heikoM wrote:
What about marketing considerations? I am tempted to believe they are better with Leica equipment. Just the possibilities to post pictures with names and websites in different blogs generate backlinks to the website.
I found Otto Schulze just because I googelt wedding and Leica.
Any opinions about that?
heiko
If you are out to impress other photographers, maybe. Perhaps more of the general population in Germany would recognize the name Leica, but in the US I think 1 out of 10,000 would have heard of them.
I love my Leica M3. I have used it personally and professionally. I once photographed Vladimir Volkoff for the French Magazine VSD with my M3. That was an interesting experience!
I think I agree with dmac. And even more, since they're (relatively) small cameras and lens there's more of a chance people will either think you have crappy gear or that you're just another uncle bob.
"If you are out to impress other photographers, maybe. Perhaps more of the general population in Germany would recognize the name Leica, but in the US I think 1 out of 10,000 would have heard of them."
(dmcmillan)
Sorry for quoting wrong.
I am not sure about that. You know, at least nearly every uncle bob knows what Leica is. But in general you may be right.
It is different here in Germany I think. I quite often get comments, like: "Oh you have a Leica?" Itīs like, Oh you have a Porsche. Donīt get me wrong here, nothing I like to hear, I donīt use it so people may think I am cool, what I am not (o:
But at the same time people wonder why I shoot with such an antiquated (correct word?) tool. "Oh, you still shoot film?"
Anyway, love the feel - which I think is important. If I use a crafting knife for example I want a nice feel and grip, too. Love the size and the quality. Hate that I get often better results with my Nikons.
and yes, when it gets a bit rough (rain or so) I feel much more at ease with my Nikons.
Is the Leica capable, yes, I think so - is it convenient? Probably not so.
What was it I need the Leica for?
(Sorry, just a little self-insight)
I'm still using a pair of M9's as my primarys. I'd have to agree with all the comments that clients don't really see the differences between almost any camera. But I do. I'm going to disagree with the image quality statements. CCD cameras are not good at high ISO. That's just a fact of life. But at lower ISO's the M9 positively thumps anything my 5D2 ever did. And the files are the most organic (film like?) that I've ever seen from a digital. I'm not all that keen on super clean high ISO files. I like some grain in my low light shots. It feels more authentic to me. I almost never shoot at over 800 ISO so the M files are more than fine anyway. The M9 files are just stunning when printed. a 1000 pixel screen grab just can't do them justice. Plus there's the lenses.
An M is the wrong choice for 95% of photographers. A DSLR is easier, faster and more 'professional". I still have a DSLR for long lens and macro stuff and a standard zoom for when it's needed. But I've still halved the weight of gear I carry. AF is pretty reliable on a DSLR but I can get focus at a reception just as quick on the M9 and since I'm not farting aroung selecting a focus point I'm often quicker during the rest of the day as well.
For me, personally, it was about everything BUT the client. It was purely a selfish decision. I wanted to simplify and to shed some weight and confusion. I was loosing my mojo. After 20 years of collecting gear and accessories I was drowning with choice. Plus I never bonded with the 5D/5D2 like others did. I only stuck with Canon because of the 85L.
I know that I don't shoot any better with Leica, but I enjoy shooting more. After nearly 20 years of doing weddings I'm only going to keep going if I'm enjoying the process. And for me rangefinders are just fun to use. The lack of choice is so refreshing and freeing. All that's there is what you need to get a shot. Shutter/ISO and Aperture. All at your fingertips and adjustable with your eyes closed. No fussing over which focusing perameter to set or which off camera flash ratio to bother with.
So I sold all the Canon gear and got two bodies and two lenses. I now carry four lenses and a flash for when it's needed. The whole M kit is 3kg and fits in a waist pack. I haven't shot woth only the Leicas yet. But I do want to. One day I'll shoot a whole wedding with just two bodies and two lenses. I do have a wedding next month where I'm traveling with the bride in a sea plane. I've been asked to keep the weight down so for that one the SLR stays at home.
So yeah, it's more expensive (not that much compared to 1 series bodies though), has less choice, poor flash implementation, no automated modes, no macro (no real macro), no zooms and no lenses longer than 135mm but its still my favourite camera to shoot with.
