Reading mode: Light Dark

TOP: A Leica Won't Improve Your Photography

Go to last post
B

Bob_O

Leading Member
Messages
551
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago, IL, US
--My problem with Leica is that for the overwhelming number of photographers, they're not good value—not even good Veblen value. I worry that people who are serious about photography, in the earlier stages of their interest, can be led to believe that Leicas will improve their work, to their great cost and disappointment. There's a reason few professionals use Leicas, and that's that the Leicas are not as good at producing professional-level shots as a DSLR. Almost any DSLR.

Link: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/09/a-leica-wont-improve-your-photography.html
Regards,
Bob
http://bobolsen.zenfolio.com/
 
Wow! A reference to Thorstein Veblen on a Lecia Forum! Never thought I'd see that.

Bob, get your asbestos suit on real quick. You're about to be flamed by the Leica fans... :)
Bob_O said:
--My problem with Leica is that for the overwhelming number of photographers, they're not good value—not even good Veblen value. I worry that people who are serious about photography, in the earlier stages of their interest, can be led to believe that Leicas will improve their work, to their great cost and disappointment. There's a reason few professionals use Leicas, and that's that the Leicas are not as good at producing professional-level shots as a DSLR. Almost any DSLR.

Link: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/09/a-leica-wont-improve-your-photography.html
Regards,
Bob
http://bobolsen.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
--
'Change is not Mandatory, you don't have to Survive...'
 
A rangefinder Leica is not an easy camera to use, it requires a knowledge base of photography that can certainly throw the beginner off.

The true gift of the rangefinder Leica is that within the simplicity of it's mechanical operation the photographer is given a true opportunity to use his or her intuition without distraction. That's what allows the making of great photographs.

An SLR photographer (with a little experience) can make nice clean pictures over and over and over again all day long. But pictures that truly 'say' something are often made with a quiet rangefinder and a selective eye and a decisive moment.

Easy to use, no. Fun, inspiring, intriguing... yes.

Henri C. Bresson
Robert Capa
Cornell Capa
Robert Frank
Garry Winogrand
W.Eugene Smith (may have been a Nikon rangefinder...)
Elliott Erwitt
Bruce Davidson
Burk Uzzle
Leonard Freed
Paul Fusco
Danny Lyon

Geez, this list can go on for hours, no... you are wrong, the Leica has made some of the greatest pictures ever, and will continue to do so.

--
Dennis
http://dennislee.smugmug.com/gallery/2516942
 
CaptD said:
A rangefinder Leica is not an easy camera to use, it requires a knowledge base of photography that can certainly throw the beginner off.

The true gift of the rangefinder Leica is that within the simplicity of it's mechanical operation the photographer is given a true opportunity to use his or her intuition without distraction. That's what allows the making of great photographs.

An SLR photographer (with a little experience) can make nice clean pictures over and over and over again all day long. But pictures that truly 'say' something are often made with a quiet rangefinder and a selective eye and a decisive moment.
Click to expand...
You just made a strong case for buying an SLR.
CaptD said:
Easy to use, no. Fun, inspiring, intriguing... yes.

Henri C. Bresson
Robert Capa
Cornell Capa
Robert Frank
Garry Winogrand
W.Eugene Smith (may have been a Nikon rangefinder...)
Elliott Erwitt
Bruce Davidson
Burk Uzzle
Leonard Freed
Paul Fusco
Danny Lyon

Geez, this list can go on for hours, no... you are wrong, the Leica has made some of the greatest pictures ever, and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...
Dennis..... a "Leica" didn't make any of those great pictures. The photographer using them did. I hope you aren't saying that those artists would have been poor photographers if they hadn't used Leicas?

Photography is about skill, not gear.
Gear only enables the skill, it doesn't create it.

All brand worship aside, we both know that if we handed any of those photographers a $500 Canon G10 they would take outstanding images with them. And if I ran out an bought a $7,000 M9, I would still be taking the same boring images I take with my Olympus E510.

If gear really mattered that much the latest pictures taken would be the best. Since the latest cameras made are the best. The quality of the images would keep going up, as technology improved.

But we have 70 year old portraits taken by Josef Karsh that cannot be matched by portraits taken on much "better cameras" made today. And maybe this is because he "made" those pictures, and his cameras just happened to be there?

--
Marty
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/

Panasonic FZ30, LX2, TZ5
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42mm, 40-150mm, 70-300mm, Hexanon 40mm, 50mm

 
Interesting to see John reference his $50,000 in Leica gear in the same blog post where he recommends against purchasing Leica gear.

I usually agree with him, and definitely enjoy his books. . . but here he misses two points that I think are important:

1) Using any manual focus camera that encourages user control over aperture, shutter speed and focus will in fact improve a beginner's photography much more rapidly than an automated P&S or DSLR. They will get worse results than they would achieve with a DSLR - at first - but over time will develop hard won skills that carry over to any camera, and

2) There is a category of users who started out in photography using rangefinder cameras for whom it is a more comfortable and intuitive tool than DSLRs or P&S cameras.

Cost is an issue. Leica makes the finest digital rangefinder, but a used Bessa and a brick of Tri-x cost less than an entry level APS-C DSLR and will open up a new way of taking pictures.

--

 
His statement, taken literally, is true.

I read the blog and agree with much of what he says. Anyone who believes that dropping $3K to $8K on camera gear will actually improve their photography does not have their head on straight. Photography is not about the gear but about seeing and understanding the relationship between shutter speed, aperture and the film or sensor and of course.. the light.

The top of the line gear might actually improve the image quality but not the photography.. one is a subset of the other.

A $40 book on photography can actually do more to improve your photography than buying a $7,000 Leica... as long as you comprehend what you are seeing and reading in that book.

The use of a fully manual camera, over a period of time, will also improve your photography as you begin to understand the relationship of all the variables: shutter speed, aperture, ISO and the light. Those who shoot in auto mode all the time are missing some important lessons as the camera is doing the "thinking" for them.

Improving your photographer's eye is something that you can't depend on any camera to do for you, digital or otherwise. That comes with practice and examination of what great photographers have done in the way of composition and the light that was available to them at the time of capture.

The beauty of digital is that the learning process can be accelerated. I learned more in the first year of using my D30 than I ever did shooting my Canon A-1. You can get instant feedback from a digital camera and see what your chosen settings produce image-wise while still "in the moment" so to speak. You can experiment, constantly, and hopefully learn from that experimentation. This can be done with almost any digital camera that offers a manual mode in which you control the shutter and aperture. It doesn't matter if the camera is a point and shot, a DSLR or a rangefinder.

The only thing that makes you a better photographer is practice and time. No one is born with the skills of a great photographer but those skills can be developed over time with just about any camera.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
 
Right, smack on target, Jim. As usual.
 
Bob_O said:
There's a reason few professionals use Leicas, and that's that the Leicas are not as good at producing professional-level shots as a DSLR. Almost any DSLR.
Click to expand...
That may change now that Leica is offering a full frame digital M.

You’ll never see a press pen full of M9 wielding sports photographers at a football match but, for other kinds of news gathering and other kinds of professional use, some will prefer the smallest and lightest full frame digital camera you can buy to a heavy rucksack full of unwieldy gear.

As for not being good value, surely that’s a judgement that only purchasers can make. The evidence so far is that so many purchasers judge the M9 to be good value for them that initial stocks were all sold within minutes and order books are brimming over, at least in London.

There may be more pent up demand for the full frame M9 than you realise. I made my decision to get one years ago when the cropped sensor M8 appeared. I’m sure I’m not alone.
 
John is right, there isn't a camera on this earth that will improve your photography. It's whats between your ears that is important. Acquire some knowledge, spend time putting it into practice and your photography will improve.
 
as a Nikon D3 user here's some things that have been bugging me for a while:
  • when I take photos I often find myself taking 100 shots where 1 or 2 shots would have done
  • similarly, it's all too easy to rely on fast AF, 9 FPS & hope, finding oneself back at the computer looking for a good shot.
  • the photos are technically sharp & impressive in terms of high ISO, but in post I have to add a sense of SOUL all too often. That's not photography for me anymore.
When I look at shots you guys can get, there's a real sense of craft & love/interest in the image making process. I know you have to put in a lot of time to get what you want.

I desperately want to get back to basics in terms of shooting style. I've become lazy as hell. It's like you're painting a canvas whilst I'm flicking through a book of paintings.

Aspiring to a Leica, for me, is akin to finding that missing nth photographically. I believe it would force me to THINK, which is all too easy for me to forget to do in the heat of things, with all those widgets that you get on a high end SLR.

I don't know how eloquent I've been, but I hope some of this strikes a chord with those that look enviously at M series users & may confirm some thoughts of those with a Leica

Peace and all that...

Rob
 
Jim Radcliffe said:
The beauty of digital is that the learning process can be accelerated. I learned more in the first year of using my D30 than I ever did shooting my Canon A-1. You can get instant feedback from a digital camera and see what your chosen settings produce image-wise while still "in the moment" so to speak. You can experiment, constantly, and hopefully learn from that experimentation. This can be done with almost any digital camera that offers a manual mode in which you control the shutter and aperture. It doesn't matter if the camera is a point and shot, a DSLR or a rangefinder.

The only thing that makes you a better photographer is practice and time. No one is born with the skills of a great photographer but those skills can be developed over time with just about any camera.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
Click to expand...
having said what I've said previously, all of what i've quoted above is very true... I learnt tons from my D100 over my Pentax/Canon film bodies I'd had. I just think I've lost something along the way since
 
I tend to agree with the OP. make no mistake, I would love an M9 and lenses but as an adjunct to my other equipment, not to replace them.
 
