Leica photographers - the naked truth

[removed account4]

The drama, however, is that every shot one makes with cheap glass is a shot not made with good
Glass. Just like with anything else: every moment spent with bad quality is a moment NOT spent with good quality.

sometimes good or the best quality doesn't really matter. I showed someone a photograph made with a box camera (meniscus lens ) and he insisted it was made with a $4000 Petzval .. people rely on the name brand gear to make their OK photographs better because they can say it was made using x y z to people that care, in the end its just a photograph...

 

[fdonadio]

Depends on what "best" is for you. I shoot a lot of wildlife and sports, so Leicas are not even close to being "good". :-D

Totally agreed. Again, my trusty Nikon FM2 was perfect for shooting skateboarding. And I have used one just for that, between 1995 and 2001. I dreamed of an F4, but couldn’t afford it at the time.

 

[Robert Maxey]

The drama, however, is that every shot one makes with cheap glass is a shot not made with good
Glass. Just like with anything else: every moment spent with bad quality is a moment NOT spent with good quality.

End of story.

End of story ... beginnings of a civil war.

What if he photographer WANTS to use cheap lenses? Perhaps it his or her way of expressing a photographic thought or idea? Heck, I cannot see any value in pinhole work, but it is not my call. Zero grain and tack sharp images is my big concern over almost everything else. There is room for us all.

Bob

 

[btaylor]

Any discussion with “Leica” in it ends up just like this one. I’m sure Huss figured it would when he shared that light hearted video at the head of this thread (Such a sh*t stirrer!) Have fun y’all!

 

[Robert Maxey]

I might suggest that some Leica users might actually be good photographers and choose Leica because it is a fine camera and believe their Leica is worth the money and don't care one whit about impressing others. I certainly do not need to impress anyone. My charm, flowing locks of glorious hair, snappy attire, lady killing charm and full set of teeth does that for me.

I had the opportunity to see what various cameras were capable of delivering and it is why i bought a Leica. There was simply no guessing, no uninformed views and opinions ... just solid proof in my hot little fixer soaked fingers, every week.

Simply stated, Leica was clearly superior, period. Ditto Hasselblad.

Now, Cannon, Nikon, Minolta and the rest improved their cameras and optics. Some very nice work is done with other than Leica cameras. I am looking at a pair of Yashica Mat cameras. Great cameras, but not Hasselblads.

Go ALPA if you want to choke to death on the cost of a camera that is also an amazing camera. The body alone is multiple thousands in Pounds Sterling and it looks like a half-finished camera. Should you buy one, you at least get an amazing piece of kit. Add a few lenses for five or six grand each.

Bob

 

[Sirius Glass]

What about the shots made with @Sirius Glass ?

Nothing beats a good piece of glass!

 

[Huss]

Any discussion with “Leica” in it ends up just like this one. I’m sure Huss figured it would when he shared that light hearted video at the head of this thread (Such a sh*t stirrer!) Have fun y’all!

I still think the video is funny. But did you expect anything less from the reactions?

 

[henryvk]

No fisher Price guitars, pianos and microphones, in Whoosh! No sir!

Yeah, how dare people *checks notes* have fun with cheap equipment.

 

[PerTulip]

Totally agreed. Again, my trusty Nikon FM2 was perfect for shooting skateboarding. And I have used one just for that, between 1995 and 2001. I dreamed of an F4, but couldn’t afford it at the time.

I shot skateboarding with FE2, Bronica SQ, etc. Doable. And skateboarding is not a very difficult sport to shoot. But what current DSLRs enabled us to do in sports shooting is not another level, it's another game. I still shoot with an F5, but it's not even near the D5/D850.

 

[Don_ih]

It does seem to be the case that some people think having a Leica or Rolleiflex of Hasselblad will make them a better photographer. But the way it actually works: a reliable, high quality camera does what you want it to, so, if you make good photos, you're the one who did it and, if you make bad photos, you're the one who did it. It's not that you can credit the equipment - it's that you can't blame it.
Also, regarding quality and grain and abnormalities and defects: most photos are boring and all that stuff can make the mundane more interesting. People already see the world free of grain and (unless they have the wrong glasses) tack sharp. Show them something different.

 

[film_man]

£3k gets you into Fuji medium format digital with some nice used equipment. That's sharper, clearer, <pick your metric>-er than anything this side of a 4x5 drum scan. Shall we bin our film cameras then. It is not even that expensive, 3k was my film+lab bill for last year. Waaaaaait a minute....

 

[Robert Maxey]

Also, regarding quality and grain and abnormalities and defects: most photos are boring and all that stuff can make the mundane more interesting. People already see the world free of grain and (unless they have the wrong glasses) tack sharp. Show them something different.

If the photographer desires gravel sized grain and no attempt at focusing, let them be. All i can do is what is best for me. I hate grain and the fuzziness. You are correct about how we see the world. The problem is, when you view the world as a stereo image and you do not see a grain free, tack sharp world, you notice it. Stereo is different.

"To each his own, the old lady said as she kissed her cow."

Bob

 

[George Mann]

£3k gets you into Fuji medium format digital with some nice used equipment. That's sharper, clearer, <pick your metric>-er than anything this side of a 4x5 drum scan.

35mm slide film shot with top class lenses produces more realistic photos than these darn-fangled Fujis!

 

[flavio81]

Nothing beats a good piece of glass!

As long as there's good whiskey on said glass...

 

[Robert Maxey]

I think discussing Leica product quality is pointless. They are some of the best cameras one can buy, but since I can’t afford them, I’m happy to use my Nikons. If I could afford a Leica, I would probably have one by now.

The problem is not with discussing a particular product's quality, is it? The problem is when people stop being reasonable, polite and sensible. Preferring to pick apart every valid point in an attempt to "win." My guess is that many "Leica Haters" have never used a Leica. My guess is many Leica Hater Haters haven't either.

Discussing a product's merits is important, I should think. The win comes from peacefully agreeing to disagree, not leaving bloody bodies on the e-battleground. Remember, you should always allow someone to come to the conclusion you want them to come to on their own. This is not the Battle of Chancellorsville.

So, let's see: Leica cameras are well made with good optics. Leica cameras are expensive. Not everyone can afford one so they argue. Some purchase a Leica as a status symbol, with no idea about what makes a Leica so great. Japanese cameras are also very good. Use what you want and can afford, and build up your technique rather than tear down another photographer's choice. If you want tack sharp 11 x 14 prints, use a view camera and make contact prints. Wratten #15, #24 and K2 are your friends and slow film rules.

Single malt scotch is a marketing gimmick, Vintage Indian Chiefs rule the land, sea and air and Ansel Adams used F64 for a reason. Use more fountain pens, hug your kids and give a stray dog a treat.

I am out of things to say.

Bob

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes. They are switching from Royals to a Selectrics, because monkeys type really fast. These days, they write adult novels because there is more money in it and Francis Bacon, I mean Shakespeare has fallen out of favor.

Bob

I'll never forget the first time I used a Selectric. Wonderful.. Same with a Leica.

 

[Pioneer]

I love my Leica M. I also love my Kodak Brownie.

But one of my best photographs was take with a simple Agfa Isolette folder built in the 30s and the other was taken with an old Kiev 4a built sometime in the 60s that only had 4 shutter speeds that were anywhere close to accurate. The key factors in each case were that I had the camera in my hand when the situation presented itself and I knew how to use the camera. Everything else was secondary.

Like Ken Rockwell says, the camera really doesn't matter as long as you have one and know how to make it work.

Of course with that being said, I use my Brownie for different types of situations than I use my MA.

 

[Robert Maxey]

What makes Leica so bad is it can't even accept a roll of 120 film. Even a bargain basement Yashica Mat camera can do that.

Bob

 

[faberryman]

I'll never forget the first time I used a Selectric. Wonderful.. Same with a Leica.

I had an early, pre-Selectric, IBM electric typewriter. When you fired it up and started typing, given the noise and vibration, you felt like your were taxiing a jet plane down the runway. Now I can't remember what I did with it.

 

[Robert Maxey]

I had an early, pre-Selectric, IBM electric typewriter. When you fired it up and started typing, given the noise and vibration, you felt like your were taxiing a jet plane down the runway. Now I can't remember what I did with it.

You can still get those little type balls and ribbons should you find your typewriter.

Bob

 

[PerTulip]

...Also, regarding quality and grain and abnormalities and defects: most photos are boring and all that stuff can make the mundane more interesting. People already see the world free of grain and (unless they have the wrong glasses) tack sharp. Show them something different.

I don't think grain is interesting. We already saw tens of thousands of grainy photos. It's not "something different". Never had the feeling a boring and/or mundane photo was less boring/mundane because of grain.

 

[PerTulip]

...

Like Ken Rockwell says,.....

The Chuck Norris of photography is still a thing?

 

[Pioneer]

I don' know if it is still a "thing" or not, I'm not very good at tracking what is popular. I do know that there is a lot of good information on his site. Sometimes it requires a bit of digging along with a bit of discretion, just like everything else you find on the interwebs.

 

[NB23]

The Chuck Norris of photography is still a thing?

He is now the Keith Richards of photography.

 

[Pioneer]

He is now the Keith Richards of photography.

Rockwell may be relatively successful but I seriously doubt he is as famous, rich or successful as Mr. Richards.