Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 93

Thread: Double honors for the LEICA M7

  1. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Finally you come with a good response. That is what I'm expecting from you, laying down the fact on the table, which you should done from the first start rather than saying other thing.

    Originally posted by Red Dawn
    if u were to compare the price of a Toyota with a Mercedes Benz, and u dismiss the Benz for being much more expensive, without considering any other aspects, then u're shortsighted. There's merely looking at prices, without considering other things such as needs, advantages, features etc.
    Yes, you're right. That's the main reason behind my question to you, and asking you to explain what're those "other aspects".


    - their lenses are some of the best, wide open, corner to corner, excellent contrast, MUCH smaller size, much lighter weight, comparable price as Ls or AFS lenses. In fact, they are much better built than some of the Ls (not all Ls are ALL metal construction)
    Yes, this one advantage. As ex Leica-R user, I agree with you in term of sharpness at wide open. But not lighter nor smaller than the japanese brand (comparing to the equivalent MF lenses with the same max aperture & focal length. Unfair to compare MF with AF).

    - their lenses have a different optical signature than most other lenses from other brands, sharp point of focus areas, pleasing out of focus areas. you have to look to see, though to be fair, some Canon Ls have that look too.
    Yes, this is true. As I had said in other thread, that most of german-designed lenses have a nice blur & bokeh.

    - the Leica M system is small, unobstruive, light weight; lets u mix into crowds inconspicuously, looks like point and shoot stuff, and doesn't scream your presence.
    Sorry, I can't comment on this. As far as i know, the M system is rangefinder camera, while we are scoping into the equivalent japanese SLR, not a rangefinder. And I will not comment on some of your points because those are benefit of rangefinders, any rangefinders, not just Leica.

    - Leica M bodies (and lenses) are extremely well engineered, and can last many years. I've already quoted my example of my 1955-60s 90mm f4 Elmar, which is still working perfectly well today and certainly looks like it will for the next 50 years. Lots of pple today are still using (in fact a lot prefer) M3s and M2s.
    - Leica M stuff hold their value very well. Even if u're not a collector, this simple fact means you lose less when u trade up or upgrade.
    Other brands can also last that long, it is all depend on the usage, not the sole advantage of a particular product. There're many other cameras from the 1950s which are still working till now, and hold their value too (the value as compared to its initial purchase price).

    - Simpler to work with, no messy electronics, no "hold this button while turning that knob" stuff, jsut plain simple back to basics operation, and everything feels good and right.
    - No batteries needed (even the electronic M7)
    That is not advantage, but just a matter of personal preference.
    (.. CK will be proud of his FM2 for that same reason.. ) and by the way, M7 will only shoot at 2 different speed without battery.

    Good to know that you understand your equipment very well. Believe me, some of people out there are using Leica just by faith, pride and brand-image.
    Now I will tell you why I'm no more using Leica. (this is strictly personal, may not apply to other people. and I'm refering to SLR, not rangefinder):
    - The difference of sharpness at wide-open as compared to other equivalent lens will only noticeable at large prints (20x30 or more) or side-by-side comparison. Other than that, hard to see.
    And that only at wide-open, but if stopped down around 2 stop or more from its widest aperture, then a good japanese lens can equal the performance.
    - Other than portraiture, I rarely shot at wide open, mostly stopped down to widen DOF. In this case, there's no advantage of Leica anymore.
    - The blur & bokeh are mostly required for portraiture rather than other type of photography. And I found that Nikon's portrait lenses can equal the Leica performance at any given aperture (including the sharpness).
    - I need the convenience of AF for non-serious photo taking, and at that time (around 10 years ago), I could exchange my Leica set with a Nikon system plus several lenses and still got extra money. After some years of usage, my conclusion is: I don't need the advantage of Leica, so it is not worth the money.

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    I still maintain that they are overpriced. Excellent build, excellent lenses, yes, but overpriced. It is like paying for a Mercedes and getting a well built tricycle.
    Probably that's why they loss 1.5M euro for the fiscal year 2001-2002.
    From their business-plan, seems as they put their hope on digital.
    For some who may be interested to read Leica's official financial release, can go here

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,056

    Default

    if Leica made vintage cars, and other camera brands being Lexus or toyota or hyundai etc, would it be the same arguments?

    anyway awards have been to the milestone products for each brand, D60 something, the 1D something, the 1V something, and make some criticisms as well...
    and TIPA is always doing it...

    as usual some of the arguments smell familiar...
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,056

    Default

    wonder if there is a way to watermark film prints which camera originated them, like the EXIF headers....

    can u tell? like, can u tell that Milli Vanilli lip-synched if the greedy ghost-singers didn't out them?
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  5. #45

