regard for cost than physics be damned.

Sure, we all can figure out the difference in negative area between 6x6 and 35mm, and know about the attendant difference in apparent grain. Square mm for full frame is a factor of 4, area cropped to 35mm proportions is a factor of 2.8, and linear distance across the long dimension is a factor of 1.67. But that's not the whole story, and you should also consider that Don's really talking about best practice, with enlargements at more typical sizes that don't stress MF, or the best of 35mm. Don's not stupid or inexperienced, even if he is only a photographer.

I also know that data isn't the plural of anecdote, but here's an anecdote for you. I was required in graduate school to take two classes outside my discipline, and decided to do an upper level photography course. I had to petition for entry with a portfolio since I was not an art major. The professor shot mostly MF and 4x5 for the work he regularly exhibited in galleries and museums. When he came to one of my 11x14 prints (a Perrier bottle on a brick ledge with weathered wood, an election sign, and a screened door) he stopped and did the close inspection routine that we all do when evaluating technical quality; you know... the viewing an 11x14 from a few inches routine. After a few minutes he said, "You shot this with a Hasselblad, right?" I told him (truthfully in case you want to question that) it was shot with a handheld CL and 40mm Summicron C. He then asked about film and developer and looked closely for a while longer. So in the real world, at 11x14, with an experienced judge, yes, a Leica lens can rival a Hasselblad, despite the belief that it can't happen because of theory or physics.

I have a number of other similar anecdotes, but of course they too are theoretically and sometimes practically impossible. I know because experts have told me so. Both Don and I, and perhaps others, will likely continue along blindly, doing what we aren't supposed to do. It's about seeing for me anyway, not MTF curves or line counts. I've only been shooting and trying to improve all aspects of my photography for 40 years, at times in professional studios, or making 2000 custom B&W prints a month by hand on two D5s, and shooting with many 35mm, MF, and 4x5 lenses, including Hasselblads and Leicas. So I probably just don't know what I'm talking about and you should take me to task for being stupid.

I'm also not a trained physicist, but I work part time in a physics department these days.

And Alien, if you've read this far, enjoy the new camera and lenses in good health. If you use them to their limits, you'll improve your work, and you'll appreciate what you have every time you see the results.

Lee

"That's all I have to say about that." F. Gump

 

[alien]

Thanks df, I am glad you like it!

Thanks Lee for your words,

I don't know whether I will ever be able to exploit Leitz glass to the limit, as I have an aversion to tripods - I am very much a hand held man, as it gives me great flexibility. This of course downgrades what theoretical quality I can get from the lens...

HOWEVER I primarily did not buy the Leica for its lenses - I just ALWAYS wanted a superb mechanical camera - especially the R 6.2. So please people don't get into arguments about all this - I am having fun, and I hope so have you!

ansgar

 

[SuzanneR]

I love your photograph Alien! I shoot MF and 35mm with a Leica... quality all seems very close, though there is an undefinable clarity from my MF negs, that I don't quite get with the Leica. That said, there is an undefinable and expressive quality to the Leica negs. Both make for very satisfying darkroom sessions.

I'm a hand holding, intuitive shooter... I expect you may be too, Alien. Enjoy the camera, can't wait to see more work in the gallery!

 

[Daniel Lawton]

I have some photos shot with my Canon 35mm and a prime lens that are hard to tell from MF up to about 8x10. After that however MF holds an advantage since film size becomes the limiting factor and lens quality less so. Obviously limiting the size of grain isn't necessarily the primary goal of photography so if you love your Leica and it allows you to make effective photos than there's really no argument here. There's no denying that 35mm is a vastly more capable format for many situations whether it be a Leica or whatever.

 

[gnashings]

I told Don that I don't like to get involved in these arguments

You could have fooled me, judging from your tiny little reply... to this argument.

The problem comes when people apply theory blindly, without regard for practical circumstances, and willfully misprise what someone else has said..

The only thing implying blindess is the absoulte disregard for pure and simple fact, backed by imperical data. You work in a physics lab, I assume NOT as a janitor, you should know what that word means.

This is more of a case of physics be exploited with less regard for cost than physics be damned.

As opposed to those mass produced, econo-brand Zeiss lenses found on... oh, lets see... Hasselblads among others.

Don's not stupid or inexperienced, even if he is only a photographer.

I don't know what you need to do in order to deal with your personal insecurities, but DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

The professor shot mostly MF and 4x5 for the work he regularly exhibited in galleries and museums. When he came to one of my 11x14 prints (a Perrier bottle on a brick ledge with weathered wood, an election sign, and a screened door) he stopped and did the close inspection routine that we all do when evaluating technical quality; you know... the viewing an 11x14 from a few inches routine. After a few minutes he said, "You shot this with a Hasselblad, right?" I told him (truthfully in case you want to question that) it was shot with a handheld CL and 40mm Summicron C. He then asked about film and developer and looked closely for a while longer. So in the real world, at 11x14, with an experienced judge, yes, a Leica lens can rival a Hasselblad, despite the belief that it can't happen because of theory or physics.

