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?

herrbarnack

New 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.
Agreed.

I have used my Mamiya 7 II for documentary and my M camera for landscape. I did not die, I was not arrested nor was I deported. :grin:
 

vieri

Well-known member
I use a SL + S system for my landscape work. The only thing that is sorely missing is well implemented long exposures in the S (007), which being limited at 1 minute right now cripple the system's usability for landscape - I manage to cover with the SL for the moment being, but would love to be able to use the beautiful S files for long exposures as well.

Best,

Vieri
 

JeffSD

New member
The deletion of the spirit level in the M10 might indicate that Wetzlar believes that it's, primarily, a street camera.

If I pick one up, I'll have to search for the hot shoe bubble level I used with my Nikon F100. I know it's around her somewhere. :)

Here's a shot (made with the M240 and 28mm Elmarit) of the land-seascape variety.
 

Attachments

Godfrey

Well-known member
The deletion of the spirit level in the M10 might indicate that Wetzlar believes that it's, primarily, a street camera.
If I pick one up, I'll have to search for the hot shoe bubble level I used with my Nikon F100. I know it's around here somewhere. :) ...
I've never stopped using the bubble level with my cameras, regardless whether they have a level display in the camera. I have a couple of them, one is always in the little zip bag with my other tripod essentials (camera plates, remote releases, etc). The in-camera level is more convenient, but the bubble level is just too useful to not have with me.

G
 

scott kirkpatrick

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
Hey folks, this "diminished the distance to next to nothing" stuff is just wrong. If you hold the camera horizontal, you will look for a vertical line to split and join while finding the right focus. Your baseline is the physical distance between the two windows times the magnification of the viewfinder (.72 now). If you hold the camera vertically (in portrait orientation), you will look for a horizontal line like an eyelid to focus on. Your baseline is still the distance between the two windows times the magnification. I agree that holding the camera horizontally while focusing is most common, but that is because vertical lines are usually easier to find. If you focus by making some pattern overlap in the rangefinder patch, that's harder but it works the same in either orientation.

scott
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Hey folks, this "diminished the distance to next to nothing" stuff is just wrong. If you hold the camera horizontal, you will look for a vertical line to split and join while finding the right focus. Your baseline is the physical distance between the two windows times the magnification of the viewfinder (.72 now). If you hold the camera vertically (in portrait orientation), you will look for a horizontal line like an eyelid to focus on. Your baseline is still the distance between the two windows times the magnification. I agree that holding the camera horizontally while focusing is most common, but that is because vertical lines are usually easier to find. If you focus by making some pattern overlap in the rangefinder patch, that's harder but it works the same in either orientation.
Yes. I skipped the whole "horizontal-vertical" discussion in this thread. It made no sense to me. Sometimes when I can't find a reliable vertical line to align in the RF, I tilt the camera a little and use a diagonal or horizontal line. What's the big deal?

G
 

DezFoto

New member
Hey folks, this "diminished the distance to next to nothing" stuff is just wrong. If you hold the camera horizontal, you will look for a vertical line to split and join while finding the right focus. Your baseline is the physical distance between the two windows times the magnification of the viewfinder (.72 now). If you hold the camera vertically (in portrait orientation), you will look for a horizontal line like an eyelid to focus on. Your baseline is still the distance between the two windows times the magnification. I agree that holding the camera horizontally while focusing is most common, but that is because vertical lines are usually easier to find. If you focus by making some pattern overlap in the rangefinder patch, that's harder but it works the same in either orientation.

scott
I usually just look for the rangefinder contrast to "pop". Anyway, if we're talking about landscape shooting I zone focus and bypass the rangefinder altogether.
 

DezFoto

New member
I shoot with the M240 and most of my work is in the landscape arena. Like others have pointed out, if you're used to shooting 8x10 and 4x5, ANY smaller format is going to be disappointing. I think the largest difference you'd see is gradations in areas like the sky, but yes, there would definitely be less resolution when compared to a 24mp 24x36 sensor. Honestly, you wouldn't expect 135 or 645 film to be comparable either, would you?

That being said, the type of sensor can make a difference as well. My old M9 and M8 showed more acutance with the same lenses than my current M240, but with the M240 has a broader dynamic range which is very useful, so there's always trade-offs. Lately I've been shooting more with a Hasselblad and 22mp P25 digital back, and the Hasselblad, despite having a lower pixel density and less resolution than the M240, shows a lot more acutance and better gradations but can also require more post work to make "pop" and has a narrower dynamic range.

Anyway, the point being that more pixels may not be the answer you're looking for but the only way to find out would be to borrow or rent different gear and see what works for you. I would recommend checking out a couple of the more reasonably priced Medium Format cameras and see if anything in that realm works for you, but keep in mind that nothing has been invented yet that can replace 8x10!
 

rayyan

Well-known member
I can only give opinions based on my use and what orientation the M images are generally taken; as e.g on Flickr, and other photos of M renown.

