Leica photographers - the naked truth

[removed account4]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Camera and photographer works in symbiosis and sort of makes up one entity. Remember, they are both living entities? No offence intended for sure - only MHO.

im not really sure how a camera or photographs made with gear are living entities ...
can you tell me what you mean ?
( I know you are danish maybe it is something lost in translation that I don't understand a nuanced comment .. )
that said, I agree with Murray,
people who swoon over gear tend to think more about how the gear did everything, but. its just gear.. but then again I don't gear worship... so I could be wrong.
I had a roommate who used to love his old hassy and make great photos with it, and classmates whose parents bought him a Rollei that
coast more than my car, and I have known people on this website who have invested large amounts of $$ in gear and got results
that could have been taken with a Pentax K1000 (no, not a slight, what I like to use) ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Camera and photographer works in symbiosis and sort of makes up one entity. Remember, they are both living entities? No offence intended for sure - only MHO.

One cannot say that the camera does not matter. Yes any 35mm camera from the second half of the 20th century will take a very serviceable photograph of most subject. Add a faster lens, better lens, more shutter speeds, change focal lengths, format shape, ... will add to the capabilities, abilities and the range of possible photographs. So the camera is part of the photograph as is the photographer.

 

[Radost]

Sold them a long time ago.

FYI the board did not die on the one I had repaired. All the oxidation in the camera had to be cleaned up. The second one was sold so I never found out what the new owner decided to do.

Why did you bring up failing boards? Is that something a CLE owner should be aware of?

The only "unrapable" thing on the CLE is the board.

 

[Radost]

One cannot say that the camera does not matter. Yes any 35mm camera from the second half of the 20th century will take a very serviceable photograph of most subject. Add a faster lens, better lens, more shutter speeds, change focal lengths, format shape, ... will add to the capabilities, abilities and the range of possible photographs. So the camera is part of the photograph as is the photographer.

True.
Unless the mechanical camera shutter speed is messed up.
The limit on 35mm "especially wide SLR" is the quality of the lens is very important. Once you go medium format it becomes less of an issue.

 

[Sirius Glass]

True.
Unless the mechanical camera shutter speed is messed up.

The unstated assumptions include the camera working correctly and the photographer know what he or she was doing.

 

[Huss]

The only "unrapable" thing on the CLE is the board.

The CLE was meant to be the next Leica CL, but Leica nixed that idea as they didn't want a 'lower' end camera taking away sales from the M.

 

[removed account4]

True.
Unless the mechanical camera shutter speed is messed up.
The limit on 35mm "especially wide SLR" is the quality of the lens is very important. Once you go medium format it becomes less of an issue.

the problem with "today" is that people pick up expensive well made "professional" cameras for not much money one eBay or Craig's list or a garage sale or online and they think because they have great equipment ( that probably needs a CLA but they are too cheap to do that ) they are going to take great photographs, and if they don't they blame their camera whose shutter hasn't been overhauled / CLA'd in 20 years and the camera was beat down by the pro for 20 years .. and, oh yea I almost forgot the new user with pro gear really needs to practice and learn what they are doing &c. this has been true for a long long time, since the 1800s when rich people bought gear and dry plates and thought they were professionals. it has nothing to do with the wide lens on a 35mm &c but more to do with the fact that people attribute great images with "high end" gear, and not the person behind the camera.
I mean look at Miroslav Tichý, he had the most primitive of gear and he was able to communicate what he wanted through it. too many gear worshipers and too few people who really are able to use the gear they have to make great images, and oh yea. the internet .. it is filled with gear worshipping blowhards and mediocrity has become the new "GREAT !" it might be the golden age we are living but it might be pyrite..

 

[markjwyatt]

Consistently good photographs come mainly from good photographers. Their is some limit to the equipment for certain types of photography, and better equipment can aid good photographers, but good photographers can still get good pictures from barely acceptable equipment, while not so good photographers may struggle with great equipment. With modern P&S, even lousy photographers can get good/decent photographs sometimes.