In this case I would be much more inclined to see the state of the man's eyes than his academic standing. I find the very wording of it ridiculous: "...with a Hasselblad, right?". Should I believe that this deity with superhuman eyes can tell a Hassy picture apart from a Mamiya, or a Rollei? A THEORY is something that is backed by speculation and calculation. This is something that can be conclusively PROVEN. And if you don't want to look into numbers as means of judgement for some higher-level artistic reasons - fine. Sharpness is not the final judgement of an image. There is also tonality, etc., all impossible to duplicate with a smaller negative NO MATTER WHAT LENS you use to make it...

I have a number of other similar anecdotes, but of course they too are theoretically and sometimes practically impossible. I know because experts have told me so. Both Don and I, and perhaps others, will likely continue along blindly, doing what we aren't supposed to do....
... So I probably just don't know what I'm talking about and you should take me to task for being stupid.

This is the part that takes the cake. Exactly how childishly insecure are you? That is what I take you to task for. If you also have the same complexes as to your IQ as you do in connection with your photography equipment, well, that is something that I have NO desire discussing. The statement to which any one with a brain would take exception was made as if factual and irrefutible. A is as good as B! No "ifs", "buts" about it. No disclaimers. Just a childish perpetuation of a ridiculous theory.

That said, I count myself among great fans of Leicas. I love them. I truly envy those fortunate to have theprivealge of owning them and using them. One day, I am sure I will to. I feel just about the same way about Hassys. And when I own those cameras, I will also know that neither can rival even a very pedestrian LF negative. Will I care? No. Will I make ridiculous, sweeping statements? No.

Enjoy your R6, Alien. Its an awesome camera.

Peter.

 

[Gay Larson]

I sold my Leica R4 and I am still regretting it.

 

[rbarker]

I love shooting with my Leica, too.

But, for photography, I prefer the M over the R. To me, an SLR excels at "practical" work, and I prefer an SLR with "modern" features that contribute to that style of work. So, I use Nikons for SLR work. Just personal style, though.

Although physics still applies, there really is something special about Leica glass, whether on an M or an R, when compared to other 35mm lenses. For me, it's the balance between "character" and the science of resolution and contrast offered by the lenses.

 

[alien]

Hi Ralph,
it is certainly fully manual!!

I have a rangefinder Mamiya 7 and enjoy working with it a lot. It is however very different from working with my SLR's...I need more practice with it.

I really can't say whether I prefer RF or SLR, but I have grown up with SLR's and thats what I am used to now....but if I ever have a chance to own a Leica M, boy would I go for it!!! I held this Special Edition Titanium M7 once, man did that feel good....

There we go, me and my toys...I am glad that I am not the only lunatic out there when it comes to this!!

All the best

Ansgar

 

[gnashings]

Alien,

No one here is implying that your new Leica is anything other than superb.

I just can't stand some people's need to not merely enjoy their excellent equipment, but have to establish its superiority to everything and anything.

Pleae note, none of my comments were caused by you or directed at you.

Peter.

 

[jd callow]

Alien,
Congrats. I love the ergonomics of the R's better than any other SLR (small, med or large). To me it goes a long way toward making the camera very shootable. They are simply lovely machines.

I think Ralph hit on something that can be expanded on. There is a lovely balance between character and precision in the glass. If you also love the medium of film there is the added advantage of seeing the film in your enlargements as well. I know for some grain is evil, but for me it is a touchstone.

As an aside.
In my reading of this thread, no one said anything about any camera being better than another in the gross -- in the net and under specific circumstances any one camera might be the best ever.

I also know that no one cares what I can't stand...

 

[Lee L]

I really can't say whether I prefer RF or SLR, but I have grown up with SLR's and thats what I am used to now....but if I ever have a chance to own a Leica M, boy would I go for it!!! I held this Special Edition Titanium M7 once, man did that feel good....

Ansgar,

If you ever want to try 35mm RF with interchangeable lenses, you might want to look at the Cosina Voigtlander Bessa series and lenses. The bodies run from US$69 (screw mount - with lens purchase) to a bit over US$500. I love the R3A, and the T is a stone cold steal at US$185 if you can work with separate finders. A lot of the new Cosina Leica mount glass is also of very fine quality at a small fraction of Leica prices, and the various bodies can mount new and used Leica M and Leica screw mount lenses as well as the new Zeiss M-mount lenses, so you'd have a huge palette to choose from at prices to fit your budget or empty your bank account. Check at rangefinderforum.com for various takes on the offerings.

As for the Leica R's and ergonomics, I don't dare even pick up an R8 or R9, but I have been thinking (in a very abstract way) of grabbing a nice SL2 to have a battery independent body. The R4 through R7 are a little small for my hands, and I'm not fond of a big grip or drive to bulk them up.

Lee

 

[Robert Budding]

Late follow-up.

Leica makes great gear. And 35mm has its place, particularly in low light situations (I own and shoot a Contax IIIa). But there is an advantage to larger negatives. If there weren't, we'd all shoot 110 film and spare our backs.

Enjoy your Leica SLR. It's a fine camera. And it will produce excellent results. But it won't enlarge as gracefully as MF.