Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on June 12, 2008, 07:16:24 am
-
What a beating!
I guess that it shows how hard it is to compete with the big guys in terms of fully validating the scope of usage of pro digital cameras.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If I were Leica I'd fly the gentleman in question in to speak to their tech guys.
Only by facing, and adapting to, such scathing criticism will their digital cameras get close to their film offerings IMO.
-
Kamber's article on the M8 is very interesting.
There are other opinions from photojournalists though:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/cam...r-leica-m8.html (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/camera-corner-leica-m8.html)
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extre...m8-in-iraq.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-in-iraq.html)
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/cam...assignment.html (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/camera-corner-the-leica-m8-on-assignment.html)
and fashion photographers:
http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/irakly_leica_m8.html (http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/irakly_leica_m8.html)
After two years in the market and a very high price the M8 needs a revision, but Kamber's view is too negative (I agree with several points though).
R.
-
Ouch! How the mighty have fallen.
I remember well the first time I handled my father's M3. It felt so elegant and solid in my hands that my own lowly Pentax felt like a piece of junk in comparison. And all the controls were so beautifully placed and worked so well.
Ah, the good old days . . .
-
In the mid sixty's I worked as a combat photojounalist in Vietnam using two leica's and three lenses's: 35,90 and 135. This gear was under water, covered in mud and abused more in one day then a lifetime of normal use. I never, ever ,had one of these bodies or lenses fail. It is very sad to hear of Leica's demise.
-
The report is more than "passing interest".
I'm sure the M8 is fine for gentlemen photographers and is just fine for weekend and travel snaps.
Leicas have a distinguished heritage of serious photojournalism under difficult conditions.
It must be possible for Leica to come up with something that cuts it- silent, small, fast, tough, reliable and with exquisite results.
No-one else has done it. Leica did it for decades and we expect it of them in the digital world.
If they can pull it off there are thousands of us who willl put ourselves into hock and go hungry to get one.
Cheers
Brian
-
No-one else has done it. Leica did it for decades and we expect it of them in the digital world.
If they can pull it off there are thousands of us who willl put ourselves into hock and go hungry to get one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Many of the issues reported can probably be solved, but as of now Nikon appears to be a better candidate to release the perfect digital viewfinder in terms of combined heritage, technology and ability to innovate while controlling costs...
Regards,
Bernard
-
Many of the issues reported can probably be solved, but as of now Nikon appears to be a better candidate to release the perfect digital viewfinder in terms of combined heritage, technology and ability to innovate while controlling costs...
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't go to war zones with my M8 but I do treat it like an old shoe and it's held up.
It's a quirky camera, not much good over 320 iso, the white balance will just change as you work and it does make a loud clank when you shoot.
Still, it's a Leica, the lenses are off the scale, the lack of an aa filter on the sensor gives a great look and the raw files correct to a spectacular level.
In post you can work them much deeper than a Canon or Nikon file.
It's a strange little machine but if I didn't have it I would miss it.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/desert_editorial/pictures/06final_horz_2b_jeep.jpg)
(http://russellrutherford.com/hair_now/pictures/017rgb_hair_and_now-7.jpg)
(http://russellrutherford.com/barcelona1.jpg)
JR
-
James
The person in the pic with vehicle - boy or girl? I´ve looked at the chest area, at the boots, tried to suss out the muscularity of the arms, but am still left with a disturbing lack of certainty about gender. Androgyny seems an odd sort of quality in people, I´m not sure it´s all that attractive, to tell the truth. But perhaps the picture is just out of context, hence the confusion.
Anyway, which optic did you have on the Leica?
Rob C
-
James
The person in the pic with vehicle - boy or girl? I´ve looked at the chest area, at the boots, tried to suss out the muscularity of the arms, but am still left with a disturbing lack of certainty about gender. Androgyny seems an odd sort of quality in people, I´m not sure it´s all that attractive, to tell the truth. But perhaps the picture is just out of context, hence the confusion.
Anyway, which optic did you have on the Leica?
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201424\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob,
You must be haning around some pretty round women.
Anyway I changed that photo to help you out.
Leica 28mm 2.8.
JR
-
Rob,
You must be haning around some pretty round women.
Anyway I changed that photo to help you out.
Leica 28mm 2.8.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
James, I´ve LOST the pictures now, all of them!
Edit: Got them back - surely, not the original bearded lady, then?
Funny thing, a beard. I used to sport a full one, totally untouched from the day I decided to cock a snoot at the establishement - well, untouched in the sense that I did allow it to be trimmed so I could eat - and certainly not as ferocious a one as Zee Zee Tops (?) until one day, standing in front of the mirror wearing a yellowish sweat shirt, I realised that the glorious thing had, in fact, turned grey and that the yellow of the shirt was being carried over into the beard itself. So, faced with this hellish proof of the passing years, I decided that enough was enough and off it came. (Obviously, this was before PS, because that might have opened alternative solutions for me.)
