Video - why?

[Justinr]

For that to work you'd have to find some pretty ignorant boudoir actors.

Not if a couple are playing themselves just so long as they don't get it all mixed up when great Aunt Agatha calls to view the holiday snaps. But I grant you it will need researching and some hard pressed fellow may need to trawl the internet in a bid to secure evidence of this wicked and shameless debauchery! Should such an undertaking be desired by the good people of LuLa then I will reluctantly allow my name to go forward in the interests of serving this noble and learned community.

[RSL]

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Sounded as if you were suggesting using a DSLR so the performers wouldn't know what was going on. If that's not the case, why not use a movie camera? Less hassle. Better results.

[GrahamBy]

There was one occasion when a performer asked me to shoot some video. She liked my stills, I protested that I had zero video experience. She said there would be a regular video camera on a tripod getting the whole performance, but please just get some short segments from different viewpoints. There was also no option of taking stills, because there was an audio recording being made and the shutter was too noisy.

So I did it. I just handed over the card afterwards, I still haven't seen whether it was edited into something useful. It was an interesting experience that I wouldn't have had if my DSLR didn't have a video setting. So... why not?

[RSL]

Because, as you pointed out to the lady, Graham, the skills involved are different ones. I'm not a film-clip photographer. I'm a still photographer. I have absolutely no interest in the sort of film-clips I might do with a DSLR or with my Pen-F. I can't print a film-clip. I can't hang a film-clip on the wall. I can't market a film-clip, though that's a purely academic consideration at this point since I no longer take the trouble to market anything. I'd love to be able to buy a camera that gives me the tools to make the best possible stills without cluttering the damn thing with a useless film-clip capability. Yes, I know, Leica finally got smart and came out with such a camera. But nowadays Leica is pricing its products as jewelry, not as photographic equipment, and even though I loved my three film Leicas the absurd price escalation ticks me off to the point where I won't touch another Leica.

[GrahamBy]

I'm very sympathetic to that point of view. I've built quite a bit of stereo equipment shorn of every superfluity, and heavily modified a motorcycle or two in that direction.

However, my skills aren't up to modifying a DSLR, and I'm willing to concede that building one camera that can do both stills and video may result in it costing less than two separate cameras that do one or the other. A triumph of economies of scale over development cost: it's rather exemplified by Leica pricing...

There is also the marketing. I use a K-3, which also has a pop-up flash I've never used. On the K-3 II, Pentax left it off and I was amazed to see the internet reviewers go ape-shit about this huge loss. They probably succeeded in persuading some potential buyers that it actually mattered to lose an on-camera flash with GN=2 (or close ) I'm sure it would be worse if they dropped the video (unless they raised the price by a factor of 10... but they have the 645Z for that).

All I can do is base my purchase decision entirely on the still side. I'm not willing to pay more for video capacity, but neither will I pay extra to have it left off (assuming it doesn't compromise the stills).

[Justinr]

Because, as you pointed out to the lady, Graham, the skills involved are different ones. I'm not a film-clip photographer. I'm a still photographer. I have absolutely no interest in the sort of film-clips I might do with a DSLR or with my Pen-F. I can't print a film-clip. I can't hang a film-clip on the wall. I can't market a film-clip, though that's a purely academic consideration at this point since I no longer take the trouble to market anything. I'd love to be able to buy a camera that gives me the tools to make the best possible stills without cluttering the damn thing with a useless film-clip capability. Yes, I know, Leica finally got smart and came out with such a camera. But nowadays Leica is pricing its products as jewelry, not as photographic equipment, and even though I loved my three film Leicas the absurd price escalation ticks me off to the point where I won't touch another Leica.

The same is happening in the world of motorcycles, grand old names that were thought to be dead and buried (deservedly so in some cases) are being hauled out of the undergrowth and a fancy new bike is attached that relies on 'styling clues' and 'inspiration' from machines that bit the dust in the fifties and sixties, or even earlier in the case of the Brough Superior. You can't doubt the quality of the product or admire the skill of the lads on the autocad but when you see the words 'prices start at' followed by at least 30K you know its no more than a bauble for the 1% and hardly relevant to anybody that actually likes to ride bikes rather than simply pose upon them at some Mediterranean watering hole for the super rich.. 

[Rob C]

Because, as you pointed out to the lady, Graham, the skills involved are different ones. I'm not a film-clip photographer. I'm a still photographer. I have absolutely no interest in the sort of film-clips I might do with a DSLR or with my Pen-F. I can't print a film-clip. I can't hang a film-clip on the wall. I can't market a film-clip, though that's a purely academic consideration at this point since I no longer take the trouble to market anything. I'd love to be able to buy a camera that gives me the tools to make the best possible stills without cluttering the damn thing with a useless film-clip capability. Yes, I know, Leica finally got smart and came out with such a camera. But nowadays Leica is pricing its products as jewelry, not as photographic equipment, and even though I loved my three film Leicas the absurd price escalation ticks me off to the point where I won't touch another Leica.

Ah, Russ, Leica!

