[Leica] Leica MDigital

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

B. D. Colen offered:
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica MDigital


> Frankly, it may be argued, if we want to be traditional photography
> 'purists,' that rather than add such a feature, we should be removing the
> LCD entirely.<<<<<

Hi B. D.,
Considering the number of years we shot with nothing more than looking 
through the viewfinder and "click" while successfully making excellent 
photographs without seeing the end results, sometimes months after the 
exposure was made, I don't see the screen as an "absolute necessity" to 
being successful. I still don't bother with the LCD 99% of the time until 
later when we have a break.

I consider the "click-then-look" a waste of shooting time in many of the 
situations we're working in. Yep if one is doing a critical shot for 
advertising or similar kind then I'm all for the screen being a handy 
gadget. But hardly critical to the general photography by most list members. 
Or others in the world who constantly "shoot & look!"

It's a given when one first acquires a digital camera part of the 
"metamorphism" to digital is, "shoot & look" from curiosity if nothing else. 
Listen to people who do this for the first few exposures and I bet everyone 
on the list has done something like this....   Make the first exposure or 
two and looked with this as a general comment... "WOW! Look at that! Well 
I'll be damned isn't that the neatest thing!" :-) And we all break out in 
smiles to see the first images on that screen. :-) Yeah and it is neat! :-)

Then it becomes the time waster because some fall into the trap of "make 
exposure - look!" :-( If one has been a photographer without digital & 
screen as the first camera, we had the experience of shooting hundreds, nay, 
thousands of frames and never seeing the results until the film was 
processed. And we succeeded 100% of the time. Well Ok 99.9999999% of the 
time. ;-)

But when digital is the first camera, then looking at the screen becomes the 
norm of shooting and the way to use the camera doing photography. But I 
don't see the screen as an absolute essential of picture taking.

> If anything is changing the way people photograph with digital
> cameras, it is not the digital capture, but rather it is the presence of 
> the
> LCD.<<<<

Absolutely as it's become the controlling factor in how people shoot and how 
much they shoot.

> I am unquestionably shooting fewer frames on jobs I shoot digitally,
> than I did on jobs I shot with film, and I have come to the conclusion 
> that
> that is so because I can see my images on the spot and, 1., am wasting
> shooting time looking at the LCD, and 2., am shooting less because I know
> instantly that I 'got it.' I can't help wondering what I'm missing by
> shooting fewer frames.<<<<

I don't know about shooting less frames, I think I'm the opposite doing far 
more or working the scene more so than with film, but I don't have any 
logical reason why this seems to happen. However, I don't look at the screen 
and shoot with nothing more than the motivating moment before me.

And I'm not saying you don't shoot in similar fashion regarding the 
motivating scene to press the button. Maybe it's just me and a left over 
from the days of shooting AV programmes at the National Film Board.

> Yes, it's nice to have instant feedback, but I can't help but chuckling 
> when
> people who have previously been shooting with IIIfs and M3s, using 
> handheld
> meters and getting great exposures, complain that this camera or that 
> camera
> doesn't automatically bring up a histogram when they review an image. Two
> years ago they would have said, 'what the hell is this histogram 
> thing?!'<<<

I still haven't got a clue, nor do I look at it, the "Historectomy screen" 
;-) because that's just another diversion from shooting the action of the 
moment. I suppose for the rock & ferner, peeling paint shooters it's a great 
exposure asset. But when I made the thousands of frames for "Women in 
Medicine" book using M7's set for AE lock I never checked exposures other 
than the shutter speed flashed in the view finder as I made the shot. And 
quite frankly the exposures roll after roll were on the mark, quite amazing 
really in the consistency.

So the histogram is just another thing in the camera for folks who like to 
fiddle. ;-) Yeah I know someone's going to regale me with the added benefits 
to using it for critical exposures... OK fire away. :-)

> Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy with a digital M with NO LCD whatsoever,
> much less a 'real time' LCD. Sure, I'd also be happy at this point to have 
> a
> digital rangefinder with an LCD to review what I shot, but...

Same here. Oh yeah and we can afford! ;-)

 > Anyway, I'll be pleasantly surprised if Leica actually comes out with a
> digital M, priced for the working photographer, rather than the Armani
> collector, that is vaguely up-to-date in terms of its digital features. 
> The
> last thing I want them to be wasting time over is figuring out how to turn
> that digital M into another digital P&S. ;-)<<<

Well considering the time they may have wasted to date figuring out how to 
do this, while  others reached the finish line and at the victory party. 
I'll be surprised if we see a camera in the near future, let alone if ever. 
Which I feel would be a shame considering the number of people with Leica M 
lenses who'd purchase a camera as soon as they were available. Me included, 
provided it were priced as a regular M7 or affordable for the majority of 
the LUG crew.  We shall see.

ted