However, I opened the door to one of our friends one day after the event and she screamed in fear when she saw me for the first time sans hair. I tok the hint and allowed it to grow again, but only around the lower part of the face, and certainly not in the area between the Elvis line and the side of the jaw.
I don´t know about the States, but the doctors in our hospitals (in Spain) are very given to following the House example and designer stubble is very de rigueur as are jean and NO ties. It does, actually, inspire a sense of confidence or perhaps a lowering of the walls between doc and patient. I support the move, as long as they make sure they wear proper masks during operations.
Assuming the guy in the new pic is the same one as in the former, does the fact that I failed to see the stubble in the first one mean that Leicas lenses can´t resolve detail that well, or did I just miss the obvious? I often do, particularly when it concerns myself.
Rob C
-
There's a photographer (http://flickr.com/photos/70355737@N00/) on Flickr who has done quite a bit of photography in a war surrounding in Iraq. I believe one of his reasons for signing up was in order to get closer to the 'action', as it were...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/2286958241_836eb98995.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1304/611220921_ec2573b71e.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1295/558085128_80b71373d7.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/332987279_95a02b6f07.jpg)
Here was his reply to the M8 review:
Hey,
Just read this so called "war photographer's" review on the M8. I think in his case, regardless of what reward he's put himself in for... I think he'll need the best camera that he can get his hands on. Rarely will I see a photographer break out of that IMAGINED aspect of what war is and what was thought it was beforehand. There is this preconceived notion the usual civilian will have, much like I did long ago that attracted and romanticized me to the point to push me to actually enlist. The real people I have met in life, in all aspects of their interests... do take that extra step and do become a participant.
It's evident that he's pretty much a witness and will become nothing more. The world is full of them. I could care less what the hell he used nevertheless but if you certainly took the words, I, ME or MY out of his conversation, he wouldn't have much to say. I feel pretty much the same as Nachtwey. There was a day when I once thought guys like these knew combat, embodied it and so forth but some 800 days of real combat myself has changed that idea altogether.
As far as the M8? I can say that I beat mine up pretty good for about a year. It's been dropped about a dozen times from heights, survived 130 degree weather on those sixteen hour days and been there right along with me when I got my bell rung looking for IEDs that couldn't kill me but would have had it been anyone else. Whether that means anything I could care less. It may be be not good enough for someone who calls themself a photojournalist but it is good enough for a soldier.
You should email the poor guy and ask him if he's seen what I just wrote...
Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to share it with a few of the guys and let them in on what this thing combat is according to Michael Kamber.
..jAy..
-
Assuming the guy in the new pic is the same one as in the former, does the fact that I failed to see the stubble in the first one mean that Leicas lenses can´t resolve detail that well, or did I just miss the obvious?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, it's just hard to see such small details in web resolution photos.
-
The report is more than "passing interest".
I'm sure the M8 is fine for gentlemen photographers and is just fine for weekend and travel snaps.
Leicas have a distinguished heritage of serious photojournalism under difficult conditions.
It must be possible for Leica to come up with something that cuts it- silent, small, fast, tough, reliable and with exquisite results.
No-one else has done it. Leica did it for decades and we expect it of them in the digital world.
If they can pull it off there are thousands of us who willl put ourselves into hock and go hungry to get one.
Cheers
Brian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think some of this report rings true, but a lot of it is misleading.
I've never owned a camera, film or digital that you couldn't accidently change some setting.
Even in studio we lock down a lot of stuff with gaff tape, from shutter, to f stop to file quality on the Canons, Nikons, Contax/Phase and yes the Leica.
Also I've never seen a ccd camera that will go to extreme iso settings as well as cmos cameras and whether that's the in camera processing or the actual sensor, ccd always is about 1 or 2 stops below a comparable cmos camera.
The Leica is not perfect, far from it and for me it was a 6 months learning curve as I've never shot a rangerfinder camera before, but now it's second nature and probably the easiest camera I shoot.
Granted you have to test all the lenses, because focus is critcal and some lenses, like my 90mm just aren't calibrated properly so Leica does need to step up the quality control efforts.
It also has a different look from the usual AA filtered dslrs and that proably is a combination of the leica glass and no AA filter.
I wouldn't want to shoot it in pitch darkness, but once again, I don't know any ccd camera that goes to extreme iso settings without a lot of noise, though up to 640 is useable and 1/15th of a second is easy to hand hold.
Given all of this, I would like to see some improvements like actual full frame sensor and proably one from cmos without an AA filter, autofocus would just be amazing, but probably Leica purists would have a heart attack over that request.
Still, if my M-8 disappeared tomorrow, I would walk over and buy a new one as I don't use it that often but when I do I find it to be very special.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/russellrutherford_leica_paris_ny.jpg)
JR
-
M8 image:
(http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_6_files/Iraq19666.jpg)
5D image:
(http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_6_files/Iraq19072.jpg)
(Page 6)
See the vignetting in the Canon image.
How can he prefer the Canon photograph?
-
M8 image:
(http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_6_files/Iraq19666.jpg)
5D image:
(http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_6_files/Iraq19072.jpg)
(Page 6)
See the vignetting in the Canon image.
How can he prefer the Canon photograph?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because the bottom shot is prettier, better pose, better skin colors and I think the vignetting adds a tranditional film look to the image.
Regardless, the M8 will do this, but you'll have to work it in post and if you work it right, it will do more.
JR
-
Because the bottom shot is prettier, better pose, better skin colors and I think the vignetting adds a tranditional film look to the image.
Regardless, the M8 will do this, but you'll have to work it in post and if you work it right, it will do more.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When you compare two JPGs you are comparing two different processing processes as well. Those two pictures show a much better optical system in the Leica (maybe partially explained by the crop factor of the sensor).
-
My engineering skills stop just short of changing a light bulb unassisted, but I wonder whether there is anything intrinsic in the technology of an electronic camera like the M8 that makes it inherently more fragile and/or susceptible to temperature, humidity, etc. than an all-mechanical camera like the M3? I'm thinking that a ruggedized laptop is thicker and heavier than a non-ruggedized laptop.
Cameras like the 1D series that Michael Kamber reports as working where the M8 fails are 3 lb designs, not 1 lb. If so, it might be that the level of ruggedizing required to bring an M8 up to the job would add weight and bulk that would simply contradict its M-ness.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that lack of ruggedizing explains all the problems he reports, I'm asking if it explains any of them.
-
<snip> I wonder whether there is anything intrinsic in the technology of an electronic camera like the M8 that makes it inherently more fragile and/or susceptible to temperature, humidity, etc. than an all-mechanical camera like the M3? I'm thinking that a ruggedized laptop is thicker and heavier than a non-ruggedized laptop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201624\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Probably not. The basic problems with the Leica involve design and execution. This was a first try for Leica, with this kind of camera, and they didn't do it as well as an electronics company would have done (see the Epson RD-1.)
Also, they were whipped between the opposing goals of coming up with a first-rate camera, while preserving the traditional Leica design. Some people, for example, find the necessity to remove the bottom of the camera, to change the battery or memory card, to be charming. It's what you did with an M3, etc. It's charming, but with a digital, it's goofy. There are no advantages to it whatsoever. A spring-loaded bottom would have been much more practical. The LCD on the top left is small and round, at the place, and about the size, of the old rewind knob, of which it's supposed to remind you. Unfortunately, it only gives you two pieces of information -- the battery state and the number of remaining shots. If the LCD were slightly larger, and perhaps rectangular, it could have shown lots more critical information -- like the working ISO. If it had been back-lit, it could have shown you the shutter speed, the lens selection, the mode selection, etc., in low light situations...and so on.
The Pentax 20D is somewhat ruggedized, and it's not much bigger or heavier than the Leica, but it's much more handy. The Leica is just an obsolete design, open to the weather, with a digital sensor.
The one thing the Leica does is give you a different "look," one that I haven't seen with any other camera. James Russell captures some of it in the photos above. I don't know what it is, but when I see a Leica photo, especially in B&W, I tend to pick up on it immediately. I'm not a romantic -- there really is something there -- maybe the lenses -- and the "look" is terrific. It seems less...homogenized. In the two photos of the man squatting next to the car, I much prefer the Leica shot...It seems crisper and somehow, more honest. (That seems crazy even to me...8-0)
JC
-
No, it's just hard to see such small details in web resolution photos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
My question about the Leitz lens was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but thanks, nonetheless, for replying! That´s one of the problems of web writing and, I suppose, letters too: facial expression is missing and short of using those horrid emoticons which, I imagine, are mostly ignored anyway, there is ever the possibility of doubt or misinterpretation. Face-to-face is undoubtedly a superior form of exchange.
This fault line is crossed many times in these pages, and where a simple explanation might suffice, some choose the course of verbal battle and resolve nothing but do sour the waters. Trouble is, when one tires of the pointless confrontation, somebody somewhere imagines a moral victory, whereas the truth is that that person has probably shown himself to be an ass and not worthy of further time. Just in case there is any confusion in THIS post, the remarks are NOT aimed at you!
Take care
Rob C
-
Kamber's article on the M8 is very interesting.
There are other opinions from photojournalists though:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/cam...r-leica-m8.html (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/camera-corner-leica-m8.html)
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extre...m8-in-iraq.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-in-iraq.html)
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/cam...assignment.html (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/camera-corner-the-leica-m8-on-assignment.html)
and fashion photographers:
http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/irakly_leica_m8.html (http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/irakly_leica_m8.html)
After two years in the market and a very high price the M8 needs a revision, but Kamber's view is too negative (I agree with several points though).
R.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How can Kamber´s reply be too negative? Assuming that he tells the truth, where is the overstatement which would lend weight in the direction or being too negative?
It´s not really a matter of one agreeing with one or two points: it´s a matter of a camera that is patently not up to requirements. That others have had samples that work does not in any way negate the terrible QC problems that appear to exist back at the ranch.
