Thinking of Doing The Insane
- Thread starter Lead_Head
- Start date
It makes it a lot harder to do at wide apertures, again, it's not a prerequisite for shooting from the hip, but it still limit what you can do.
Quiet shutter etc.: Fuji X100 is quieter, the 5D3 silent mode is basically that etc. X-Pro 1 and other contemporaries have started to encroach in terms of rangefinder focusing. I enjoy manually focusing with my FE's split prism but it doesn't mean I'd want to swap my 5D's AF for it.
Printing etc.: Well the vast majority of people who own 5D2s, 5D3s and D700/800 cameras are either professional photographers or very keen amateurs. For the vast majority they are make prints from their images, and among them a good number are magazine and billboard shooters. You don't see people using Leica for serious portraiture work because it has too many caveats to operation.
I understand that the experience is what makes Leica, but having shot one, I just don't get it. My enjoyment from shooting a camera comes from when it's an extension of my hand and mind and I can shoot whatever I want with it. With a Leica I just saw loads of shots that I'd have loved to have gotten with my 5D but couldn't because of the limitations of the M system, and even after a good few hours I kept running into walls and losing shots because of it.
If you personally can't get to grips with RF's then that's fine, though a few hours isn't nearly enough time to get used to an RF, especially for someone who's used to using SLRs. But you're taking some very big leaps to prove your point. Your misgivings seem to stem from your own inexperience with the system, which is understandable but not really justification for your anti-Leica tirade. Not enough people in general print since screens are pretty much the end point for most images these days, regardless of what you shoot. You seem to have plucked your 'Leica shooters don't print' spiel out of thin air. As for serious portraiture work people have used them for portraiture in the past: look up Jeanloup Sieff, a great photographer who shot for Vogue, very distinctive style. I'm pretty sure people still use M's for portraiture today. There's also the S2/S for studio work, but that also doubles as a lightweight digital medium format camera. I believe Rankin uses one.
Oh, and even if Fuji are encroaching on RF territory as someone who actually uses one in conjunction with an M, they're very different. The X100s with its digital split screen is nice, but that's still EVF based.
Oh, and even if Fuji are encroaching on RF territory as someone who actually uses one in conjunction with an M, they're very different. The X100s with its digital split screen is nice, but that's still EVF based.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
Fine images
That was my point - there was a suggestion that the sensor on the M9 was "pants" compared to other sensors. My point was to say there's nothing inherently "wrong" with the camera - that's all really.
So I agree with your statement.
Cameras and photography are as much about personal preference and subjective assessment as they are technical aspects.
Some people like plastic cameras with plastic miniscus lenses, some don't. Other love RF cameras, others hate them. Some are happy to have a play with variety, soe prefer to master a single combo - each to their own.
That was my point - there was a suggestion that the sensor on the M9 was "pants" compared to other sensors. My point was to say there's nothing inherently "wrong" with the camera - that's all really.
So I agree with your statement.
Cameras and photography are as much about personal preference and subjective assessment as they are technical aspects.
Some people like plastic cameras with plastic miniscus lenses, some don't. Other love RF cameras, others hate them. Some are happy to have a play with variety, soe prefer to master a single combo - each to their own.
Okay let's compare it to the budget full frame option from Canon from 8 years ago, 3 years prior to the release of the £5k Leica M9.
The £2000 at launch camera, from 3 years before the £5k M9, walks all over the M9's sensor. 884 ISO performance is cruddy Canon crop sensor performance. Heck the 884 is worse than the ORIGINAL 1DS which is 6 years older than the M9.
God forbid we start comparing to the Nikon sensors...
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
I'm not looking for a scrap but "serious portraiture" is a broad church - leicas have been used for this - usually situational, reportage and in the field due to the portablility, mechanical nature, build quality and very quiet and efficient operation. They were never designed or intedned to be studio cameras for "serious portraiture".
If serious portraiture refers to studio or commercial portrait work more widely, then 35mm (including leica or leica-mount cameras) was hardly ever used over the past 50 years and roll-film (medium format) was king. Indeed for a lot of commericial work now, people are still shooting medium format and often still using the same MF cameras they were using 20-30 years ago, but with a digital back.
I do completely agree that any photographer must like the tools he or she employs to make the experience enjoyable and not a chore, and totally respect your preferences as they suit you.
I like my 5DII for some situations, but being out and about in a crowd looking for candid situational portraits and "street shooting" generally, I much prefer my RF cameras (and moreso film). Taking the extension of the hand approach, my current favourite camera is my Fuji GF670 - medium format RF camera you can choose to shoot at 6x6 or 6x7.
Anyway, as I say not looking for a scrap - enjoy 'togging.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
Compare away
To be clear - my point is that the M9 uis a perfectly good camera - with amazing glass (if you already have from film days or you want to buy it) which will produce perfectly good images.
This will be proved by asking those that use those cameras and there are any number of reviews out there and examples of images that inform a reader/viewer of the excellent image quality that the M9 produces.