But personally, I am half blind. My hands are deformed. Zone focusing, I believe does not bring interaction with the subjects being photographed. Surreptious picture taking. I agree with others to disagree with my opinion.

I take my Fuji xt-1 or my Nikons and can manage either orientation without visual, physical, mental or mathematical gymnastics.

back focus, front focus, blurred focus...no issue. Just af tune the Nikon. Or bring out your hex screw drivers for the M or cart all off to who knows where.

Portraits....click. Landscapes...click. Done.

No need to look for verticals, horizontals, diagonals or Laplace transforms.

Personally, never had a problem focusing in portrait orientation.
Me neither.
Yes. I skipped the whole "horizontal-vertical" discussion in this thread. It made no sense to me. Sometimes when I can't find a reliable vertical line to align in the RF, I tilt the camera a little and use a diagonal or horizontal line. What's the big deal?

G
 

indisguise

New member
I think it also might be a matter of what each lens is optimized for. The Schneider G Claron lenses are optimized for working with macro on LF, and I've found that P&S cameras (Sony RX100 & Ricoh GR) look a lot better at close ranges than far away. It does seem that LF lenses look better for landscapes than M glass. I've always associated Leicas with street stuff, not much for landscapes.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Is Leica Really Just a Street / People System?

Gosh, I do hope not.

If it is then I've been using the M system for all the wrong things.



M240, 21mm Super Elmar ASPH
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Of course it is not as easy to use as a DSLR when you want totally exact framing (even though you can do it with live view) I believe the M system has some good advantages in the field for landscape:
Pretty compact, pretty light, specially in regards of the lenses. (compare the wate 16-18-21 to a Nikon 14-24 for example, or the 50 M-APO to a 55mm Otus ) Also nice DOF scales on the lenses. Weatherproff camera.
So why not use it for landscape?

In regards of the OP - I think we must not forget film vs digital and the format if we compare 24MP digital to larger format film. I know many say digital resolution and DR are sooo good today, but I still believe that a 24MP FF digital sensor is just not up to a medium format digital or large format film in many regards.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
The M has always been and will always be a perfect camera for a wide are of shooting requirements. The real secret is if it can be mastered adequately by the user. In many cases I am still faster for many shooting situations with the M than with any modern AF system.

I never had any issues using my M's for street, people, portrait, studio, landscape, etc. with great success, but I would not use it primarily for sports or wildlife.
 

Wkimmerle

New member
There is absolutely no limitation to Leica M for landscape!

The system shoots incredibly flexible raw files, I'm now shooting with a Leica S 006, but the M system is terrific for landscapes.

All below were on Leica M262, mostly with the 50mm Summicron f2

IMG_0420 (1).jpg

32850709042_eea969bf7e_o (1).jpg

IMG_0396.jpeg

IMG_0503 (1).jpg

IMG_0355.jpg
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I know the subject line seems odd, but I wanted to open this discourse surrounding Leica (film and digital) as being a system driven by image quality when it comes to people vs. place.

I briefly had an M240 but traded her in for an SL and also shoot an M6. What I have found is that in either format, landscape images fall flat. I am thinking the following:

For the past 8(ish) years I shot a large percentage of my images using LF film (mainly 8x10, some 4x5). I mainly scanned as my home darkroom is pretty barren. So is it just my level of expectations when shooting landscape that 24MP just will never be able to capture the resolution of sheet film, and therefore I should lower my expectations?

Also, I have found that when importing files from the SL... portraits, more traditional street images shine while my landscape images just don't have that POP.

I wonder if anyone else has found the same?

I likely need a major brush up on post - production skills.
I know this is an old post, but it still seems alive regardless whether the OP is still interested.

IMO, what works or doesn't depends on who's hands it is in and what the final intent is (including personal expectations from that intent).

I'm a bit old school when it comes to application of different formats or types of camera system ... i.e., "Horses For Courses". I'm fully aware that technology has challenged that sort of pigeon-holing, however it still seems to hold sway in many circumstances ... again, depending on end intent.

I believe at the core of each type of camera lies an original intent. To me the core intent of a rangefinder was to eliminate distractions and bring "content" to the forefront ... what the photo is about as opposed to what it looks like. When looking through the viewfinder, we do not see the effect of lenses (wide angle distortion or telephoto compacting, or any DOF effect). Even the framing is not that accurate and the viewfinder image itself shows no actual focus point .. it's all in focus, all the time. To me, this suggests a type of use that leans toward content driven or "of the moment" type imagery ... which is what the Leica Rangefinder became most famous for ... in the right hands. If there are world famous 35mm rangefinder landscape photographers hanging in museums I'm not aware of it ... and if there are, they are the exception to the rule.

- Marc
 
Top