"Acceptable" equipment is necassary but not sufficient to get good photographs consistently. What is "acceptable" depends on what is being photographed and what the photographer is trying to accomplish. A great photographer can take great images with a pinhole camera, sure, but probably not great sports shots for Sports Illustrated for instance. A 35mm/MF or digital with a long lens may be more suitable for that subject. This may define "acceptable" for this case. For typical street shots just about any functioning camera, preferably small and discrete with a not too long lens that functions accurately/dependably (i.e., any 1970s SLR or 1950s+, rangefinder, and others, etc.) may be acceptable. A rangefinder may be better for many who like to see the whole scene out of one while framing with the other, etc.

 

[Pieter12]

A rangefinder may be better for many who like to see the whole scene out of one while framing with the other, etc.

There lies the rub for left-eye dominant photographers (at least when shooting horizontal frames). Rangefinder cameras typically have the eyepiece on the left side of the camera, leaving the right eye covered. I guess one could hold the camera upside down, but that introduces a whole new set of ergonomic challenges.

 

[Radost]

You dont have to be a "GOOD" photographer or to take "GOOD" pictures to enjoy photography.

 

[removed account4]

You dont have to be a "GOOD" photographer or to take "GOOD" pictures to enjoy photography.

Especially if you are a braggart and use either a giant negative, or the right expensive Swedish or German camera doing the $200 a pop exposure! It’s just a conversation-piece shelf-queen bling .. and when people see or hear on the internet (or whatever) you have such lovely gear they automatically think you are... you know ... great and you can dispense lots and lots of advice, get corporate sponsors and a patreon page! .. cause like the video suggests you are at least as good as AA, HCB &c…. nowadays it really doesn’t matter if it is good or bad photography ( its a moot point ) it’s the gear that matters cause sometimes no images are required it’s just saying you own “x y z”. the whole thing is like the great and mighty oz...
The internet is superficial it’s all about likes and worshiping the right golden cow..
SSDD

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Of course, you don't need Leica to take average Joe's images.
And by now with film been hipsta thing and Leica been more feel good thing rather than tool for SPECIFIC needs "you don't need" statement is adequate.
Where are only very few photogs left who are knowing why they need Leica in terms of images taking.
I'm not talking about Leica labeled SLRs from the past and their overpriced and so-so digital cameras, lenses with non M mounts.
I'm talking about M. Film or digital. It was and still very SPECIFIC tool. If you are into landscapes, your dog and family pictures, greasy food you have eat - you really don't need Leica M.

 

[markjwyatt]

There lies the rub for left-eye dominant photographers (at least when shooting horizontal frames). Rangefinder cameras typically have the eyepiece on the left side of the camera, leaving the right eye covered. I guess one could hold the camera upside down, but that introduces a whole new set of ergonomic challenges.

Viewfinders?

 

[Don_ih]

It is possible to like and use a camera without trying to impress people on the internet. Some people do actually follow their own interests and form their own preferences.

 

[removed account4]

It is possible to like and use a camera without trying to impress people on the internet. Some people do actually follow their own interests and form their own preferences.

obviously you are over 30 ... and can't be trusted

 

[Patrick Robert James]

In my experience some people can and most people can't. That is true for everything, but with photography for some reason people think buying expensive gear makes them better. It doesn't. It does however give them "perceived" status amongst other photographers who covet expensive gear. That is why Youtubers own Leicas. They do it for the status. That is also why on forums some people talk about their expensive cameras and act like they are a great photographer but never show any images. They don't want anyone to know they don't have any talent. There is nothing wrong with appreciating gear though. If something gives you pleasure than by all means go for it. Photography is a hobby for most. Just don't make it a snobby.

 

[Don_ih]

on forums some people talk about their expensive cameras and act like they are a great photographer but never show any images

Oh no .... not again!