    Default

    recently i used my M6 in Namibia. the place is dusty like hell. the sand is so fine like powder flying everywhere. i seldom change lens, using the 28mm and 50mm to shoot. give me no problem. but my friend who use a canon get jam. so he bring his film back almost unexposed.
    so a leica is for tough condition.
    a friend of my using m6 to shoot in -10 degree, no problem, but his friend using R8 and canon got problem. nikon friend got no problem too.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,913

    Default

    Originally posted by howie
    recently i used my M6 in Namibia. the place is dusty like hell. the sand is so fine like powder flying everywhere. i seldom change lens, using the 28mm and 50mm to shoot. give me no problem. but my friend who use a canon get jam. so he bring his film back almost unexposed.
    so a leica is for tough condition.
    a friend of my using m6 to shoot in -10 degree, no problem, but his friend using R8 and canon got problem. nikon friend got no problem too.
    Right. So because you have one single instance you can draw a general conclusion that Leica is reliable, Canon is not (implied), the R8 is not (implied... isn't the R8 a Leica as well? Oh dear), Nikon is (implied). I know there are a lot of implied conclusions there, but they're fairly strongly implied.

    Sorry, but samples are a great mystery in life. It's entirely likely you could get a Leica that doesn't work straight out of the box, while it's also entirely likely that you could get a Russian Kiev that works straight out of the box (not very likely, but possible).

    Great that your Leica survived, but frankly I'd hold back on the gloating just in case it's your camera, whatever brand it may be, that jams the next time around.

  7. #47
    Moderator ed9119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,872
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default I fool around with Leicas occassionally

    whenever I get my hands on one (M2, M3, M5, M6).....and its various lenses.

    Its expensive its exclusive its....blah blah....I dont think I did any worse picture-taking with my lowly EOS 50 + 50/1.8 but most important of all it make me feel good with one around my neck. No offence Greg and other Leica M users, but that 'whisper quiet' shutter going off on a Leica sounds (to me) wheezy/whimpy to me. But I still dream of one.

    "Remove all emotional baggage"....oh come ON now...

    Unless we're robots that is going to be very very difficult eliminating all or even some emotions. We're humans and denial is something that everyone goes through....me included.

    I think that Namibia example (apologies Howie) and other seemingly pro-Leica practical reasons are very self-deluding/indulging.

    This could be a comparison between apples and durians sure, hey but they're BOTH fruits. Its not just Canon/Nikon/Others vs. Leica, its going to be Hyundai vs. Rolls, HDB vs. Condo, blue-collar vs white collar, blah blah blah....

    The feeling's like, I'm in the driver's seat of a Bently and exchanging glances with the driver of a Japanese car next to me at a traffic light. It beats the pants off me when the light turns green but I still I'm miles ahead......

    Do I lust after one that I can call my own with a 35/1.4?.... you bet.

    There're always 2 sides to a person (or at least me)
    1. use what I can afford and make the best of it and
    2. more cynically, lust/dream of what I could do if I had a few million bucks to blow.

    The more you beat on it, the worse you look. Humans are a 'progressive' (cynical scarsm) breed because of simple responses like greed and that darned trigger called 'getting ahead'.

    It (Leica) does have its moments where a slr or anything else just will not do as well. Yes, I see no justification $ on $. But before I'm called up to camera Heaven, one of my wishes and aspirations is to own a non metered M2 with just one 35/2.8....now THOSE (pre-M6) were real cameras and works of art vs. the M7

    For now, I plug my humble Canonet, Moskva 5, Iskra folders and other utility tools in my dry cabinet.

    I'm still of the opinion like others above, that the pic is what matters, not the equiptment. but lets not deny ourselves. When I look in the mirror and ask myself "do I need a Leica? No...do I want one nonetheless....Yes..."

    We all going to talk ourselves blue in the face but its not going to change one single thing.

    It might seem that I'm coming off as a snob and ultimately to the defence of Leica users, I'm not, I'm just saying what I think many are too polite or embarassed to say. I'll not bring a Bently (Ha! if only I could afford one) to the Saturday night drag races at Tuas.....I'll be behind the wheels of a souped up Subaru WRX to get the job done.

    ed
    Last edited by ed9119; 2nd September 2002 at 04:30 PM.
    shaddap and just shoot .... up close
    Walkeast

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default Re: I fool around with Leicas occassionally

    You see, people using Leica equipment always tries to hide the fact that they are overpriced and all, not sure it's because that's after they've spent so much money, they have to justify. Just take my few examples:

    M6 TTL - ~$3000
    Canon EOS 1V ~$3000

    Which would be a better buy? Sure, this is not quite an apple-to-apple comparsion, one being a RF and the other an AF SLR, but the point I am trying to get at is that, while well built and well engineered, the M6 is still relatively ancient and technologically backward (not that you need all the technology anyway). Thus it should not cost what it costs now. Buyers are paying for just the red dot.

