Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] decline in LUG membership
From: joelmail at mchsi.com (Joel Anderson)
Date: Wed Aug 11 10:34:11 2004
References: <200408111624.i7BGNHhI027129@server1.waverley.reid.org> <20040811164616.10883.qmail@web50506.mail.yahoo.com>

This will probably be too long and obnoxious, but here goes:

At 11:46 AM 8/11/2004, you wrote:
Emanuel lowi wrote:

>I have a few questions for the many people in this
>group who have adopted the digital technology in
>substantial ways during the past year, but who were
>previously mostly Leica M users.
>
>1) How does the act of photographing with your digital
>equipment compare with your prior experience of the
>act of photography with your Leica M? By this, I mean
>the "groove" you get into when shooting; your ability
>to get inside the moment while still recording it;
>your ability to detect a picture instinctively and
>then react to get it; your ability to work without
>thinking about your equipment while events are
>unfolding; your enjoyment of taking pictures.


Depends on the class of equipment.  For "real" photography, consumer grade 
digitals that I have used flunk totally.  Fine for parties and snapshots 
(well, not really---where the lighting is weird, they tend to be a little 
too limited for this stuff too), and for those times when bringing more or 
bigger equipment isn't practical, but for fleeting-moment people 
photography, no way.  They took forever to turn on, and wasted time 
focusing and computing exposure--basically, you had to stand there 
anticipating every shot with your finger partially depressing the shutter 
button--nope.  Not for me.  Plus, many of them have no or limited manual 
control.  Not acceptable.  But the the image quality was surprisingly good 
(on my 2MP and 3MP cams).  I started with a 2MP P&S with no manual control, 
and moved to a 3MP consumer grade cam with full manual control options (a 
Fuji 6900z).  Outstanding camera.  But the time factor makes them less 
useful for fleeting moment photography than even a Walmart disposable cam.

So I got a 300D and then replaced it with a D70.  They are just like every 
other SLR I have used except that they are much bigger.  No delay times (I 
think the 300D takes a few seconds to turn on, but that is workable.  The 
D70 is instantaneous).  In fact, if you are talking about DSLRs, the 
experience for me is the same as a film SLR--the big difference being the 
rangefinder v. the SLR TTL finder.  I give the edge to ANY 
rangefinder--Leica, Contax--even my Canon Canonets.  But I tend to adjust 
to my equipment in any case.

As for thinking about my equipment, my D70 is on the same aperture priority 
mode all of my SLRs were on.  I'm not thinking much about the camera.

>2) How satisfied are you with the final results you
>get with your digital gear, compared to what you got
>with your Leica M. ...snip

On the whole, frankly--hold on to your hats---I like the digital results 
better.  As compared with 35mm, not medium format.  That is not to say that 
the ditigal is necessarily taking objectively better photos, but there is 
so much flexibility in them that there are far fewer problems.  I like to 
take photos of jazz musicians performing (among other things), and of 
course this means very low light and moving subjects.  The M6 dusted every 
other film camera I used for this.  Somehow I could hand hold it at lower 
speeds (even lower than my other rangefinders--go figure), and go many more 
keepers that still looked pleasant in spite of the lighting 
challenges.  With the DSLRs ability to adjust its ISO, I get better images 
in these challenging situations.  Actually, you can make either camera work 
just fine in these situations, but I am getting more keepers with the 
digital.  Hate to say it, though.  By the way, I was a die-hard manual 
camera kinda guy.  So when I compare film SLRs, I'm not talking about 
anything with auto focus.  I was an FE, AE-1 kinda guy.

>3) Do the final results you get come to you with less
>or more effort than what you had to go through before:
>buying and carrying and loading and rewinding film,
>dropping it off at a lab and then picking up your
>slides a couple of hours later, vs. the battery
>management issues and time spent Photoshopping at the
>computer.

Far less effort with digital.  Why?

1.  There are no (real) battery issues on the higher level cams.  Consumer 
cams?  A major problem with every one I used.

2.  Time spent in Photoshop?  As compared with kick-starting a darkroom 
simply because you want to work a little bit on a single print?  I really 
miss the darkroom--the whole experience was practically religious.  But 
now, I can have images on my laptop that go with me everywhere, and I can 
work on them a little at a time (note that for finalizing things, you want 
to be on a calibrated monitor which a laptop is not likely to be, but you 
can still do something).  Moreover, if all I have is 10 minutes to mess 
with images, there is no way I am going to start up my darkroom for that 
small an amount of time.  No issue with the computer.

>4) How do you feel, after being M users, now being
>electronic SLR users?

The electronic part has become fairly transparent to me.  It is not just 
the difference between a rangefinder and an SLR.  As I said, I prefer the 
rangefinder, but digital has allowed me to take and work with far more 
images that I had time for with film.  Frankly, I used to have really 
depressing backlogs of film needing to be developed, and it caused me to 
literally stop shooting for periods of time.  Not good.  No problem anymore.


>5) Is it really worth it? What does your
>heart-of-hearts tell you?

One thing I like about film is the negative.  It is a physical object.  If 
a hard drive crashes, or a CD becomes unreadable, I can always rescan a 
negative.

I would suggest that in your consideration of procedures that you separate 
out the camera from the computer.  The camera issue is a CAPTURE issue.  I 
think every photographer should be learning photoshop simply because in 
this field it is something everyone is going to know to some degree, so you 
should too.  But that does not mean you have to buy a digital camera.  You 
can get many of the benefits of going digital by getting a good 
scanner.  IMO, a GOOD digital camera is well worth it simply because of the 
versatility.  So far, I have pretty much beat everything I have ever done 
on 35mm (caveat--there are way too many human variables in this equation to 
draw a firm conclusion).  Medium format--well, that is different.

All that being said, I sold my M6 to get my D70--for financial reasons 
only.  I will not buy another M6, but I will get a good, user M2 or M3.  I 
am getting some serious work done with my digital (once moving up to a 
DSLR).  But there are those times when I just want that simple, 
straight-forward feeling of a good camera hanging from my shoulder, and I 
would grab an M for that.  Realistically, those times are fewer and fewer 
now.

The kitchen sink will be in the next installment.....

>Emanuel lowi
>Montreal
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from lowiemanuel at yahoo.ca (Emanuel Lowi) ([Leica] decline in LUG membership)