But anyway, something else Leica-related.
I mentioned on another thread that I´d been watching an interview with Annie Leibovitz - twice on the tv screen and, again, last night on the computer. This isn´t a love letter to Annie but the result of difficulty with the DVD that made me try it again but via the computer.
The experience turned out to give me a lot more than I had bargained for or even expected.
First of all, watching the thing in the office, close up to a monitor on which I see my own stuff, made it an incredibly more personal adventure into her life and work. Not only that, but even the feeling of her pictures changed dramatically from the impact on tv. In a very positive manner indeed.
For a start, the photographs look quite different from that perspective; the sense of the images being photographs is so much more real. Also, there seems to be a much more readily identifiable sense of filmic quality than I had expected. This applied not just to the sense of granularity in her early Stones work but also to the idea, the feeling of vision, of how something looks through a 35mm camera as against how it looks when filmed.
Another thing that surprised me was that she seems perfectly able to wield an 6x7 Mamiya without tripod - I had imagined that that would have been a disaster, especially since she appeared to be doing it outdoors in conjunction with flash. But, getting back to Leica Ms, she also fondled one of them a great deal, making me wish that I had been less realistic in my earning years and had bought an M version just for the fun of it. Why is it possible for those machines to make one salivate with nostalgia even when one has never even owned one and they are virtually obsolete? Magic does truly exist.
Shame, as somebody wrote, that they seem to have blown their heritage.
Rob C
-
Rob C - is that interview online? I'd very much like to see it.
I disagree with you about obsolecense - sure an M is basic - but that is different - to me, it simplifies the decision making process and enables me to concentrate on the photography rather than the camera. I don't deny that technology has it's place but equally, any photographer and especially a PJ in a warzone has an intrinsic knowledge of the few variables that actually matter and those decisions become subconscious. Which metering mode to use or autofocus point to select - to me anyhow - are conscious decisions. Under fire, I would rather my consciousness was set firmly to avoiding bullets and capture.
-
M8 image:
(http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_6_files/Iraq19666.jpg)
5D image:
(http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_6_files/Iraq19072.jpg)
(Page 6)
See the vignetting in the Canon image.
How can he prefer the Canon photograph?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You should also notice that the Canon shot not only has better color but has been taken at a wider aperture (or effective wider aperture, bearing in mind the 5D is full frame 35mm). This would explain the vignetting. See how the background is more out-of-focus in the Canon shot.
-
Shame, as somebody wrote, that they seem to have blown their heritage.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I really think you have to use this camera to know what it's about.
It's simple, sometimes complicated, it's small but somewhat unwieldy, it's easy, it's difficult, it produces tremendous imagery under the right conditions, under the wrong conditions it's not worth a damn, but most of all it's unique.
I like so much if I could find a way to quickly tether it, I'd probably use it for 90% of my work.
I personally love it's limitations because that is what makes photography unique from real life, to use the limitations to produce something that looks different than what we see with our eyes.
Regardless of my personal opinion, I don't see how it makes any sense to look at two snapshots of a couple of fellows changing brake pads and say, "see, see, this Canon is a much better camera".
Obviously the guy shooting the 5D;s should just keep on keeping on.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/leica_hair_and_now.jpg)
-
You should also notice that the Canon shot not only has better color but has been taken at a wider aperture (or effective wider aperture, bearing in mind the 5D is full frame 35mm). This would explain the vignetting. See how the background is more out-of-focus in the Canon shot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just select different parameters for "in camera" processing.
You cannot get general results from a particular case.
-
Rob C - is that interview online? I'd very much like to see it.
I disagree with you about obsolecense - sure an M is basic - but that is different - to me, it simplifies the decision making process and enables me to concentrate on the photography rather than the camera. I don't deny that technology has it's place but equally, any photographer and especially a PJ in a warzone has an intrinsic knowledge of the few variables that actually matter and those decisions become subconscious. Which metering mode to use or autofocus point to select - to me anyhow - are conscious decisions. Under fire, I would rather my consciousness was set firmly to avoiding bullets and capture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi situgrrl
I´ve just looked at the DVD and it says BBC One, the date is 11th of this month. I can´t tell if it is/will be available online, but for your sake I hope it is - well worth watching. We caught it on satellite.
I agree with you about basic camera designs. I sold my F4s, bought by mistake when it came out because I had imagined that the lack of Nikon advertising meant that the F3 was out of production. When I discovered that was not the case, I dumped the 4 and embraced the 3. The only downside for me was losing the rough spot meter of the F4s.
My humble D200 is used with the only three lenses I now own: 24, 50 and 135mm, manual ones all. But I do think that the F3 is as obsolete as is the M range with Leica. It isn´t something governed by camera construction but by the replacement of film by sensors. I can´t believe film will be commercially viable much longer.
Even though I still have the F3, I have not used it since the D200 came into the house... that freezer is still full of transparency film and some lonely HP5 and FP4 Plus.