Okay let's compare it to the budget full frame option from Canon from 8 years ago, 3 years prior to the release of the £5k Leica M9.
The £2000 at launch camera, from 3 years before the £5k M9, walks all over the M9's sensor. 884 ISO performance is cruddy Canon crop sensor performance. Heck the 884 is worse than the ORIGINAL 1DS which is 6 years older than the M9.
God forbid we start comparing to the Nikon sensors...
To be clear - my point is that the M9 uis a perfectly good camera - with amazing glass (if you already have from film days or you want to buy it) which will produce perfectly good images.
This will be proved by asking those that use those cameras and there are any number of reviews out there and examples of images that inform a reader/viewer of the excellent image quality that the M9 produces.
From my experience with the admittedly few Leica owners I know in real life, they're often awfully desperate to justify their purchase and so are incredibly biased in their appraisal of Leica images. While I'm clearly biased against them, I'd say even I would be a more reliable opinion on the quality of Leica equipment than many of the Leica owners I know. I've presented a shot from my 5D and 50 1.4 with tweaked EXIF to show M9 and Summilux and they were adamant that there was something in the image that Canikon etc. just couldn't match, before I told them it was a Canon image.
I'll admit the S2 is a stunning camera and a beautiful system, and in its usage (studio and landscape) the lack of autofocus isn't a drawback at all and the lenses are stunning. The M system I just don't see it, though. The lens quality in particular I find dubious. I've been through Leica files and not been blown away by the M cameras, and say the 50 1.4 Summilux. That's meant to be the best 50 ever, and that reaches LPWH 2150 in Photozone's test at an absolute maximum. The Canon 135L hits 3300 wide open. I can't standardise those results, and I can't use manufacturer MTF charts because as far as I can tell, Leica only provides MTF charts to show sharpness fallof as a % of maximum centre sharpness, rather than any raw figures.
In film days, yes Leica lenses were very contrasty which was nice. But now that every man and his dog at the very least has GIMP, that's a very strained advantage to claim it's worth the markup.
I'll admit the S2 is a stunning camera and a beautiful system, and in its usage (studio and landscape) the lack of autofocus isn't a drawback at all and the lenses are stunning. The M system I just don't see it, though. The lens quality in particular I find dubious. I've been through Leica files and not been blown away by the M cameras, and say the 50 1.4 Summilux. That's meant to be the best 50 ever, and that reaches LPWH 2150 in Photozone's test at an absolute maximum. The Canon 135L hits 3300 wide open. I can't standardise those results, and I can't use manufacturer MTF charts because as far as I can tell, Leica only provides MTF charts to show sharpness fallof as a % of maximum centre sharpness, rather than any raw figures.
In film days, yes Leica lenses were very contrasty which was nice. But now that every man and his dog at the very least has GIMP, that's a very strained advantage to claim it's worth the markup.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Personally I like Leica. Are they good value.. NO but I don't think that's the point of Leica, just like Aston Martin's are not good value.
I think allot of people feel nostalgic when using a Leica. I personally love it's looks, and think it looks much cooler than a DSLR, but then so does the Fuji's & RX1's. I wouldn't feel like a nerd carrying these kind of camera's around.
The sensor can obviously produce some stunning images, especially as it doesn't have an AA filter. However it is clearly showing it's age when it comes to high ISO etc, especially being a CCD sensor.
The M10 will likely be allot better in this regard as it apparently will use a CMOS sensor rather than CCD, which means way less power consumption and thus way less noise.
I'm seriously tempted with an RX1, however this would be a luxury purchase, and at the moment I have more important things to spend my money on, although I am looking to get a 3rd body as a backup, and I'm perhaps thinking the RX1 is up to that task.
However if Sony ends up making an interchangeable lens system akin to what Fuji did with the X100, then I may end up downsizing myself once the system is mature. You only need to look at the files the Nex7 is outputting to see the potential. For sharpness/detail it matches or beats the M9 (which is a very sharp camera), but absolutely flaws regular APSC DSLR's like the 7D etc.
Also I like the idea of being able to use fast primes that are stabilised, and I'm sure EVF's will improve/grow on me.
I think allot of people feel nostalgic when using a Leica. I personally love it's looks, and think it looks much cooler than a DSLR, but then so does the Fuji's & RX1's. I wouldn't feel like a nerd carrying these kind of camera's around.
The sensor can obviously produce some stunning images, especially as it doesn't have an AA filter. However it is clearly showing it's age when it comes to high ISO etc, especially being a CCD sensor.
The M10 will likely be allot better in this regard as it apparently will use a CMOS sensor rather than CCD, which means way less power consumption and thus way less noise.
I'm seriously tempted with an RX1, however this would be a luxury purchase, and at the moment I have more important things to spend my money on, although I am looking to get a 3rd body as a backup, and I'm perhaps thinking the RX1 is up to that task.
However if Sony ends up making an interchangeable lens system akin to what Fuji did with the X100, then I may end up downsizing myself once the system is mature. You only need to look at the files the Nex7 is outputting to see the potential. For sharpness/detail it matches or beats the M9 (which is a very sharp camera), but absolutely flaws regular APSC DSLR's like the 7D etc.
Also I like the idea of being able to use fast primes that are stabilised, and I'm sure EVF's will improve/grow on me.
First of all, the Leica S2 actually has autofocus so it's even more stunning. Such a well designed camera too.
Secondly, looking at the Photozone tests... You're making an extremely flawed comparison, and one as equally deceptive as your EXIF switching. You'd want to compare the 50/1.4 ASPH, which has quite a reputation. But 50mm and 135mm are very different lens designs. Also, you're not even comparing an M lens, but a Summilux-R SLR lens, so that particular 50 from Leica isn't even the same as the other 50 from Leica. You're also comparing different sensor sizes and resolutions, the 50 Summilux-R was on a 8MP 350D, the 135L was on a 21MP 5DmkII - of course they'll post different results. Have a look at the MTF results of the 135 on the 8MP 350D:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/168-canon-ef-135mm-f2-l-usm-lab-test-report--review?start=1
And then look at the Leica 50mm:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/2...pter-on-canon-eos-review--test-report?start=1
The Leica is actually sharper in the corners, worse in center, but much better than the 50L, which is the closest you'll get to like-for-like on a Canon 350D for that site and their test:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/158-canon-ef-50mm-f12-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1
Even so, MTF charts only tell a tiny part of the story of how a lens creates its image and they are subject to so many variables that it's almost pointless to compare them. How about tonal transition, tonal separation, colour balance, blur rendering, highlight and shadow rendering? Leica lenses up until the ASPH days (the 90s) weren't actually that contrasty, they just rendered B&W and colour in their own unique way, and many lens manufacturers who made lenses for Leicas brought their absolute A-game as well: Konica being a notable example, I actually liked their 35/2 UC-Hexanon so much I sold my 35 Summicron and pocketed the difference. So I'm not a Leica apologist - I shoot all kinds of systems, DSLRs, TLRs, RFs, point and shoots and CSCs. I actually hate the boutique direction they've now taken, I hate how dentists have driven up prices for real photographers, but I can't deny they still make some damn fine lenses and cameras.
I just remembered another photographer who uses also RFs in fashion/'serious' portraiture - Norman Jean Roy. Shoots for Vogue and Vanity Fair, uses a Mamiya 7II. Anyway, like atticus said - happy shooting. All these cameras and lenses are awesome anyway, it's all down to how you see and shoot that makes one better than the other.
The 50L isn't meant to be a sharp lens, the 1.4 is sharper. I see the mistake in the figures though.
Going back to yours one last time (I'm procrastinating from revision if you can't tell)
Tonal transition/shadow rendering: All these "how the lens draws" comments I heard whenever a Leica discussion comes up don't sit well with me. It's very hard and indeed nigh on impossible for a lens to change the amount of light coming through it with decent glass, and harder still for it to have weird responses to certain light levels. If you're talking about contrast, then yes, Leica has an advantage, but as I've said before, there's really no use for that in a digital age.
Colour balance: If only we shot RAW? Until you find me a Canikon lens that has the colour balance of a babybel wrapper, I don't see that as an advantage outside of film work.
Bokeh: Yeah, Leica are good, but they are by no means the best. Canon L lenses do bokeh beautifully, as do good Nikon lenses. There's no real advantage here. I hope by highlight rendering you mean what specular highlights look like, which I haven't seen a huge amount of difference in between brands and lenses, but if you mean the same as shadow rendering then the same point stands.
/rantoverstartingrevision
As for Vogue 'toggers - that stopped being a serious accolade as soon as they printed the Marc Jacobs Lola campaign.
Going back to yours one last time (I'm procrastinating from revision if you can't tell)
Tonal transition/shadow rendering: All these "how the lens draws" comments I heard whenever a Leica discussion comes up don't sit well with me. It's very hard and indeed nigh on impossible for a lens to change the amount of light coming through it with decent glass, and harder still for it to have weird responses to certain light levels. If you're talking about contrast, then yes, Leica has an advantage, but as I've said before, there's really no use for that in a digital age.
Colour balance: If only we shot RAW? Until you find me a Canikon lens that has the colour balance of a babybel wrapper, I don't see that as an advantage outside of film work.
Bokeh: Yeah, Leica are good, but they are by no means the best. Canon L lenses do bokeh beautifully, as do good Nikon lenses. There's no real advantage here. I hope by highlight rendering you mean what specular highlights look like, which I haven't seen a huge amount of difference in between brands and lenses, but if you mean the same as shadow rendering then the same point stands.
/rantoverstartingrevision
As for Vogue 'toggers - that stopped being a serious accolade as soon as they printed the Marc Jacobs Lola campaign.
Last edited:
