The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Is Leica Really Just a Street / People System?

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
. . .

For landscapes I've recently switched, however, to Sony A7rII bodies (standard, and Kolari mod), still using mostly my Leica lenses, because after quite a bit of testing I decided my Sony BW file conversions are of equal quality to my Monochrom files. And IMO it's a considerable advantage to be able to use the color conversion sliders in PS to rebalance the tones in a BW image. That's usually the last thing I re-check before making a print.

. . .
I've made the same comparison of MM vs. A7rII (with a thin cover glass conversion, which mostly, but not entirely, solves the "smearing" problem with Leica wides). I concluded that I prefer the MM look. Resolution is similar but I prefer the MM files, which seem more film-like to me. The A7rII is challenged by the Leica wides and I'm primarily a wide shooter. I generally shoot with medium yellow filtration in front of the lens on the MM which gives me tonal values that I consider attractive. I do print large (24x36) and the MM files are up to the challenge without heroics in post.

I'm using the A7rII primarily for legacy lenses (Carl Zeiss Contax lenses from the 1930s-1950s) and specialty lenses (Canon TS), and in a few cases, away from the mainstream of my work, where I need autofocus.

These really are matters of personal preference.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Yes.

And in a 3x2, 6x4 etc. format.

I do not know about the Ms after my ME, but my film Ms and M8 and ME are a bitch for me to shoot in a vertical/portrait format.

I guess one can make images with even a pin hole, but certain things are designed for some specific purpose. That I can shoot ' street ' with a Nikon 500mm, I would not consider doing so.
 
I've made the same comparison of MM vs. A7rII (with a thin cover glass conversion, which mostly, but not entirely, solves the "smearing" problem with Leica wides). I concluded that I prefer the MM look. Resolution is similar but I prefer the MM files, which seem more film-like to me. The A7rII is challenged by the Leica wides and I'm primarily a wide shooter. I generally shoot with medium yellow filtration in front of the lens on the MM which gives me tonal values that I consider attractive. I do print large (24x36) and the MM files are up to the challenge without heroics in post.

I'm using the A7rII primarily for legacy lenses (Carl Zeiss Contax lenses from the 1930s-1950s) and specialty lenses (Canon TS), and in a few cases, away from the mainstream of my work, where I need autofocus.

These really are matters of personal preference.
Agreed - though WATE and MATE erase the WA lens problem, because they're retrofocus lenses.

Have also collected Zeiss C/Y; Classic Zeiss '3D' look. Competitive with Leica R but remarkably cheaper. I use WATE and MATE with 25 C/Y Distagon as the bridge between them.

Kirk
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Going back to the original question ...

"No, it's not." and "Yes, it is." are both correct in this particular instance, depending upon the context and perspective of the photographer using the equipment.

G
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Rangefinder patch only works in the horizontal orientation. Not an issue if zone focusing at more narrow apertures with wider lenses. Doesn't make for an ideal experience for normal or longer focal lengths when shooting wide open or if the subject is moving.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Rangefinder base is based on the distance from the RF window and the focus window ... when you go vertical unless you are looking at horizontal lines you have
effectively diminished that distance to next to nothing. And in doing so the accuracy of the focus is degraded.

So I focus horizontally and then try to shift the camera vertically in the same plane. Not ideal but probably 60% successful.

Bob
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I've made the same comparison of MM vs. A7rII (with a thin cover glass conversion, which mostly, but not entirely, solves the "smearing" problem with Leica wides). I concluded that I prefer the MM look. Resolution is similar but I prefer the MM files, which seem more film-like to me. The A7rII is challenged by the Leica wides and I'm primarily a wide shooter. I generally shoot with medium yellow filtration in front of the lens on the MM which gives me tonal values that I consider attractive.

These really are matters of personal preference.
Agree and nice to see you weigh in on this ...

I have found the MM and M 246 to shoot far above their specs ...


Leica Mono 246








Regards,


Bob
 
Going back to the original question ...

"No, it's not." and "Yes, it is." are both correct in this particular instance, depending upon the context and perspective of the photographer using the equipment.

G
I don't think that's what's going on, Godfrey. If you read the thread carefully, we're not just going Yes versus No. We're discussing stuff between Y and N, sharing the contexts and perspectives you mentioned, and trying to understand or maybe help one another. Nice to see folks trying to do so. :)

On the point at hand, I'd never thought about it before (in 40 years), but yes I do usually focus RFs horizontally and then shift camera for portrait/vertical - which is a bit clumsy for Street and inclines me to more horizontal shots &/or more zone focusing. Should probably have been more conscious of about this all along.

Kirk
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
I don't think that's what's going on, Godfrey. If you read the thread carefully, we're not just going Yes versus No. We're discussing stuff between Y and N, sharing the contexts and perspectives you mentioned, and trying to understand or maybe help one another. Nice to see folks trying to do so. :)

On the point at hand, I'd never thought about it before (in 40 years), but yes I do usually focus RFs horizontally and then shift camera for portrait/vertical - which is a bit clumsy for Street and inclines me to more horizontal shots &/or more zone focusing. Should probably have been more conscious of about this all along.

Kirk
Sure, but it's hard to see what "focusing horizontally vs focusing vertically" has to do with much between whether a camera is really only suitable for one thing vs suitable for many.

