The way Mike expressed himself in that statement sounds very Zen like, as if he feels like he’s “one with the camera”. I think perhaps it is a result of the familiarity and high degree of pleasure he gets from the completely manual experience of the Leica system in comparison to his D780. But, I could be wrong. I’ve read things from other Leica shooters which sounded similar. Like any other camera system, I have seen some remarkable images taken with Leica’s and even more mediocre ones. I think for some folks the “magic” of a Leica guarantees that their images will be great. I have never shot a Leica myself, but am eager to try one out.
And that’s where the truth of it being the photographer who makes the image, not the camera. I have never lusted after a Leica but I really “fell in love” with my Mamiya 7II, which is a MF film rangefinder camera to rival and exceed the Leica. I took some stunning images with it but, not long after getting it, Nikon upped the digital game with the D810 and, with 36Mpx, I really no longer needed the Mamiya to turn out great, large, prints. Also film and chemistry is so expensive and I didn’t want to have to wait around to finish 10 shots before processing a film.
So I have this beautiful camera, which feels wonderful to handle and produces negatives to rival LF in sharpness, is every bit the same “experience” as a Leica, but with four times the image area. Every so often, I take it out of the cupboard, fondle it lovingly, think to myself that I really must process the film that is still in it… and put it back in the cupboard.
Maybe, one day, I will take the next step and get a new roll of film out of the freezer and start taking photos with it again. But I know only too well, for a lot less effort and cost and no waiting to finish the film roll, I can get out my 45Mpx D850 and make images that are every bit as good, if not better. Because it is not the camera that makes the image, it is the photographer and I am more interested in image quality than how I might feel when I caress a fetish camera
From my point of view, I agree with the first thing you wrote, but for me, this PhotoLab thread is 90% to “learn”. This applies to photography in general, and PhotoLab in particular. I probably know around half of the potential PhotoLab tools, mostly the ones that I consider the most important, and I would like to learn the rest of them, if possible.
As I see it, “feeling” comes from within me, and “learning” comes from what most of you write, and do, and show. “Feeling” becomes my goal for the photograph, but I need to learn how to use the tools effectively to accomplish that. Sometimes, as recently happened with “masks”, I had to learn the basics in order to use the tools properly.
As to “exaggeration”, to me, this is very different than my view on photography. I want to emphasize what is important to me, but I don’t want to create something that no longer looks like a “real photograph”.
About the last thing you wrote, most of the time I know ahead of time what I want out of a photograph, and with the camera first, and then the editing tools, I try so bring that out of my photos so others can share in what I “saw” in my mind.
It would probably be easier to understand what I meant, if instead of mentioning camera names, I were just to refer to them as “DSLR”, “RangeFinder”, and “Large Format”. I thought that was obvious, but obviously it isn’t. The big difference between the cameras is not the brand, but the type of camera.
I know the feeling is real, but don’t know how to describe it here. Photography with a twin-lens reflex camera, or a SLR/DSLR, or a RangeFinder, or a LargeFormat is not in any way a “one size fits all”.
Photography now with my Leica M10 is pretty much the same as photography with my Nikon SP, or my even older Zeiss Ikon Contax II and Ida, which are film cameras. I doubt if any of you will appreciate that, unless/until you use a range finder camera for a year or two.
Back when I had a 4x5 camera, along with all the accessories, that kind of photography to me was VERY different. Sometimes I would use a “Polaroid adapter” before I ever took a film photo, to be sure I was getting what I wanted. It was slow, and methodical, and everything about it was “manual”.
Regarding what you wrote about he feels like he’s “one with the camera”. I think that applied the most to my large format photography. It then applied to my rangefinder photography. I don’t get that sensation with my DSLR cameras now, or years ago when they were SLR cameras.
For what it’s worth, with my few experiences with mirrorless cameras, it feels like watching TV with a “screen capture” button to freeze that screen for eternity.
Maybe the above will convince you all that I’m nuts, and who knows, maybe I am. But the feelings were, and are, real. How much of these feelings are due to the camera, and how much of them are due to me, is a question I can’t answer.
Last thought - none of you will know what photography is like with a Leica until when/if you spend a year or so working with a rangefinder camera. Leica is only one example of a rangefinder camera - there have been many more.
From now on, I will try to be more careful when I write things, so people know what I meant to say, rather than their interpretation of my words. My fault. Sorry.
It’s the same as working on a motorcycle. I reach into my toolbox and find the tools I need to accomplish what I want. I try to start with the “larger” problems, then work down to the “smaller” problems, and quite often once I fix the larger problems, the smaller ones vanish.
