brainiac wrote:
This happens every time I say that a Leica product falls short in some way.


oh really, ..... are you so sure that the causal relationship is that, as opposed to when you use language like...

brainiac wrote:
Leica fanboiz
Leica priests went berzerk
Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica was the problem

You left out the winking smiley. It was "Leica fanboiz ;-)". It was light-hearted.

> Leica priests went berserk

They did. Abusive and irrational comments towards me were posted and then deleted from the M8 thread. The moderator and I discussed the fact that this effectively made people unaccountable for what they had said. I was even threatened with legal action by PM, simply for asking to see results. I remained polite and rational as is my habit. Those who were probably exercising some influence on others to buy this new camera, the best camera ever, apparently, would not tolerate so much as an a/b comparison between it and a much cheaper camera. They became irrational and abusive simply because I wanted to see actual evidence of the very tall claims that were being made. Evidence for those claims is still not available. So yes, the Leica priests went berserk. I can't think of a better way to express it.

> Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica

Let me put it another way then: a propensity to regard the company's products as better than others while avoiding direct comparison of results, and dismissing serious shortcomings, for the sake of guarding the company's iconic reputation.

Earlier in this thread I described some of the shortcomings of rangefinder focussing. You suggested that it didn't need to be said as you already had that covered. But you hadn't actually mentioned those problems, and they are big problems for a $4000 camera. Why did you want me not to discuss those problems? We haven't even started on IR-cut filters, banding, ultimate resolution, moiré, sudden electronic camera death, and cost, all of which problems affect low-light photography just as they affect daylight photography.

You love your cameras and that's great, but on a thread entitled "Are range-finders still best for low-light?" I think it's important that responses help the original poster consider the full range of issues and cut through the hype. Awareness that Leica M is surrounded by something like a religious cult is an important first step in deciding whether to spend $10000.

> If subject detail is mainly horizontal, you will need to twist camera to portrait format to focus and then twist back again.

At the risk of bringing the thread back on topic, there's more to this actually. In low light you may well wish to use an f1.4 lens wide open. With closer subjects this twist from portrait to landscape or vice versa, is likely to spoil your lovingly achieved focus accuracy, since your depth of field is often just a few millimetres. The M8 allows you to focus bracket manually, just like a DSLR, but it is hard to rock back and forth over the focus point as you shoot if the desired focus point is off-centre, because you can't see how far off focus you are until you move the focus square over the focus point and back again. So you will have to keep recomposing while focus-bracketing. Whoops, there goes the famous decisive moment. 2 frames-per-second doesn't help either.

What is more, forget not that lenses ideally have a planar plane of focus. That means that if focussing in the centre gives you a distance of 3 yards, by the time you have recomposed the shot so the focus point is near the corner, focus is actually set to 4 yards for that part of the frame, and the camera is actually focussed far behind the subject. In low light with a 35mm lens at f1.4 that is going to really matter. This problem doesn't affect manually focussed SLRs since they display what strikes the film plane.

This all means that shots like this are far harder to reliably achieve on a rangefinder since you can't accurately focus on off-centre subjects:

what, what on earth is this stuff about religion to do with Leica users ?
despite your permissive ravings, you use it at almost every opportunity eg.

brainiac wrote:
strange, or sacreligious?
Leica fanboiz
Leica priests went berzerk
Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica was the problem
So yes, the Leica priests went berserk

then you have the absurd gaul to attest to how you were abused, that you were threatened with legal action while you ...
"remained polite and rational as is my habit"
well when did you give that up ... just recently ?

You need to be made aware that your sense of fair language gets in the way of your discussion, that it hastens the discussion to the bottom, and that in the end you get what you give.

Further to this, my choice of camera ownership is NOT an excuse for you to cut loose on your old rantings based upon argument that you have had with the people that have left here already, and i would appreciate it if you leave that out..

as to your claim of Leicas distinct lack of decisive moment, tell it to this guy
btw you will quite probably need to lean on your religion

image attributed to Henri Cartier-Bresson

What has Cartier-Bresson to do with the M8? HCB used the Leica because it was the best tool at the time. The early Leica was reliable and silent, optics were of high quality and you could load the best film available. He also knew his job. I was told he had his camera always with him and often set the exposure and distance he needed when he entered a room or a new situation. That was the way to get best results in that time, though we have better technologie available and the SLR is the best, fastest tool now (IMO)
At the time HCB became a Myth most turned away from Leica and choosed to go with the Nikon F and rangefinder cameras did never again have the importance of the good old time.