You just can´t ignore the fact that the amateur market has always governed what is and is not produced. I feel that even today, with the very expensive (to me) Hasselblad digital systems, the amateur rules. It´s just become a more expensive hobby for those fortunates with the disposable income. As for the pro, I suppose he has either to jump aboard or miss the train. What choice is that?
Rob C
-
Just select different parameters for "in camera" processing.
You cannot get general results from a particular case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To change colors, yes, and to some extent vignetting can be corrected in PS, but the issue of the significant vignetting in the 5D shot, which was presumably the purpose of showing this comparison, appears to have been exaggerated by choice of aperture.
I comment on it because I find this type of comparison occurs frequently on this forum. Issues get muddled and as a result one simply doesn't know what's going on.
It could be that the lens on the Canon was used at full aperture, and it's often the case that a lens on a full frame 35mm format will exhibit vignetting at full aperture, in which case stopping down one stop with the 5D would not only have reduced the vignetting but also would have equalised the DoF in both shots and probably resulted in a slightly sharper 5D image at the point of focus.
On the other hand, perhaps the purpose of the comparison was to demonstrate that the cropped format is less prone to vignetting and also delivers greater DoF at the same aperture. It's just not clear what's being demonstrated.
-
Regardless of my personal opinion, I don't see how it makes any sense to look at two snapshots of a couple of fellows changing brake pads and say, "see, see, this Canon is a much better camera".
Obviously the guy shooting the 5D;s should just keep on keeping on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Was that a swipe at me, James? I understood the purpose of the two shots of the car was to demonstrate the superiority of the M8. My comments were directly at the fact that the two shots are different in respect of DoF, not that one is superior to the other. It was you who made the comment earlier that the 5D had better color and I agreed that it does. At the same time, I fully understand that color can be changed in post processing, but changing DoF is more difficult.
-
I really think you have to use this camera to know what it's about.
It's simple, sometimes complicated, it's small but somewhat unwieldy, it's easy, it's difficult, it produces tremendous imagery under the right conditions, under the wrong conditions it's not worth a damn, but most of all it's unique.
I like so much if I could find a way to quickly tether it, I'd probably use it for 90% of my work.
I personally love it's limitations because that is what makes photography unique from real life, to use the limitations to produce something that looks different than what we see with our eyes.
Regardless of my personal opinion, I don't see how it makes any sense to look at two snapshots of a couple of fellows changing brake pads and say, "see, see, this Canon is a much better camera".
Obviously the guy shooting the 5D;s should just keep on keeping on.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/leica_hair_and_now.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Rob - thanks for that, I will try and fathom my father's Vista box to use iPlayer. If anyone from the Beeb's iPlayer team is here - please look after those of us who don't use MS it can't be that hard!
With the specific point of capture medium, I fully accept that film is fast approaching obsolesence - but I also think more film is still used professionally than many here realise. I suspect - I have no firm knowledge - that somewhere like Iraq - which is now rarely headline news, it is easier to shoot film than for most photojournalists.
Regardless, I wish, for convenience sake, that my M4-P was digital, but I wouldn't swap it for another digital camera (well, I would probably take an M8) so that it wasn't obsolete.
-
If you bother to read the original screed, he actually preferred the 5D image. It seems he was interested in presenting the older gentleman as the focal point of the image and felt that the the fact that the M8 image tended to flatten everything to a single plane made the 5D image closer to what he was after. And I have to agree with him, it is much more compelling. Convert it to a b&W image and see what you think.
If the M8 was full frame, I'd probably have one today. And it does seem that they need to rethink the user interface as well to make it a "fergetit and usit" tool. I used M3's and 4's for thirty years and now the closest I can come in digital is a 5d with a 35 1.4. Kinda like using a 12lb sledge to do finishing work.
-
If you bother to read the original screed, he actually preferred the 5D image.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed! Which is why I was surprised at his later comment along the lines, 'it doesn't make any sense to look at a couple of snapshots.... etc'.
-
Regardless, I wish, for convenience sake, that my M4-P was digital, but I wouldn't swap it for another digital camera (well, I would probably take an M8) so that it wasn't obsolete.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Today took a break and went to the Met to the photo show which is chonilogical from early works to the 60's.
It's interesting, most we've seen before.
Then went down to the Leica Gallery as I had to return something to Kurland.
The interesting thing of the Met and especially the Leica gallery if you go nose to print and look at the images, regardless of format few blow you away in a technical sense. There are clumps of grain, strange areas out of focus, dust spots and though none of this takes away from the art and the value of the image, (maybe it enhances it), it does remind me that with digital we have a new sensibility and judgement value when it comes to a photograph.
Especially at the Leica gallery where the grain clumps are so large, the detail so soft that even the little M8 shot at 1600 iso is slightly technically superior, in fact it doesn't look that much different than the prints hanging in the gallery.
I am positive if you posted a full rez Bresson image on a forum today, there would be a heated brand war discussion of how crappy it was compared to a Canon 20d or whatever those cameras are called.