When the business could afford one (M rangefinder) I didn't buy because of the accuracy problems with exactly what you were or were not framing;  Nikon pro bodies took care of that, plus, of course, gave me lots of long lenses to employ. Then the reflex bodies came out and hey, even they didn't offer 100% coverage in the viewfinder. So still no deal.

Today, no business is funding anything, and I don't really care, because I see time as a very precious commodity in short supply. And you know what - the M digital rangefinder Leicas are getting a stronger and stronger hold on my imagination. Why? Because framing can be as vague as it likes - I have to fill a frame to nobody's brief - and for my website, I can chop and change as I see fit! I wouldn't sell anything anymore -  I hold apparently worthless goods today anyway, and why throw away the possibilities existing equipment still offers? So where the driver for the interest in Leica M? Basically, because though I had a very brief relationship with an employer's M3, printed a lot from it for him (which is why I swear I could see a difference), I have never owned one. And it feels like an essential milestone in every serious photographer's life. And, I am shooting more and more with less and less: almost all of it these days is from a 50mm (usually on the cropped body) or a 24mm on either the FF body or the other. In essence, three focal lengths: real 24mm, 35mm equivalent (though I do have a real 2/35mm) and 75mm equivalent. Leica M can handle that.

(Having just written the above, I can't help noticing how many images made with Leicas have people's feet cut off half-way through, not something one would do by choice.)

But the crunch comes where and as you pointed out: the price is simply out of my considered reach. Yes, I could go nuts and spend it, but I am not yet nuts enough to go there. From the start, photography had to be either a seriously sensible investment or one not made at all. In a nutshell, I was never an equipment junkie and only bought what I knew I'd use a lot.

Rob

[RSL]

My Leica kit was an M2 and M4, plus one screw lens body. I think the screw body was a IIIc, though it may have been a IIIf. I don't remember for sure. I bought it from a great local camera repairman as a second camera along with a used M2. In late 1967 I added a brand new M4, which I loved with all my heart. The IIIc (or f) had a 50mm lens. Don't remember what aperture. The lens lineup for my M bodies was a Canon 35mm f/2, 50mm Summicron f/2, Canon 85mm f/1.8, and a Canon 135 -- I think it was an f/4. I took on several fun jobs with this gear. I spent a couple months of Saturdays shooting this dance class. I think this shot was the M4 with its Summicron.

I don't remember exactly, Rob, but it seems to me the M4 with Summicron was a little less than $600. Since our government has taken such care to insure our money doesn't lose value, $600 then would be equal to about $4,350 today. Nowadays the lens alone runs about $2,300, the 1967 equivalent of $320, and I can't make a comparison for the body, but the equivalent is out of sight.

But all is not lost. I have a 25mm Leica DG Summilix lens that I used on my Olympus E-P1, and now use on my Pen-F, a half-frame camera, making the lens the equivalent of 50mm. The Leica quality is there in that lens, and it goes for about $600. I have a range of lenses for my Nikons, but at heart I'm a 50mm guy, so the Pen gets a lot of use.

And, yes, as is usual with a Leica, the girl closest to us has her feet cut off.

[Rob C]

Really good shot, Russ, and wonderful tones even after all the conversions for appearance in LuLa!

Great stuff; wish so much I hadn't been stupid enough to destroy and/or sell back all my fashion negs those many years ago...  who knew what was to come one day? But I was leaving the country - what was I going to do with all those rows of Rowi negative files? It really does hurt: I poured so much emotion into some of that early work - both in the doing and the hoping where it might take me. Truthfully, I don't think the calendar stuff ever had the same importance to me - financially much more, but insofar as personal interest, I don't think so. By that time, the dreams had become whatever the reality had turned into which wasn't quite the same thing at all. Also, the fashion was mostly black/white and I did all the processing; you get to have a far deeper relationship with work that you brought to the light than you can with tranparencies that just come out of a sleeve, birthed from somewhere else.

Rob

[GrahamBy]

Russ : chapeau l'artiste, great shot.

[Telecaster]

I've never bought a new Leica camera or lens, though the M2 and 35/2 Summicron my dad gave me for my 15th birthday was bought new by him (to document my arrival and childhood, but which he then proceded to do mainly with his trusty Kodak Retina IIc while my mom took over the Leica). Back in the days of the Leica Users Group (LUG) e-mail list, finding used gear in great shape at decent prices wasn't difficult. That's where most of my M & LTM lenses came from.

I enjoy using my M8.2s. I run 'em a lot like film-era Ms: fixed ISO (320, same as I'd typically choose with "400" speed neg film), manual mode, no chimping. One camera gets a 28/50mm combo (roughly 35/65mm "equivalent") while the other gets 35 & 85mm (about 45 & 110mm). On the day I'll decide whether to go with the wider camera/lens set or the longer one.

-Dave-

[RSL]

I still had all my negatives in boxes when digital came along. I also had contact sheets for the whole shebang. So I was able to dig out the stuff I wanted to save and scan it. The negatives themselves now are in the hands of my sons, back in Colorado, stored in a typically dry, Colorado storage room. But I have scans of the stuff I want.