Anyway I thought the discussion was about rangefinder in general, not the Leica.

(By low light, I assume no flash is allowed, otherwise this discussion is pretty moot).

Of the cameras available today, I would immediately choose the 1D MkIII for low light photography. *Usable* ISO6400 is a *huge* advantage, IMO. No other camera that I know of can offer that. And when I say usable, I mean usable. I downloaded a 1D MkIII ISO6400 file from the internet and it wasn't too bad at all. Once I ran it through Neat Image, it looks like an ISO200 shot from a 10D. No joke. What RF can do that?

Now, I own a 5D and it is at least a stop better than my 20D for noise, but *usable* ISO6400 is just insane. What this means to me for low-light photography is that I could stop down a bit, improving both DOF and overall IQ (without the need for flash). Instead of noisy ISO1600 shots with no DOF @ f/1.4, I'd rather have relatively clean ISO6400 shots at f2.8. Sensitivity, this third piece of the exposure triad puzzle, is becoming more and more manipulable than analog photography ever afforded us.

If there was a RF that could do 6400 (clean) then I'd choose that for all the other reasons people mentioned, but it simply does not exist, AFAIK.

Andi Dietrich wrote:
What has Cartier-Bresson to do with the M8? HCB used the Leica because it was the best tool at the time. The early Leica was reliable and silent, optics were of high quality and you could load the best film available. He also knew his job. I was told he had his camera always with him and often set the exposure and distance he needed when he entered a room or a new situation. That was the way to get best results in that time, though we have better technologie available and the SLR is the best, fastest tool now (IMO)
At the time HCB became a Myth most turned away from Leica and choosed to go with the Nikon F and rangefinder cameras did never again have the importance of the good old time.

Anyway I thought the discussion was about rangefinder in general, not the Leica.

I trust the HCB question was rhetorical, as you answered it in your own way yourself
The Nikon RF you describe came about because of the existence of Leica, as did the popularity of 35mm film. FWIW. one of HCB's last photographs was taken of him while he was holding a fairly simple P&S film Leica, and like it or lump it, he is strongly associated with the Leica name and RF's in general. He passed away in August 2004

As to camera speed, i think you are right about SLR's, but you can make a RF as fast prefocussed. A RF requires more of you than an SLR, and it is a question that in the end comes down to your preferences. Specifically low light is best left to high iso able cameras, fast low lit streetshooting aside.

And as to variable light streetshooting specifically, i think the idea of hauling a 5D or 1d Mkiii around the streets in an attempt to remain invisible in a crowd is more than a little humorous, if a little silly; as always, horse for courses. More than once, a grainy B&W street image conveys as much of the art of photography than a flat plastic digital image, no matter how noise free.

I don't remember Andi saying anything about a Nikon RF...

Rob Riley wrote:
I trust the HCB question was rhetorical, as you answered it in your own way yourself
The Nikon RF you describe came about because of the existence of Leica, as did the popularity of 35mm film. FWIW. one of HCB's last photographs was taken of him while he was holding a fairly simple P&S film Leica, and like it or lump it, he is strongly associated with the Leica name and RF's in general. He passed away in August 2004.

So, you're saying that he was a fanboy, too?

As to camera speed, I think you are right about SLR's, but you can make a RF as fast prefocussed. A RF requires more of you than an SLR, and it is a question that in the end comes down to your preferences. Specifically low light is best left to high iso able cameras, fast low lit streetshooting aside.

Somehow we are now talking about street shooting, not just low-light shooting in general.

And as to variable light streetshooting specifically, i think the idea of hauling a 5D or 1d Mkiii around the streets in an attempt to remain invisible in a crowd is more than a little humorous, if a little silly...

"Ballsy" not silly. If I shoot someone with my 5D and they know it, it is up to them to deal with it how they may and I'm willing to deal with that. But I've never been one to run away. Horses.

More than once, a grainy B&W street image conveys as much of the art of photography than a flat plastic digital image, no matter how noise free.

True for B&W, but just as many times I have seen chroma noise completely ruin a colour photo.

cogitech wrote:
I don't remember Andi saying anything about a Nikon RF...

Andi Dietrich wrote:
At the time HCB became a Myth most turned away from Leica and choosed to go with the Nikon F and rangefinder cameras did never again have the importance of the good old time.


HCB did for sometime have a Nikon RF, an S series
but i cant remember if it was FF or one of the 1/2 frame versions
with Andi's 'almost' perfect english, thats what i took him to mean, but maybe not

anyway feel free to dispute HCB's Leica relationship, leica i could care less :0

Rob Riley wrote:
cogitech wrote:
I don't remember Andi saying anything about a Nikon RF...

Andi Dietrich wrote:
At the time HCB became a Myth most turned away from Leica and choosed to go with the Nikon F and rangefinder cameras did never again have the importance of the good old time.


HCB did for sometime have a Nikon RF, an S series
but i cant remember if it was FF or one of the 1/2 frame versions
with Andi's 'almost' perfect english, thats what i took him to mean, but maybe not

anyway feel free to dispute HCB's Leica relationship, leica i could care less :0

What he meant was:

"At the time HCB became a Myth, most [people] turned away from Leica and [chose] to go with the Nikon F. [R]angefinder cameras never again had the importance of the good old [days]."

Sorry if I am wrong, Andi.

glad to see you know what he thinks
and where to put the "." instead of maybe a "/"
great minds and all that

i think the idea of hauling a 5D or 1d Mkiii around the streets in an attempt to remain invisible in a crowd is more than a little humorous, if a little silly;

I take a 5D almost everywhere. I just got back from the pub with it. It is wearing an Olympus 28mm f2.8, which is almost a pancake lens. It isn't significantly less 'invisible' than an M8. There are lots of small lenses you can use on it to keep it unobtrusive and light, like the Oly f2 and f2.8 wides, Nikkor 35/f2, and f1.4 50's, f2 or f2.8 wides from Leica, Zeiss etc.. The conspicuity argument is an anachronistic myth.

This is not an especially low-light image:

to descend into street photography further, as the light conditions are more or less variable, in europe often quite dim, various photographers had different defences for this. HCB used the then small innocuous Leica to hide from the crowd.

He would bind the name and chrome with black tape and take every opportunity to capture the human condition unaware that a camera was nearby. He favoured fast B&W film and sharp lenses and formed a style he called the decisive moment, which 'that' image illustrates. He said,

"I prowled the streets all day, feeling very strung-up and ready to pounce, ready to 'trap' life.

As a result of the pressure for speed that might be in low light, his film and camera requirement were preset for the fastest low light possibility, and this is the relationship to this thread, and this is the myth that Andi speaks of. These settings were often less than the ideal for the moment, and as he did little processing himself saying that his images were cropped in the camera, its pretty much wysiwyg.

http://www.answers.com/topic/henri-cartier-bresson

"He believed in composing his photographs in his camera and not in the darkroom, showcasing this belief by having nearly all his photographs printed only at full-frame and completely free of any cropping or other darkroom manipulation -- indeed, he emphasized that the entire negative had been used by extending the area reproduced on the print to include a thick black border around the frame."

There are people over at LUF who knew him and who used to come here, that could personally speak more about his techniques and processing.


Edited by Rob Riley on Jun 06, 2007 at 12:55 AM GMT

I've thought about an "inconspicuous" camera for a while now, but I don't really buy that argument anymore. If I really wanted an inconspicuous camera I would use a cell phone. Today, you see a lot of DSLRs around. They may not be "inconspicuous" but they don't cause people to run either.

Rob Riley wrote:

with Andi's 'almost' perfect english,

english - with one E blease

The fact is the best low light camera is quite simply the one you have with you. If I have both with me, I may choose the Canon over the Leica. However, I am more likely to carry the Leica because I can get my entire kit in a bag smaller than my Canon and 24-70L will fit in to.

There is no specific brand loyalty here, but I shoot the M8 a lot more than I shoot my Canon now, simply because it's the one that easiest to bick up as I walk out the door, and carry around with me all day long without straining my back/shoulders.

>...then you have the absurd gaul...

I've met a few absurd gauls, but I've never 'had' one. Speaking of absurd gauls, did anyone ever see that film footage of HCB dancing ballet in the street with his camera and his beret like an excited whippet? So much for inconspicuity. Someone must have put speed in his café. ;-)

>...to attest to how you were abused, that you were threatened with legal action while you ...
"remained polite and rational as is my habit"
well when did you give that up ... just recently?

I think Andi or Paul might remember the way I was spoken to in the M8 thread. Also a couple of members PM'ed and emailed me threatening, amongst other things to sue me. None of my statements in that thread have been deleted, and I stand by every one of them. I neither earned it, nor reacted to it. There is nothing that I have said on this thread that is impolite to you personally, and I am certainly not the first person to have likened Leica's M following to a religious cult. I don't think M's are very competitive cameras any more, but criticism of them frequently leads to flamewars, presumably because I haven't paid due reverence to the cult of the red dot. There's no need to take it personally. I have my views and you have yours. Let's all be cool.

As much as I like rangefinders, I will not fail to admit that they are not perfect. I am definitely not a big fan of Leica, but do love rangefinders. I know what the Leica glass is capable of and have a lot of admiration for what they offer. My personal favorite is Contax G2/Zeiss. But this does not mean Leica is bad. It's just personal preference.

Leica, while amazing with it's optics and overall results, is a bit overpriced. The leica camera (M6) is well built. They offer lenses like the f1.0 and f1.4 aperture primes that Zeiss never did for the G2 system. However, Leica dissapointed with the price and performance of the M8 - it seems like they decided to use the name and the history behind the M8 a little too much to their advantage. They are hurting bad now and i hope the lesson sticks.

I would recommend the Contax G2 system - which I feel is much better than Leica. If I had to buy a rangefinder today, I would get back to the Contax G2 system in a heartbeat, even though it is discontinued.

That said, I sold my entire RF system last year and decided to stick with Canon D-SLR's with converted Zeiss N mount lenses. This way, I spoil myself with the best of both worlds. Unmatched Zeiss performance in an unbeatable D-SLR setup.If you want low light, get yourself a Canon D-SLR and either get the canon EF primes like the 50mm, 85mm f1.2 or 24mm or 35mm f1.4 and get the converted N mount zooms and you simply will not have the opportunity to want more.

brainiac wrote:
I am certainly not the first person to have likened Leica's M following to a religious cult.

This maybe true, but it keeps getting repeated and repeated and repeated for no good reason. All brands suffer from the same problem, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, or whether you are one of those "cult members" or not. The fact is that Canon & Nikon have just as much 'cult' following as any other brand. Some will say that's because the cameras justify it, but of course others disagree, and chose to follow some other brand.

brainiac wrote:
The conspicuity argument is an anachronistic myth.

I beg to differ on this. While I was travelling, I was walking around with some other folks who were carrying smaller DSLRs, including the XTi and Nikon D40. These are both pretty small cameras, even by Leica M standards. When we were shooting in the street, the DSLRs drew attention from passers by every time, whereas no one looked at my M8. I was not the only one to notice this, the other guys did too. One of them was even blacked out, so you can't says that it's the logos that did it.

For sure, the lens can play a big part in this, but these guys had very modest lenses too, so that's not the only reason. The only person who paid any real attention to me while walking around was another Leica (M7) owner - and of course we got chatting.

brainiac wrote:
I don't think M's are very competitive cameras any more, but criticism of them frequently leads to flamewars, presumably because I haven't paid due reverence to the cult of the red dot.

The whole problem is that there are no right or wrong answers to many, most or even all the issues that come up. People tend to see things from their own brand loyalty point of view. There is no reverence due to any brand, but realise peope get just as upset when some one criticises Canon and Nikon too, and you only have to see the flames that go back and forth between the two forums.

I have no brand loyalty as such, and I refuse to be in any cult for the 'cult' itself. I don't buy substandard equipment because of a brand, and I never will. If I happen to use a piece of equipment, it's because it's the tool I want to use for the task in hand having considered most (if not all) of the alternatives.

As far as equipment being over priced, that is of course a matter of opinion for each individual. You could say 'Car A' is over priced compared to 'Car B' but people still buy both quite happily. Something is only over priced if you either can't afford it, or don't want to pay that much 'out of choice'. Canon 1 Series (and even the 30D & 5D) are way over priced in many peoples' opinion, as is the D200 & D2x, so Leica are not the only company selling at what the market will bear. That, after all is their whole reason for being there.

The 5D (and others) can produce some great results, but it's not the right camera for me when I want to go walkabout. I have Canon equipment and use it too, but again, it's not always the right kit. Canon is better for some tasks, and not others, but I don't want to be limited by the size of some one else's wallet, or their ability, or inability, to extract the same enjoyment out of my choice of kit.

A recent vacation was the best 'photography' vacation I have had for many years, simply because all I carried around day-in day-out was my small M8 kit. The prints (large - up to A2) from it are stunning, and I very much doubt that I would have got noticably better results from any Canon (or nikon etc) kit you care to mention.

I do wish that people could discuss photography without feeling the need to bash anything and everything they don't own or aspire to own. That goes for all people, all brands, all wallet sizes etc etc etc.... and is not aimed at any individual, whether real or imaginary!