You are correct that “you seem to be more driven by a set procedure rather than using the best tools for each particular image.” I always try to start with the biggest problems. For example, I don’t want to deal with “composition” until I’ve cropped the image as needed, which usually is my first step in composition. I don’t want to be influenced by things that won’t even be in the finished image.
Maybe in a decade or two, I will catch up with your knowledge of PhotoLab, and do things more the way you do. For me, there are often major adjustments that need to be done before I get to the finer editing - such as using the “horizon” tool, which is one of the first things I might do.
Thank you - just illustrating that “the camera doesn’t matter”. What camera I use, or how I used that camera may be very different, but I think I would capture as nice an image from a Nikon D40 as I would with a D880 were it ever to become available. In fact, I did that - I was sent to Italy to cover a world championship event, and my new high-tech Nikon died. I spent the week with a D40, forcing it to do what I needed. The magazines were thrilled with the results, no complaints. …so, why did I need that big, fancy, expensive camera in the first place? Good question.
I agree.
I would replace “effort” with “learning”. I may never be able to capture as perfect image as you do. I have my own limitations, and it shows. I try, but I’ve got a long ways to go.
What I wanted, and what I could get, were two separate things. I wanted the man, the chain saw, and the coconuts. When the man moved towards the coconuts, he blocked the view of them. This was the best I could do.
I didn’t want a photo of the man.
I didn’t want a photo of the chain saw.
I didn’t want a photo of the coconuts.
I wanted all three, and here in the USA, nobody gets the point of the photo. Not so in India - they knew exactly what was going on, and were scared that technology would get to India. I hope you watched the YouTube video I linked to, which shows how it is done in India.
The photo worked perfectly fine in India, but apparently is a big flop here in the US.
(The only way to get a better photo of everything, would have been to stand under the scene and shoot upwards, which I had no desire to do. I suppose I could have mounted my 20mm lens that I didn’t have with me, and asked the fellow to take me up to the tree with him, but without official permission, no way would he have done that.)
This is why we will never completely agree. To me, from my perspective, a photograph should answer the “five w’s”: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. The context is important too, in addition to the subject.
I think a photo should tell a story, and give the viewer all the information to understand that story. For well over 60 years, that is what I thought and felt. I now like and enjoy photos with and without that - and try to shoot both, as desired.
Ain’t nuthin’ beautiful about some guy on a lift with a chainsaw. I did the best I could. But without including all three things, the guy, the chainsaw, and the coconuts, there was nothing there for me to want to shoot…
I agree, the context is not always needed, but that should be up to the photographer to decide, right?
Like with the ship photo - I had no desire to take a photo of a ship. I went there to take a photo of a ship sailing out of the Port of Miami. That was my goal. That it also captured a nice view of the ship is a bonus. I wanted the bird, the smoke, the port features, the Miami skyline, and all the rest. I don’t think it’s a matter of “right” or “wrong”.
I have, a couple of … no, only a SL2S which I rented to see how good the interoperability of the L-Mount system really is. Lenswise great, flashwise poor, adapter (Leica SL to Nikon E from Novoflex) very poor, but the camera itself was really nice to use even without studying it’s manual for a couple of weeks.
The M of a friend however… it feels nice, but focusing was a pretty disappointing experience. Even Leica users complain that the focus is often hard to get where it should be, especially with faster lenses.
I find the M overrated and the SL2S was a very pleasant “disappointment” as I expected the handling more complicated. But it’s not and the High ISO performance was another great surprise.
In terms of simplicity the old Sigma Merrill Foveon dp1, 2 and 3 so far was the most easy to use system for me.
Not my first guess though. No matter the type, if you know your camera, the type does not matter from an imaging point of view. I think that getting to know your camera is easier with something with only a few options. Too many options can be intimidating. Switching cameras and lenses all the time does not help either.
I’ve never used a rangefinder camera, but I would think it might be difficult to achieve sharp focus easily with a very fast manual focus lens.
Two of my favorite features of my current Nikon Z body is focus peaking, with different sensitivities and different colors, in combination with the ability to magnify the frame in the viewfinder. It makes manual focusing very fast and very accurate, even with my f/1.2 lenses wide open. My wife who hadn’t used a manual focusing lens since her Pentax film days many years ago, has also embraced using my manual focus lenses on her Nikon Z50.
I think you should try to get composition right in camera where you can, rather than in crop. When I first got my camera I refused to crop anything for about a year, certainly makes you think, and I still do that from time to time.
Absolutely, yes. Even more so if you refuse to crop, or at most crop to square. I’ve often gone out with a camera for a day and come back having not pressed the shutter button once. What was that saying? “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear” or more graphically “you can’t polish a t&£d” - Don’t get me wrong, I think you’ve taken some really nice photos that you’ve shared here but there’s no obligation to feel the need to squeeze out an image that might not be in there. Sometimes you just get nothing and trying to force something will lead to frustration rather than enjoyment.