A few years ago I scanned everything good from the dance class shoot and made a big comb-bound book for the woman who ran the class. She'd been a ballet dancer when she was younger and she really knew her stuff. She also loved those kids. She just about passed out when I gave her the book. I suspect she's gone now. I ran into one of the kids a couple years ago -- all grown up. In her fifties. A lovely person, probably to some extent because of that dance class. I made a few bucks on the shoot, but the money wasn't what mattered to me.

Ah well. . .

[Justinr]

I still had all my negatives in boxes when digital came along. I also had contact sheets for the whole shebang. So I was able to dig out the stuff I wanted to save and scan it. The negatives themselves now are in the hands of my sons, back in Colorado, stored in a typically dry, Colorado storage room. But I have scans of the stuff I want.

A few years ago I scanned everything good from the dance class shoot and made a big comb-bound book for the woman who ran the class. She'd been a ballet dancer when she was younger and she really knew her stuff. She also loved those kids. She just about passed out when I gave her the book. I suspect she's gone now. I ran into one of the kids a couple years ago -- all grown up. In her fifties. A lovely person, probably to some extent because of that dance class. I made a few bucks on the shoot, but the money wasn't what mattered to me.

Ah well. . .

Nowadays you are likely to get yourself locked up if you went anywhere near a dance class with a camera. When our two were at that age and having lessons I would be asked to do a few shots for portfolios but it was always away from the class with other adults in attendance and so on.

[Rob C]

I still had all my negatives in boxes when digital came along. I also had contact sheets for the whole shebang. So I was able to dig out the stuff I wanted to save and scan it. The negatives themselves now are in the hands of my sons, back in Colorado, stored in a typically dry, Colorado storage room. But I have scans of the stuff I want.

A few years ago I scanned everything good from the dance class shoot and made a big comb-bound book for the woman who ran the class. She'd been a ballet dancer when she was younger and she really knew her stuff. She also loved those kids. She just about passed out when I gave her the book. I suspect she's gone now. I ran into one of the kids a couple years ago -- all grown up. In her fifties. A lovely person, probably to some extent because of that dance class. I made a few bucks on the shoot, but the money wasn't what mattered to me.

Ah well. . .

That was a kind gesture, Russ, and I'm sure gave you a lot of satisfaction too!

Reminded me of a similar episode in my early pro life working in the industrial unit: I'd gone to see the secretary of the Glasgow Drama College (I seem to remember it having a far grander title I no longer remember) with a view to creating a 'model' portfolio for myself, as there were few models to be found within jet engines. They let me put up a little photo-board and one of the girls who came through I found to be quite inspirational. We spent a day working together down at the coast, and the upshot was that I made a 'book' of photographs for her from the work, print dry mounted onto board for the really hard cover! It was a very enjoyable experience. Maybe that's partly why most photographers crave a book: it's permanent (relatively) and seems to offer completeness.

Apart from that, it was a very early lesson in the importance of the right model. Without that, you just shoot film and print prints without much joy either way.

Rob

[Justinr]

That was a kind gesture, Russ, and I'm sure gave you a lot of satisfaction too!

Reminded me of a similar episode in my early pro life working in the industrial unit: I'd gone to see the secretary of the Glasgow Drama College (I seem to remember it having a far grander title I no longer remember) with a view to creating a 'model' portfolio for myself, as there were few models to be found within jet engines. They let me put up a little photo-board and one of the girls who came through I found to be quite inspirational. We spent a day working together down at the coast, and the upshot was that I made a 'book' of photographs for her from the work, print dry mounted onto board for the really hard cover! It was a very enjoyable experience. Maybe that's partly why most photographers crave a book: it's permanent (relatively) and seems to offer completeness.

Apart from that, it was a very early lesson in the importance of the right model. Without that, you just shoot film and print prints without much joy either way.

Rob

It's as easy as pie to get your own book published in the digital age, it's getting someone else to pay for it that's the tricky bit.

[RSL]

Russ : chapeau l'artiste, great shot.

Merci, Graham. I scanned 244 pictures from that shoot. I picked this one to show, mainly because of the window behind. I've always liked that light.

[GrahamBy]

May have been a good choice, missing the feet to get the top of the window arch

[RSL]

With a 50mm prime you have to make a decision.

[Rob C]

Ah, but these feet are not missed because of viewinder restrictions leading to mistakes due to the lens itself (or the shade) getting in the way - the decision was made intentionally to allow the window graphic to survive!

The 'errors' that I spot are usually where the frame cuts off mid-instep, which nobody would do by choice - it just looks what it probably always is: a mistake.

Even HC-B is guilty.

Sieff used a 21mm a lot on his M bodies, even revealing that he shot a career-critical assignment with just that one lens, hoping against hope the client would buy it. She did. However, there's really no way of knowing how close he got or how much safety margin he allowed. The results just look exactly what the era was about: visual shock within workable parameters. It also saw great work pass through its elements in Death Valley. Wonderful, dedicated and amusingly erudite man. I love his sardonic writing, even through translations! Very widely exhibited as photographer, you really have to read his views, notwithstanding, on curators et al. There's an evident delight in biting that feeding, and hence proprietorial hand!

Rob

[RSL]

Even HC-B is guilty.
Rob

Say it isn't so, Rob. My world is crumbling!