All photographs do not have to be super smooth, noise (grain) free, have perfect focus and edge to edge sharpness. In fact few of those attributes (if they are attributes) rarely have anything to do with a beautiful photograph.
In a way this is one of the reasons I bought the Leica, because to me it's the one camera that doesn't need an upgrade, higher resolution, or even pin point sharpness. Yea, it looks good at low iso, and when sharp is very sharp, but still that doesn't change the fact that when used like a Leica has historically been used, under low light, blured hand held shots in pushed black and white it looks pretty screwed up, just like pushed black and white film.
Somehow I find that comforting.
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/staten_island_ferry.jpg)
JR
-
James
I was slightly amused by your post regarding photographic quality because it takes me right back to where I was some months ago when I voiced a sadness about the way in which fashion photography has evolved.
At the time of writing, I was admitting a nostalgia for my own era - 60s to mid 80s - and noting how different everything is today. In particular, I referred to the fact that once upon a time we would just pick up the model, take along the clients´ clothes in the back of the car and go shoot something off the cuff or in accordance with some location arrangement made earlier in the week. And that was it: from humble little me to Horvat, Sieff and probably anyone else outwith New York, it was just photography. Then came the make-up people, the hair people and on and on and up went the total costs. I remember Helmut Newton saying on Fashion TV (the show with Jeannie Becker - Toronto) that in his "good old days" they just went out on the streets of Paris like wild dogs and shot and shot; today (his last few years) "everything is such a big deal..."
And that sort of sums it up.
Closer to your point about photographic quality, I can only take your own stuff as example. Yes, it is very impressive, but for ME, and possibly only me, it is exactly the same as all the other work that appears in the mags: skin is not skin, everybody looks too plastic-perfect; nothing much seems natural. The same quality is to be found in the portfolio of the Australian chap that posts here - Elitesometing? - which, as with yours work, is most impressive on a technical level but, to me, at the cost of the emotional. And if fashion is not about emotion then it´s about nothing.
I understand only too well that you have to go with the market, so no criticism is given, what I do say is that I believe it is all linked to the over-complication of everything in life today, from digital cameras and their compulsory computers to the fact that photographers have to be other than photographers, Jacks of all trades, if you will, and you know how seldom Jack does it all well.
The reference to the lady in France (another, but relevant thread) who gets somebody else to do the actual shooting is not as absurd as it seems at first glance. Is she not just doing a level above what art directors do, the ones who don´t trust the photographer?
So, if you tie up the basic truth of what you remarked about the Leica pictures you saw on show and marry it to the ethic of the commercial world, do you see a conflict between too much technical "perfection" and emotional expression? I don´t think I see much work anywhere that combines the two qualities with a lot of success.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Maybe I'm too close to it, but I don't agree with your assessment.
Yes a lot of work, mine included and especially for commerce can be over produced, but that is just the nature of commerce and what happens when the room swells from 5 people to 2 dozen.
It's not that the photographer doesn't have a vision, or just wants to see the room and the expenses grow, but the resulting size of production is just a reflection of what is involved, usually a committee driven concept and once again, there is nothing "wrong" with this as it has proven over time to work.
Then again I don't think things are much different today than they were in the past.
For small editorial such as this
http://russellrutherford.com/paris_editorial/ (http://russellrutherford.com/paris_editorial/)
(http://russellrutherford.com/paris_editorial/pictures/700paris0012.jpg)
(http://ishotit.com/leica_pars4.jpg)
The production is small, and the lighting on this was limited to either what was available and I used one tungsten Fresnel for fill. (The two black and white images were shot with the leica, BTW).
Also when we do a personal project like this, the production is even smaller, down to two assistants, makeup, hair, stylist and models. I may shoot just 5 frames a session.
(http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/rr_fashion_0015.jpg)
You may have a rose colored remembrance of the past and believe simplicity produced a pure look, but I think the past is just that, the past and of the pure photographs I see from those days, few really grabbed my attention or will last past their own publication dates.
I think what works is just what works. Sometimes it takes a huge crew and cast to produce even a simple retail shoot, where left to our own devices, a smaller crew will produce equal or even superior imagery, but then again that's because we start with a more simple agenda.
Commerce, especially when the money increases, will always have a more complicated agenda but I can promise you in this industry the past is just that . . . the past.
To move forward you do what works today, but it's not always that complicated and just because it's digital doesn't make it any less or more pure than before with film and wet darkrooms.
I don't believe in being nostalgic for anything. It just slows me up and will keep me from going forward and the photographers I know that miss the good old days, usually aren't working that much, if at all.
JR
James
I was slightly amused by your post regarding photographic quality because it takes me right back to where I was some months ago when I voiced a sadness about the way in which fashion photography has evolved.