    Summicron 35/2 : ~$2000
    The Nikon/Canon equivalent : No more than $500.
    Again, why the extra cost? Sure, it's sharp like anything, even wide open, but still, that doesn't justify the > 4 times increase in cost.

    Like what I said above, you are essentially paying Mercedes prize for a well built tricycle/bicycle. Sure, I used to lust for one, but at the end of the day, the cost just doesn't make sense. Most Leica users continually cloud themselves into an illusion that it's not overpriced and it's 'worth it'.

    But take it at face value, seriously remove all emotional baggage, and whatever placebo effects and evaluate the equipment at face value. Is it REALLY worth that much? Similarly, is a picture good just because you are told it's shot with a Leica or is it good on its on merit?

    The M7 has been widely praised for having AE, and I wonder why it took Leica so long to get that when the likes of Nikon FE, Canon AE1 etc are available so long ago. Even the old Canonet QL17 has AE, so what's so big deal? And unlike the relatively new (and cheaper) Nikon Fm3A, it can't even operate fully without batteries.

    Not trying to put down Leica cameras, or sneer at their users, or display a case of sour grapes "coz I cannot afford one so I say they are bad", but if you look at it objectively, they are nothing that amazing.

    About the whisper quiet shutter - it's still quite audible. In fact, in the 4 days I had a Hasselblad Xpan, the Xpan sounds quieter, even with its motor-driven film advance. The M6 sound appears to be higher pitched, and consequently sounds louder and more obvious.

    About being small and unobtrusive - a Canonet is very small and unobtrusive too, and can be had for < US$50 on eBay. Heck, a Ricoh GR1V is even smaller and less obtrusive though I am not that sure of its shutter sound.

    At the end of the day, it's not what camera you use, it's what you can produce from that camera.

    Regards
    CK

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default Re: Re: I fool around with Leicas occassionally

    Originally posted by ckiang

    At the end of the day, it's not what camera you use, it's what you can produce from that camera.
    why do i have this feeling i believe in that statement much more than you? esp after your repeated unprovoked tirade against Leica

    i dun think i want to waste anymore time defending my equipment choices. They work for me and let me take the kind of photos i want to take. Don't know if i mentioned this before but i got the M6 for quite a while, but didn't really tell anyone precisely to avoid such debates........... esp after a few who somehow got to know kept posting subtle snide remarks.....

    funny thing is, the same group of pple who kept snickering at the usefulness and quality of the Sigma 20mm f1.8 is mostly the same group now gorging at the Red Dot

    since they work well for me, i'm already planning on a second body, and a few other lenses, hopefully sometime in the future. Of course it all depends on whether i'll still have a job by year end in these uncertain times, financial status, world economic situations, whether the US will attack Iraq, whether Jesus is coming back before i buy it....................etc etc.....

    ps: look at the emoticons. All red dots! muhahahaha......
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  10. #50
    Sin
    Guests

    Default Re: Re: Re: I fool around with Leicas occassionally

    Originally posted by Red Dawn

    since they work well for me, i'm already planning on a second body, and a few other lenses
    Buy Buy Buy!!
    I support your decision.
    YES!!!
    BUY BUY BUY.
    Don't Just Argue about it, BUY it!!!

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Hi

    As Mr Mubage so vehemently spoken out at the UN meeting at Johannesburg.....

    "Blair, keep your England. Let us keep our Zimbabwe"

    the same parallel could perhaps be said of photographic equipment.....
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  12. #52

    Default

    Hmm... Interesting post by Ed, but I'll never get a Bently... big thing that probably handles like a pregnant yak. :P

    BH: You keep on saying that, but your Leica lust appears to contradict yourself.

  13. #53
    Moderator ed9119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,872
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default I'd be lying to myself, honestly

    ....if I said that I dont want/need a Leica (M). ... and I'm a faithful fan of the Sigma 20/1.8 .

    ed
    shaddap and just shoot .... up close
    Walkeast

  14. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    photozone
    Posts
    284

    Default

    To All :

    yup, I very much agree with Ed's view. At of end the day, search your heart honestly , and I mean real honestly and u will (hopefully) find out why u said those things u said . We are imperfect and very often our ego and self pride cause us to attack others or defend ourselves. Often we are hurting somewhere and are desperately using the open forum to vent our anger through sarcasm and cynism...this is one of the root causes of most disputes. Learn to break free and face the harsh but ultimately rewarding truth about yourselves, both the good and the bad aspects...

  15. #55

    Default

    The more I find out about Leicas, the more I DON'T want one. Honestly.

    Heck, you mean I need to focus manually? And even check the metering myself? And it uses FILM?

    Yeah, it looks good to have one around your neck, and feels even better when you press the shutter, I'm sure.

    But I'm the sort who wears a Casio watch, Giordano T-shirts and Crocodile underwear. No Rolexes, Arnold Palmer or Calvin Kleins. Not to knock those who wear the latter. They can look pretty good in them. But then there are also the Phua Chu Kangs....