Ouch!! Too many options are much worse for me than just “intimidating” - mind boggling comes to mind. The video that explains all the options and how to use them (on the D780) is two hours and 48 minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4CE162H8w&t=5057s
I think I have my camera set up reasonably well, but “overwhelming” is an understatement.
By comparison, my rangefinder film cameras have hardly any settings, and my rangefinder digital cameras don’t have all that many more.
Sharp focus - agreed. I would probably switch to “live view”, especially if I’m using a long lens. With a 135mm lens, and using the rangefinder, I agree, it’s a struggle for me, but I would probably switch to “live view”.
Yes, that’s what I do with both my DSLR and my RF cameras. That new technology is relatively easy to use, and is accurate.
Agreed, but what happens when you want a photo, and lack the proper lens, and can’t get close? If you’re not going for a huge enlargement, cropping can be adequate, especially so if you’re using good lenses.
If you’re going after a large print, to hang on the wall, I agree, but what if all you want is an image to send by email in a small size suitable for email? My philosophy is to take a photo as best I can, and then try to find ways to do it better. Use whatever camera you’ve got with you, and do the best you can. (If the purpose of the image is to hang it on my wall, that’s one thing, but if the purpose is just to email it to a friend, by the time I reduce it to a suitable size for email, it’s already being squished!)
You and @Joanna are probably right, that I should have walked by the coconut harvesting and not attempted a photo, but the people it was intended for, in India, saw it for what it is, a new way of doing something that field workers did by hand with a knife.
I prefer to set up for, and capture, what I think/hope/expect will be an awesome photo, like the cruise ship photo. I got exactly what I hoped for, except it was stuck in ‘jpg’ mode. My fault completely.
Hmm, should I get rid of my Fuji X100F, my Canon G7X Pro Mk II, and my Leica M8.2 because none of them are full-frame cameras? They all have other attributes that make up for this, at least in my mind. We’ve read here about how nice the Nikon Zfc is - but it’s not full frame. Is that a fatal flaw? All of these cameras “crop” their images, compared to a full frame camera…
I’d probably take it but realistically expect nothing, then move on. I don’t own a lens longer than 90mm FF equivalent so I accept limited options and my images reflect that.
With the Fuji X100V, you can use the “digital zoom converter”. https://forum.dxo.com/t/off-topic-advice-experiences-and-examples-for-images-that-will-be-processed-in-photolab/29437/694
Depending on the purpose of the image, this may be all you need - although you can probably accomplish the same thing in PhotoLab - again, depending on what you want to do with the image.
I’ve got a Fuji X100F; never did the update to the newest model. I prefer not having a touch screen, and the F version has all the manual controls accessible the way I’m used to.
The very same friend is now slowly abandoning Leica, since we found out that he can use his M-Lenses on my Sigma fp-L. Same MP as M11, just at a smaller “hole in the pocket”, better at focusing anyway. He bought on e as well and appears to be very happy. One of the features I like on my Lumix is the ability to enlarge the focus area and then push AF-ON again. It switches automatically to AF-S, focuses perfectly on a pinpoint (instead the “big” focus square, as the size of the square remains the same but the focus area is enlarged 4× or more).
They have a crop sensor, they do not crop anything per se. My camera has a 24 Mpx APS-C sensor which provides a resolution of 6000 x 4000, same as any other 24 Mpx sensor, full frames or otherwise
People who understand how to focus on a rangefinder camera seem to think that it is preferable to other ways of focusing, but aside from that, B&H specs show that the Sigma FpL camera takes Leica L mount lenses, not M mount. Lens Mount Leica L
There are several cameras that now accept Leica M-mount lenses, which means they will also accept Voigtlander lenses, which I believe are available in both manual focus and auto-focus.
I know nothing about it, but from the overall photo, it’s certainly not a camera for me.
I want a viewfinder up on top, whatever brand of camera it is.
It’s a 60 meg image, for $2,500, compared to $9,000 or so for the Leica M11 which I also don’t want to own, as I don’t want to be capturing 60 meg images. That would overwhelm my computer, and my way of doing things.
On B&H I checked the page for “Review”. Not that many yet, but before spending that much money, it would be good to read what others think.
Leica make an M to L mount adapter for the Leica SL, CL and TL series cameras which enables owners of those cameras to use M glass. I’m guessing the Sigma could use that or one from another manufacturer. Novoflex do one, but that doesn’t support all the native manual aids like focus magnification for M lenses on the Leica L Mount bodies IIRC. Neither of them turn an MF M lens into AF but other CL owners (I don’t have any M lenses) rave about the performance.