At the time of writing, I was admitting a nostalgia for my own era - 60s to mid 80s - and noting how different everything is today. In particular, I referred to the fact that once upon a time we would just pick up the model, take along the clients´ clothes in the back of the car and go shoot something off the cuff or in accordance with some location arrangement made earlier in the week. And that was it: from humble little me to Horvat, Sieff and probably anyone else outwith New York, it was just photography. Then came the make-up people, the hair people and on and on and up went the total costs. I remember Helmut Newton saying on Fashion TV (the show with Jeannie Becker - Toronto) that in his "good old days" they just went out on the streets of Paris like wild dogs and shot and shot; today (his last few years) "everything is such a big deal..."
And that sort of sums it up.
Closer to your point about photographic quality, I can only take your own stuff as example. Yes, it is very impressive, but for ME, and possibly only me, it is exactly the same as all the other work that appears in the mags: skin is not skin, everybody looks too plastic-perfect; nothing much seems natural. The same quality is to be found in the portfolio of the Australian chap that posts here - Elitesometing? - which, as with yours work, is most impressive on a technical level but, to me, at the cost of the emotional. And if fashion is not about emotion then it´s about nothing.
I understand only too well that you have to go with the market, so no criticism is given, what I do say is that I believe it is all linked to the over-complication of everything in life today, from digital cameras and their compulsory computers to the fact that photographers have to be other than photographers, Jacks of all trades, if you will, and you know how seldom Jack does it all well.
The reference to the lady in France (another, but relevant thread) who gets somebody else to do the actual shooting is not as absurd as it seems at first glance. Is she not just doing a level above what art directors do, the ones who don´t trust the photographer?
So, if you tie up the basic truth of what you remarked about the Leica pictures you saw on show and marry it to the ethic of the commercial world, do you see a conflict between too much technical "perfection" and emotional expression? I don´t think I see much work anywhere that combines the two qualities with a lot of success.
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi James
Yep, rose coloured may well be the tint!
However, I do like your two b/w shots very much, the second one, by the wall, just screams Peter Lindbergh at me, underlining exactly the simple but super-strong essence of a picture.
I don´t think I implied any lack of photographer vision - I just feel that, as you indicated, over production might be a strong influence on the sort of image that turns me off. I have also stressed that my thoughts were no criticism of photographers paying attention to the status quo: you have to do what the market thinks it wants. It has no personal effect on me at all because I am long retired from battle, but I still retain an interest in the fashion/model work types of photography. What the hell else is there worth looking at on the web?
The problem, if there really is one for anyone other than myself, is that I fail to see how anybody, however talented, can produce those magical moments when working in a theatre full of extras. Perhaps it is just a matter of what one is used to doing, and as I was very much a solo act (wife as assistant on travel shoots at most), the crowd scenario doesn´t thrill me at all. However, even if those moments do get captured, the dehumanisation of the model kills it for me. And perhaps for most women on the reading side of the magazine too. Could that be the reasoning behind the Dove things?
In your previous set of pics, the central one of the kid in the cap, that´s the treatment I was very much interested in as a young photographer and it´s also sort of indicative of much of the freewheeling style of shots that I had in my portfolio. However, I have to say, though the portfolio (book, for class of today) did get me work, more often than not the client wanted a lot more detail for his buck. This made commercial sense, but when your mind is trying to turn your work into your life´s love, things can get confused...
Anyway James, a nice body of work!
Rob C
-
Because the bottom shot is prettier, better pose, better skin colors and I think the vignetting adds a tranditional film look to the image.
Regardless, the M8 will do this, but you'll have to work it in post and if you work it right, it will do more.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with the above and I think that the vignetting looks nice, and I also like the background blur in the Canon image...
-
I agree with the above and I think that the vignetting looks nice, and I also like the background blur in the Canon image...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, neither of these images are apples to apples, as the Leica image is either way stopped down, or a different lens alltogether.
The thing I don't understand about his review is why not just keep on with the 5D's because obviously he likes them and obviously they work.
I do agree with the guys review about Leica's quality control. I love this camera, but it's a fright and I would never shoot anything important with it without a backup, (probably multiple backups).
I've returned two leica lenses just because they back focus a lot and the 90 by about 2 feet.
Leica will probably take about a year to figure that one out.
There digital camera really should have been as robust as thier film cameras and for some reason something got dropped in translation.
Leica will probably work most of this out, but they better do it sooner than later.
JR
-
The thing I don't understand about his review is why not just keep on with the 5D's because obviously he likes them and obviously they work.
From his review ...
"Like many, I was enthusiastic about the release of the M8. My Canon EOS 1Ds and 5D have done well for me over the past several years. But I missed the Leica’s unobtrusiveness and precise focus. The small size and quiet operation are something I very much need. On many assignments I have to sneak photos day after day, frequently in front of armed men, both here and in West Africa where I was previously based. In Iraq, it is now prohibited to photograph car and suicide bomb scenes, detainees, hospitals and morgues. I often work un-embedded on the Baghdad streets, trying to shoot along the edges of a situation; I find it hard to blend in with a large SLR."
-
From his review ...
"Like many, I was enthusiastic about the release of the M8. My Canon EOS 1Ds and 5D have done well for me over the past several years. But I missed the Leica’s unobtrusiveness and precise focus. The small size and quiet operation are something I very much need. On many assignments I have to sneak photos day after day, frequently in front of armed men, both here and in West Africa where I was previously based. In Iraq, it is now prohibited to photograph car and suicide bomb scenes, detainees, hospitals and morgues. I often work un-embedded on the Baghdad streets, trying to shoot along the edges of a situation; I find it hard to blend in with a large SLR."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey, Mr P!
Q.E.D.
Rob C
-
How can Kamber´s reply be too negative? Assuming that he tells the truth, where is the overstatement which would lend weight in the direction or being too negative?
It´s not really a matter of one agreeing with one or two points: it´s a matter of a camera that is patently not up to requirements. That others have had samples that work does not in any way negate the terrible QC problems that appear to exist back at the ranch.
But anyway, something else Leica-related.
Others hadn't examples that work. Kamber's M8 works just like that of Ashley Gilbertson's.
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extre...m8-in-iraq.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-in-iraq.html)
Kamber uses a previos version of the firmware, and he makes absurd comparisons (M8, 5D). He is comparing two "in camera" softwares for image processing, that's all. I cannot understand why he doesn't use DNG instead JPG. The image quality differences are huge, and he is complaining for image quality! The M8 has ergonomic flaws, obviously, but it has ergonomic advantages too. Etc.
I agree the M8 needs a revision, if Leica wants to sell it two years more at $5,000... but I cannot agree with Kamber's conclusions.
-
From his review ...
"Like many, I was enthusiastic about the release of the M8. My Canon EOS 1Ds and 5D have done well for me over the past several years. But I missed the Leica’s unobtrusiveness and precise focus. The small size and quiet operation are something I very much need. On many assignments I have to sneak photos day after day, frequently in front of armed men, both here and in West Africa where I was previously based. In Iraq, it is now prohibited to photograph car and suicide bomb scenes, detainees, hospitals and morgues. I often work un-embedded on the Baghdad streets, trying to shoot along the edges of a situation; I find it hard to blend in with a large SLR."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
likewise, I found that using a rangefinder in hospital to photograph a friend going through cancer treatment was the best choice. the nurses and doctors didn't take me for a serious photographer and i was able to document without hindrance. another friend with a normal slr got barred from taking pictures.
Wes
-
Others hadn't examples that work. Kamber's M8 works just like that of Ashley Gilbertson's.
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extre...m8-in-iraq.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-in-iraq.html)
Kamber uses a previos version of the firmware, and he makes absurd comparisons (M8, 5D). He is comparing two "in camera" softwares for image processing, that's all. I cannot understand why he doesn't use DNG instead JPG. The image quality differences are huge, and he is complaining for image quality! The M8 has ergonomic flaws, obviously, but it has ergonomic advantages too. Etc.
I agree the M8 needs a revision, if Leica wants to sell it two years more at $5,000... but I cannot agree with Kamber's conclusions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He doesn't exactly have the luxury to sit and twiddle with ACR. At the end of the day, it's shoot the files over the wire and try and get some shuteye after preparing for the next. And much of his time is spent just trying to survive in one piece.
His perspective is probably a bit different than most M8 users and his review is based on a different real-world than theirs. For him, the numerous problems with the interfaces are a matter of earning a living. And the comparison with the 5D is not absurd if the difference is between success and failure, and whether the equipment delivers his vision.
There was much hope from those waiting for Leica's digital M, but between the crop sensor and the AA filter snafu, to the poorly thought out controls, it fell just a bit short of the mark. A nice camera for sure, but there's a feeling of what might have been.
Hopefully we'll see it in the not too distant future.
-
He doesn't exactly have the luxury to sit and twiddle with ACR. At the end of the day, it's shoot the files over the wire and try and get some shuteye after preparing for the next. And much of his time is spent just trying to survive in one piece.
His perspective is probably a bit different than most M8 users and his review is based on a different real-world than theirs. For him, the numerous problems with the interfaces are a matter of earning a living. And the comparison with the 5D is not absurd if the difference is between success and failure, and whether the equipment delivers his vision.
There was much hope from those waiting for Leica's digital M, but between the crop sensor and the AA filter snafu, to the poorly thought out controls, it fell just a bit short of the mark. A nice camera for sure, but there's a feeling of what might have been.
Hopefully we'll see it in the not too distant future.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, he needs to sort and select the JPGs in any case, and Lightroom reads and sorts RAWs very quickly. A few presets for RAW handling makes the process even more simple. On the other hand, you can adjust the JPG parameters in camera, and get higher contrast of more saturated colors, if you like. In any case, JPGs imply a loss in image quality. I agree on the ergonomic, battery consumption or low light/wide angle problems... The importance of these limitations depends on the kind of work you do. The worse problem of the M8 (focus precision of long and fast lenses) wasn't mentioned though...