It's the photographer who takes pictures, and frankly could take great images with just about any camera. But there are practical issues in my concert work which an M9 could not tackle. But if I needed something to use which was quiet and unobtrusive in decent light (where I could use iso 800 in combo with mirrorless operation) then it could be useful (if I could afford the body and just one lens)... The X1 is more interesting to me as an addition to what I use and not a replacement (which would be totally stupid)
Tony
 
Jim, I agree totally. And my 2 favourite Canon cameras are: The D30 and the original 5D....
 
"But we have 70 year old portraits taken by Josef Karsh that cannot be matched by portraits taken on much "better cameras" made today. And maybe this is because he "made" those pictures, and his cameras just happened to be there? "

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH - WITH RESPECT!
 
I have seen photojournalists scrabbling around in a concert photo pit with their fingers permanently on the shutter button, and even lifting the camera up away from the eye to take images. This is not photography! And frankly you're not a photographer... Try taking single shots for a change and central focus point, you may even find that in waiting for that moment you're actually not a bad photographer... My hit rate at concerts with a D3 (and 5D) is over 90% and I take around 150-200 max at each show, usually over 2/3 acts.
Tony
 
Marty4650 said:
Dennis..... a "Leica" didn't make any of those great pictures. The photographer using them did. I hope you aren't saying that those artists would have been poor photographers if they hadn't used Leicas?
Click to expand...
No but they would not have been able to take the photographs they did , if they had to use a reflex camera ( see more on that in the next paragraph)
Marty4650 said:
Photography is about skill, not gear.
Gear only enables the skill, it doesn't create it.
Click to expand...
Yes , that's generally true. However , it is not correct to say that any of these leica users would have been able to make the same pictures if they had to use a SLR ( digital or film)

A lot of these famous images capturing a decisive moment look the way the do because they were shot with a rangefinder

Shooting with a rangefinder camera ( leica or other , just leaving the brand out of the equation for now) makes you photograph a different way
Marty4650 said:
All brand worship aside, we both know that if we handed any of those photographers a $500 Canon G10 they would take outstanding images with them. And if I ran out an bought a $7,000 M9, I would still be taking the same boring images I take with my Olympus E510.
Click to expand...
well my point is that it would force you to photograph a different way. so it might be not better r worse but it would certainly change the way you photograph
Marty4650 said:
If gear really mattered that much the latest pictures taken would be the best. Since the latest cameras made are the best. The quality of the images would keep going up, as technology improved.
Click to expand...
Can't agree with that . When you wrote quality of the images
Marty4650 said:
--
Marty
Click to expand...
--
There is a lot to say about making pictures with a rangefinder
Harold
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit
 
euston said:
Bob_O said:
There's a reason few professionals use Leicas, and that's that the Leicas are not as good at producing professional-level shots as a DSLR. Almost any DSLR.
Click to expand...
That may change now that Leica is offering a full frame digital M.

You’ll never see a press pen full of M9 wielding sports photographers at a football match but, for other kinds of news gathering and other kinds of professional use, some will prefer the smallest and lightest full frame digital camera you can buy to a heavy rucksack full of unwieldy gear.
Click to expand...
--

I think all of the baove is confusing and rather meaningless based on what the writer intend "professional level" to mean

I think what needs to be repeated over and over again is that :

The Leica M ( or any rangefinder camera for that matter) is not SUITABLE for many people and genres of photography
if for instance you want to do a lot of :
Macro photography
sports photography
fast moving subjects ( including your kids or pets running in the garden)
far away subject ( requiring more than a 100 mm lens in 35mm equivalents)

LOw, low low light photography ( like shooting people moving in a tunnel after dark)
tripod mounted work

in all of those instances ( and I am sure I forgot a few) a Leica M is not for you

a leica M is only fitted for some subjects ( call it street photography, photojournalism , reportage , casual portraits) but what it does , it does it so well and in a such different way that for some of us , it becomes the best way to go around it

even if the M9 was say $1,000 , it would still be ill-suited for most people out here

so to some extent , the price becomes a minor factor because for those who would not like it even if the camera was cheap . and alas for those who can really appreciate it and make the best use of it , nothing else would do
( and for the moment nothing else is available)

Harold

http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit
 
--

I think all of the baove is confusing and rather meaningless based on what the writer intend "professional level" to mean

I think what needs to be repeated over and over again is that :

The Leica M ( or any rangefinder camera for that matter) is not SUITABLE for many people and genres of photography
if for instance you want to do a lot of :
Macro photography
sports photography
fast moving subjects ( including your kids or pets running in the garden)
far away subject ( requiring more than a 100 mm lens in 35mm equivalents)

LOw, low low light photography ( like shooting people moving in a tunnel after dark)
tripod mounted work

in all of those instances ( and I am sure I forgot a few) a Leica M is not for you

a leica M is only fitted for some subjects ( call it street photography, photojournalism , reportage , casual portraits) but what it does , it does it so well and in a such different way that for some of us , it becomes the best way to go around it

even if the M9 was say $1,000 , it would still be ill-suited for most people out here

so to some extent , the price becomes a minor factor because for those who would not like it even if the camera was cheap . and alas for those who can really appreciate it and make the best use of it , nothing else would do
( and for the moment nothing else is available)

http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top