I bought mine for several reasons and shooting weddings wasn't one of them. I now bring it with me and for portraits and getting ready it's awesome. DSLR's are so damn good at what they do that in my mind as much as I want to shoot RF, I know pretty much everything I shoot will be "technically" superior to the M9, but there's something very different to my eye. The M9 is my go to for everything else and I love the way it makes me think. I feel the same way about my Hassy setup, but it stays in the studio. Way too big to carry around for a wedding!
At the end of the day it's just a camera. All things being equal 1/60 f4 @ ISO 400 is going to give you the exact same image whether you're using an M9, D3 or 1DX. And the only reason why anyone uses one camera as opposed to another is because they prefer it and are familiar with it.
The M9 has it's strengths and weaknesses. And the weight of those factors is highly dependent on the photographer.
Image quality on the M9 is about on par with a classic 5D. To some paying $6k for a camera equal to something that's 7yrs old is a bit of a sting. But image quality isn't everything. If you consider yourself among the crowd that photographs in a "photojournalistic style" then you shouldn't be concerned. Photojournalism is all about the subject and their story. No one looking at a photo of a little girl hugging her father who's dying of leukemia thinks "hey, this photo is awfully grainy." The technical aspects are always secondary to the subject and the story. Factors such as timing, composition, quality of light, they add to an image, they can take something good and make it fantastic. But at the end of the day what the photo is about is more important than anything else. Including grain.
The M9 is subtle. In a wedding situation people expect to get their picture taken, so the "compact" argument is moot. But when you're dealing with people who aren't comfortable with a camera. Or places where a huge SLR just stands out too much. The subtlety of the M9 is a very nice thing to have. It's also a very lightweight system. My M9 and 4 lenses is still about 3lbs lighter than my 5Dmk2 and 3 prime lenses. For photographers who spend hours at a time with a camera over their shoulder, the weight makes a difference.
Focusing is really just a matter of experience. And anyone who says it's slow really just needs to practice more. In ideal conditions I focus just as fast as an SLR. When it gets dim I focus even faster. The only trouble is with fast moving subjects, especially those that are either coming toward me or moving away. In these instances I just prefocus on where the subject is going to be and hit the shutter when they cross that mark. The Leica is a very unforgiving camera. It often only gives you one chance to get it right.
Using a Leica shouldn't be a branding thing. No one cares if you use an M9. Most people don't even know what it is and often mistake it for an old film camera.
Why would I pay the Leica premium when I can pay less for a D4 and a pro zoom, or (better choice for weddings) a gently used D3s and two or three pro zooms?
Wedding shooting is all about speed, accuracy and convenience. I need to have the gear get out of my way and just equip me to think about the shot, not fiddling with some crap on my camera.
If my clients can't tell the difference between a Leica image and a Nikon one (and I guarantee you they cannot), I have absolutely no reason to buy a more expensive and less convenient camera.
I stopped caring about impressing other 'togs with my gear when Dubya was President.
Basically what flash and swoop have said. I shoot with a Leica at weddings as well (although I use an M6 TTL film Leica). There are certain portions of the day where it's the absolute best tool for the job by a long shot, and some situations where it isn't. At the wedding today (yesterday) it just hung around my neck for 80% of the time, but that other 20% where it was my go-to camera it was invaluable.
Could I shoot an entire wedding on one? Sure. Especially if it was an M9 and I had several lenses at my disposal.
Would I want to? Absolutely. The joy of shooting a Leica to me is nearly unmatched.
Would I feel like I'd be sacrificing some results for the clients? Yes. No great telephoto options, difficulty focusing on fast moving objects/people, no true macro mode and limited close focus are mainly the issues I run into. Everything else I feel I could work around.
Still though, for me it changes the way I shoot and it changes the way people react to me (and not just the 1-2 guests at every wedding that say something to me about having a Leica). Whether people want to admit it or not, they don't react to me as much when I'm shooting a Leica. The shutter is quieter than my 5DmkII and it's less physically obtrusive. It makes me slow down and fully focus on the task at hand rather than the point-and-click mentality I have with my dSLR. I honestly feel like I get better photographs when I use it in certain situations.