See: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...l-photographs-here.184976/page-2#post-2436418

 

[faberryman]

Of course, you don't need Leica to take average Joe's images…

Maybe you could explain exactly why your using a Leica makes your photos better than the average Joe’s photos? I have known Leica users whose photos were just average Joe’s photos and non-Leica users whose photos were better than average Joe’s photos. But maybe since I don’t use a Leica, I am incapable of telling the difference between average Joe’s photos and Leica photos, and am just confused. My own take, which admittedly may be wrong, is that for most photographers, It is not their camera that is holding them back.

 

[Don_ih]

Maybe you could explain exactly why your using a Leica makes your photos better than the average Joe’s photos? I have known Leica users whose photos were just average Joe’s photos and non-Leica users whose photos were better than average Joe’s photos. But maybe since I don’t use a Leica, I am incapable of telling the difference between average Joe’s photos and Leica photos, and am just confused.

The way you tell the difference between a Leica-taken photo and every other photo is the Leica-taken photo will come with the words "Leica ___" captioning the photo. The other photos won't come with that and may or may not have been taken by a Leica. It's practically impossible to tell without the words.

 

[removed account4]

The way you tell the difference between a Leica-taken photo and every other photo is the Leica-taken photo will come with the words "Leica ___" captioning the photo. The other photos won't come with that and may or may not have been taken by a Leica. It's practically impossible to tell without the words.

I can tell.
only there's no bird

and

 

[cliveh]

I suppose you could compare camera handling with driving a car? Both a Trabant and an Aston Martin will get you from A to B, but an Aston is a nicer car to drive.

 

[Huss]

obviously you are over 30 ... and can't be trusted

Excellent! Thanks for bringing the fun back!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Maybe you could explain exactly why your using a Leica makes your photos better than the average Joe’s photos? I have known Leica users whose photos were just average Joe’s photos and non-Leica users whose photos were better than average Joe’s photos. But maybe since I don’t use a Leica, I am incapable of telling the difference between average Joe’s photos and Leica photos, and am just confused. My own take, which admittedly may be wrong, is that for most photographers, It is not their camera that is holding them back.

You are misinterpreting.
Average Joe's pictures of landscapes, dogs and spicy soups are not limited to better or not better. I was talking about SPECIFIC use of Leica M. And as any specific use it is not something too obvious for common Joes to get.

I'm talking about so called street photography. I would look at some street photos and like them. Most of the time after searching on actual photog, it comes as user of Leica M. This is the fact. Most of the books I have are with photos taken with film and even digital M. Not because it is taken with Leica labeled cameras. But because Leica M provides SPECIFIC handling which leads to certain results. In street photography only. Not in landscapes, dogs and spicy soup photos. I couldn't care less about LF photography, because due to its SPECIFIC it is limited to photos of something I'm not interested in. I have no fuzz for Polaroid photos, because of its specifics.

It is not about better at all. For many, if not most, rangefinders (especially Leica M) are just something they like to collect now. And only for very few rangefinders are cameras which are specialized tools.

And to avoid another misinterpretation Leica M street photos are not better photos. They are just different. I have seen great lomography street photos and Ricoh GR digital street phots.

 

[gone]

A good photographer doesn't need a Leica, as evidenced by the POS cameras and lenses that Edward Weston used. Those books Ko.Fe. mentioned, even though I haven't seen all of them, they're seldom on the level of Weston's work either. Someone w/ vision and passion will find a way to overcome technical challenges because it will always, always be the photographer that takes the picture, not the camera. You could have given Matisse a worn out house paint brush and he would have still painted masterpieces w/ it. All B.B. King needed was a guitar that was in tune to blow you away w/ his music. Lots of great street photographers didn't, and don't, use Leicas, and many even used TLR's! For street shooting no less.

This is sort of a silly argument.

 

[cramej]

That's a dumb statement. By your argument, no one should use large format cameras. High-megapixel cameras serve the same purpose; they allow making large high resolution prints. For those of us who regularly sell large prints, it isn't 'snobbery,' it's professionalism.

Ah, but you're not in that group, then. You make big prints. He's talking about the guys that buy an A7Riii and put everything up on 500px or Instagram and never see the images outside of their 27" iMac or phone all the while exclaiming "It's soooooooo sharp when I zoom at 100%!"