(I often focus my M by looking at the focusing scale and setting a distance. Before putting it to my eye and snapping the shutter... But that's just me. ;-)

G
 
I generally shoot with medium yellow filtration in front of the lens on the MM which gives me tonal values that I consider attractive.
Just re-read and noticed this fine point about Monochrom for landscapes. I tried B+W medium Y and then heard from someone that on visit to Wetzlar he was told they'd used Heliopan light Y filters to achieve a MM norm for landscape photography. Of course this margin of difference falls within an area of personal style, but I found it made a slight but significant difference in my landscapes. With the original Monochrom (though maybe less with its successor) it was often hard to retain Zone VII-VIII highlight differentiation. (We see a lot of intense Y in my area, in both spring foliage shoots and later in sun-baked fields, and the more Y filtration, the brighter the Ys.) Replacing all those B+W medium Y filters with Heliopan light Y (at about $50 a pop) gave me a half stop more control in this little area, which was critical to my obsessive-compulsive personal satisfaction. Or if you prefer blunt subjective statements, I liked it.

'However:' The possibility in BW PP of taming these bright Ys, deepening skies with the B slider, and changing the contrast in browns with R, was what turned me to aiming for approximately the same IQ with RGB files from a higher MP sensor (that is, to using A7rII).

Just for BW landscapes, it's my personal opinion that the original MM with more photosites devoted to Shades of Gray was for sure the best tool for me at the time it came out, short of a digital back that I could neither carry nor afford. Now, though, with the new type of Sony FF sensor, I do see an advantage in shooting RGB and gaining PP flexibility in converting RGB files still made with Leica lenses, MATE and WATE or longer M, or R (and Zeiss C/Y).

At this level of nit-picking, probably this part of the thread has deteriorated if not into a monologue then into conversation among 2 or 3. I apologize to Godfrey, who might find more of interest in other threads. And I confess to having extra time for this only because of a little period of disability. :thumbdown: I promise to cool it and spend more time in the woods and printing in a week or so.

Kirk
 
Last edited:

herrbarnack

New member
Is Leica Really Just a Street / People System?

If that refers to the M, the answer is a resounding, yes.
Of late, Leica have lost their ways and have been trying to cater to a boutique crowd that will only shoot vacation snaps (easily done with an iphone) and such (preferrably after a few glasses of an inebriating beverage) and there has been confusion created online as a result.

You have plenty of choices for landscape shots and of late a few alternate (and far better) possibilities for street and people as well.
JMHO but I can't agree with the above thoughts. In my experience, the M camera system is second to none for street photography, but it is far from a one trick pony.

The M system is an outstanding documentary camera; it is also a great system for travel photography. With judicious lens selection, the M can give a good accounting of itself regarding portraiture. The M will hold its own in macro photography if the Novoflex extension tube set and Cross Q focusing rack or the 90mm macro M lens is used.

For most sports photography as well as wildlife/bird photography, there are better choices than the M system due to the fact that 135mm is the longest lens in the M system and the M cameras are all manual focus.

Every camera system has its strengths and weaknesses; no system is the optimal choice for every facet of photography. That having been said, putting the M camera system in a box labeled "Street/People photography only" would - in my experience - be a disservice to both the system and to photographers.
 

JeffSD

New member
I don't know if Daniel is still following this thread, but I find it a very interesting topic.

I purchased my M240, and three M lenses, primarily for travel, city and people photography. For land and seascape images, I assumed that my Nikon gear (including some very nice Nikkor and Zeiss glass) would continue as my go-to kit.

In the two years that I've owned the M, I've been very pleased with its performance in the street/people realm. What has surprised me is that I find myself picking up the Leica for landscape shooting much more than I expected. The Leica's size and ease of carry is a factor. Another (and it's one that I didn't really think about before buying the Leica) is range finder focusing when using neutral density filters. For me, it's much easier than through-the-lens focusing with my Nikons. But the largest factor is that I appreciate the file/print quality I'm getting from the M camera and lenses.

In addition to the good post-processing ideas mentioned above, I have two other suggestions when using an M for land and seascapes. The first is to consider using a tripod and remote shutter release. Although light and easy to handle, the Leica (like most cameras) benefits from a rock-solid foundation. Also, at 24 million pixels, there's not a lot of extra real estate for cropping, especially if a reasonable size print is the end goal. I find that framing from a tripod helps me reduce eventual cropping. The other suggestion is to shoot at base ISO as much as possible.

Of course, the M has a number of limitations as a landscape camera (sensor size and usable focal length among them) but, when used in its sweet spot, I've found it to be a really nice tool for making photos in the outdoors.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Yes and yes.
Just look at the photographs taken by the so called gurus of ' Leica M ' in its prime time. Before Nikon chewed it and spat it out.

Of course, the M has evolved....if that is the word.

Rangefinder was a technology used for targeting enemy positions in times of war.

German engineering was and is noted for mechanical excellence..first and foremost.

I sometimes fool myself that the process of ' simple ' controls enables me to make
Better photographs. I just fool myself.

All my cameras do what I tell them to do.
And usually I give them the wrong instructions.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Rangefinder base is based on the distance from the RF window and the focus window ... when you go vertical unless you are looking at horizontal lines you have
effectively diminished that distance to next to nothing. And in doing so the accuracy of the focus is degraded.

So I focus horizontally and then try to shift the camera vertically in the same plane. Not ideal but probably 60% successful.

Bob
I think it very much depends on the subject you're trying to focus on. Mainly vertical lines you focus in landscape, mainly horizontal lines you focus in portrait. Patterns and dots, just use what works best based on the shape.
Even for shots of people's faces focusssing in portrait orientation can avoid putting the left/right eye on top of each other (which has happened to me :banghead:, no wonder the focus was off), in portrait orientation this mistake is much less likely to happen.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Cameras are only limited by the person behind them. Folks say that a Leica is a documentary camera and a Mamiya 7 is a landscape camera. That makes no sense.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Cameras are only limited by the person behind them. Folks say that a Leica is a documentary camera and a Mamiya 7 is a landscape camera. That makes no sense.
God knows, mine are limited by the idiot behind them. Leica S and Mamiya 7, both. Results are similar except for the film/digital look difference.

--Matt
 
Top