I think swoop pretty much nailed it. I have an M3, and while it's a beautifully made camera I've never fallen in love with shooting it. If I'm going to shoot small format film I'm a lot more likely to grab my F-1, OM, or Konica kit. It's only a tiny bit smaller than a traditional mechanical film SLR (and only because it lacks a pentaprism.) Maybe I just need to use it more or something. I take a lot of pictures of my kids on film, and trying to nail a shot of my 3 year old running around with it is just an exercise in frustration. For street photography, or subjects that don't move much, sure. Little kids...no thanks .
For wedding work, I couldn't personally justify the cost of a digital Leica. I could see maybe using it for a few parts of the day like some of the guys above, but if I'm going to be shooting film I'd probably rather grab my G690BL. Joshua had a good point about slowing down...but I get that pretty much any time I'm shooting film. When you know you only have 8 shots in the camera to start with (or even 36), I think there's a natural tendency to slow down and make them count .
After reading about Todds' experience with the OM-D though, that's a system I'm taking a serious look at for a small/light option... Never owned an Olympus digital, but I've had a ton of their film gear and always enjoyed it.
As always, shoot what works for you . If that's a Leica, shoot that. If that's a D3, shoot that .
Iīm using the M9 with the 0.95 noctilux as a compliment to my Canon gear. Does it give me images that the Canon doesn't? Well most of the times not, but when shooting the subject close to a wall/interior I can get subject isolation with that fast speed lens(The lens was the reason that I bought into leica). The leica lens also renders differently(subjective prefernence) than my canon lenses. I also prefer the colors/skin tone from the M9 at certain lighting conditions which I find hard to mimic with pp. Some Images with this combo: http://dagnellfoto.se/2011/09/leica-m9-noctilux-m-50mm-f0-95-asph-destination-wedding-photographer/
(Sorry for the inlink with 2 kids running around Iīll never make it posting images in the thread)
I firmly believe it is more than just the outcome (pictures) ,it is as much the process in itself.
It is often stated the camera is JUST a tool. Right - it is a TOOL.
Can you imagine Monét working with a paintbrush gun?
I did some woodcrafting earlier in my life; it made a huge difference to cut the wood with a chainsaw or with fine japanese hand saws and chisels. It is the feeling, the experience.
I think it involves you more emotionally - and this is a good thing when trying to create something artistic.
swoop wrote:
At the end of the day it's just a camera. All things being equal 1/60 f4 @ ISO 400 is going to give you the exact same image whether you're using an M9, D3 or 1DX. And the only reason why anyone uses one camera as opposed to another is because they prefer it and are familiar with it.
The M9 has it's strengths and weaknesses. And the weight of those factors is highly dependent on the photographer.
Image quality on the M9 is about on par with a classic 5D. To some paying $6k for a camera equal to something that's 7yrs old is a bit of a sting. But image quality isn't everything. If you consider yourself among the crowd that photographs in a "photojournalistic style" then you shouldn't be concerned. Photojournalism is all about the subject and their story. No one looking at a photo of a little girl hugging her father who's dying of leukemia thinks "hey, this photo is awfully grainy." The technical aspects are always secondary to the subject and the story. Factors such as timing, composition, quality of light, they add to an image, they can take something good and make it fantastic. But at the end of the day what the photo is about is more important than anything else. Including grain.
The M9 is subtle. In a wedding situation people expect to get their picture taken, so the "compact" argument is moot. But when you're dealing with people who aren't comfortable with a camera. Or places where a huge SLR just stands out too much. The subtlety of the M9 is a very nice thing to have. It's also a very lightweight system. My M9 and 4 lenses is still about 3lbs lighter than my 5Dmk2 and 3 prime lenses. For photographers who spend hours at a time with a camera over their shoulder, the weight makes a difference.
Focusing is really just a matter of experience. And anyone who says it's slow really just needs to practice more. In ideal conditions I focus just as fast as an SLR. When it gets dim I focus even faster. The only trouble is with fast moving subjects, especially those that are either coming toward me or moving away. In these instances I just prefocus on where the subject is going to be and hit the shutter when they cross that mark. The Leica is a very unforgiving camera. It often only gives you one chance to get it right.
Using a Leica shouldn't be a branding thing. No one cares if you use an M9. Most people don't even know what it is and often mistake it for an old film camera.
Not for me.
. 
.
. If that's a Leica, shoot that. If that's a D3, shoot that