  16. #56

    Default



    Author unknown, only quoted as 2002 PWIFLI, all credits to him. Do you like the pic?

  17. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    photozone
    Posts
    284

    Default

    I respect your view and stance. For the record, I dun own Leicas or even high end L lenses whatsoever and I share your choice of simple and functional clothes.

    To me a camera is a piece of tool for a job but it's my personal observation and humble opinion that there are people ( not referring to u Streetshooter ) who seem to be deluding themselves ...they derives certain , may I so bluntly but honestly say, perverted satisfaction in deriding others for their choice but is actually secretly ( maybe they dun even know) lusting for what they are crying foul about. There is something wrong here , some inbalance somewhere. I notice this in other threads as well. There is a certain uptightness. That was why I said that they are actually hurting somewhere. That was why I advocate an honest search within your own self to seek the real reason for saying what u said. Be blunt and honest to yourself. It's hard work but we will grow .

  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    photozone
    Posts
    284

    Default

    I respect your view and stance. For the record, I dun own Leicas or even high end L lenses whatsoever and I share your choice of simple and functional clothes.

    To me a camera is a piece of tool for a job but it's my personal observation and humble opinion that there are people ( not referring to u Streetshooter ) who seem to be deluding themselves ...they derives certain , may I so bluntly but honestly say, perverted satisfaction in deriding others for their choice but is actually secretly ( maybe they dun even know) lusting for what they are crying foul about. There is something wrong here , some inbalance somewhere. I notice this in other threads as well. There is a certain uptightness. That was why I said that they are actually hurting somewhere. That was why I advocate an honest search within your own self to seek the real reason for saying what u said. Be blunt and honest to yourself. It's hard work but we will grow .

    I am not here to spite anyone ...just wanna help.

  19. #59
    ewelch
    Guests

    Red face Leica bashing

    Been there, done that, have the T-shirt.

    Quite often Leica bashing starts up in conversations when people say the same of lame arguments over and over.

    First of all, Nikon, Canon, Contax, etc., all make fine cameras. They make some lenses that are competitive with Leica lenses (R or M).

    I've used Leicas since '81. I've used them professionally since about '86.

    And in answer to all of your arguments about buying a Mercedes and getting a tricycle, well, it is just plain hogwash.

    Proof? What is the most coveted camera amongst photojournalists? A Leica M. Period. It's the single most universally lusted after camera on the planet. Why? Becuase it does the job without getting in the way. It's fast, it's easy, it's no nonesense.

    It's one single weakness is that it's not appropriate for a lot of work (Sports, tele, macro). But the real serious, down-and-dirty in-close work is manual focus, manual exposure, and that's all there is to it. Auto focus gets in the way as much as it helps with documentary photography. So does auto exposure if you're good at getting exposure manually. When I use the Canon D60 at work, I usually turn off AF and AE. It's just plain nonsense that they make perfect exposures and read your mind to know where the should be focused.

    Perfectly boring, maybe.

    Professionals use simple tools for a reason. And this is where Leica excels. There's one thing Leica needs to do to make it the ultimate camera for this century - make it digital.

    You get what you pay for.

    I've used Nikon and Canon lenses, Contax, Pentax and many others as well. No lens company makes such consistently outstanding lenses. If you can't see it, then don't worry yourself. Save a buck. But when you do see what you like in Leica lenses that you can't find anywhere else, then you pay for it. It's a matter of taste and discrimination.

    As a photo editor who's work gets published on very high quality presses I know how to judge a photograph to see how it will reproduce. Leica lenses produce amazingly good photos in horrible conditions. In bright, every-day light, there usually isn't much difference. It's in the worst conditions that Leica lenses stand out. Detail in shadows you didn't know were there. Gorgeous bokeh, and incredible sharpness with the APO lenses. (There ain't any zoom on this planet that comes close to my 70-180 2.8 Vario Apo Elmarit R, and not many single focal length lenses either - only a couple of Leica Apos!) It's not a myth. But not everyone looks for the qualities that Leica offers when they look at photos. They're looking for something else. (And don't lecture me on subject matter, I know the drill - nothing is as important as what it is you are photographing - this stuff comes as an ancillary to that).

    So unless you've burned thousands of rolls of film through various lenses over the years from different manufacturers in all kinds of horrid conditions, you might not see a difference that you can put your finger on. Heck, most Leica amateurs don't come close to pushing their lenses to the max. But those who do, they know.
    Last edited by ewelch; 3rd September 2002 at 01:16 PM.

  20. #60
    Moderator ed9119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,872
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    quote: Proof? What is the most coveted camera amongst photojournalists? A Leica M. Period. It's the single most universally lusted after camera on the planet.

    Hallelujah!!!!

    ed
    shaddap and just shoot .... up close
    Walkeast

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •