Why there are so many Leicaweenies
The Leica M8, the company's first digital rangefinder.
(Credit: Leica)Today's camera news (my own included) can be an unvarying diet of statistics, feature lists, price points and techno-blather. I am therefore happy to note that The New Yorker, a magazine that specializes in sprawling, multi-thousand-word pieces, has chosen fit to investigate the cult of Leica.
Anthony Lane, by day a snarky movie critic for the magazine, has unleashed upon the world a history of Leica cameras and the photographers who have used them. The lavish prose (and an overt admission) reveals Lane to be one of those with a Leica fetish, but that shouldn't discourage you from reading the piece. It's healthy to be reminded that the mirror-and-shutter mechanism of an SLR camera in action sounds like "a cow kicking over a milk pail" compared with the "kiss" of a Leica shutter. And Lane's always good for a clever turn of phrase. Of the 2006 announcement of Leica's first digital model, the $5,000 M8, he said, "It was like Dylan going electric."
Decades ago, Leica cameras were notable for being snappier and more compact than rivals. In Lane's view, these qualities endow them with an ability to, if not anticipate the future, at least to capture the spontaneous, surprising moments that make up day-to-day life. His finds his views confirmed with a half-day trial of an M8.
Where the details get fuzzy for me is why a Leica rangefinder camera is better suited to spontaneous shooting than a modern SLR. Lane seems to think the compact size, unobtrusive shutter and see-what's-coming-into-the-frame viewfinder provided a technical foundation that inspired a certain type of shoot-from-the-hip photographer. Certainly the unpleasant shutter lag of most compact cameras make them a poor choice for anything faster-moving than a tree or a sleeping baby. But I still need more convincing that the Leica's advantages have arrived intact in the modern age. Maybe I need to take that half-day tour with an M8, too.
curiosity until well after WWII. The Leica earned it's reputation during the war,
when it appeared that it was the camera of choice for most of the great
photographers. After the war it took on an iconic identity, especially since it
was very difficult to get a camera that was only made in Germany - they
weren't making a lot of them in 1945. It combined superior optics with an
intuitive eye level viewfinder. Add it's compact design, and it was the perfect
camera for combat photography. And the pictures were great.
Modern SLRs have become a great combination, allowing you to take
incredibly complex compositions or simple point-and-shoot snapshots. My
beloved Nikon APS SLR (Pronea 6i) combines all that with 3 format sizes and
(best of all) swapping out and reinserting different film type mid-roll, and it's
a rarity I refuse to part with. These are simply not possible with a Leica
On the other hand, the Leica viewfinders reduce all the bells and whistles to
the very basic aperture, shutter speed, and focal distance. It's about the
purest form of photography this side of a bellows camera and photographic
plates. You have to learn how to take pictures to get good results. It's a lot
like making your own furniture; you either learn to make it right, or you make
a lot of kindling.
I don't see how this translates to digital, since that basic concept is to suck in
as much visual data as possible, and then recompose the picture in
Photoshop. Except for depth of field, almost everything else is done "post
production."
While it certainly has a very tangible effect on film photography, I can't see a
Carl Zeiss lens making a $4,500 difference in your digital pictures.
curiosity until well after WWII. The Leica earned it's reputation during the war,
when it appeared that it was the camera of choice for most of the great
photographers. After the war it took on an iconic identity, especially since it
was very difficult to get a camera that was only made in Germany - they
weren't making a lot of them in 1945. It combined superior optics with an
intuitive eye level viewfinder. Add it's compact design, and it was the perfect
camera for combat photography. And the pictures were great.
Modern SLRs have become a great combination, allowing you to take
incredibly complex compositions or simple point-and-shoot snapshots. My
beloved Nikon APS SLR (Pronea 6i) combines all that with 3 format sizes and
(best of all) swapping out and reinserting different film type mid-roll, and it's
a rarity I refuse to part with. These are simply not possible with a Leica
On the other hand, the Leica viewfinders reduce all the bells and whistles to
the very basic aperture, shutter speed, and focal distance. It's about the
purest form of photography this side of a bellows camera and photographic
plates. You have to learn how to take pictures to get good results. It's a lot
like making your own furniture; you either learn to make it right, or you make
a lot of kindling.
I don't see how this translates to digital, since that basic concept is to suck in
as much visual data as possible, and then recompose the picture in
Photoshop. Except for depth of field, almost everything else is done "post
production."
While it certainly has a very tangible effect on film photography, I can't see a
Carl Zeiss lens making a $4,500 difference in your digital pictures.
pointed it out last week, I hadn't realized the New Yorker had run a story.
Damn, them for making my private vice really popular. I guess I have to dig
up the issue just so I can spit on it.
I?ll say that there are hardly any Leicaweenies out there because the exclusive
price and limited versatility simply puts it out of people's reach.
BTW, reading your piece there are a couple corrections:
Rangefinders can be shot from the hip literally?pre-focusing is de rigeur
even when using the viewfinder, because focusing and aperture are manually
set and the metering system has serious limitations by design.
You forgot to mention the rangefinder's viewfinder shows not just the area
around it, it is much brighter. Also, rangefinder focusing is more accurate at
shorter focal lengths.
OTOH:
The M8 has a sharper shutter sound than the other Leicas, because the
shutter is metal instead of cloth, so unobtrusive shutter is not so unobtrusive
anymore. It also has an auto-cocking mechanism which is audible.
There are a whole slew of compromises that come from a digital design in a
rangefinder that are easily compensated for or don't exist in the SLR world.
Most notably telecentricity and tight register distance requirements, but more
generally the general set is SLR's have always benefited by design from
improved electronics, while rangefinders, by design, don?t.
In fact, in general, nothing beats the versatility of the SLR design. Shots like
any photography done with long telephotos, action photography which
requires high speed shutters and predictive autofocusing, macro
photography, or electronically coupled and metered flash are all difficult to
impossible to do with rangefinders. If you ask why there are any
rangefinders, why not ask your collegue Peter Glakowsky why he shoots
medium format?
Different camera designs have their niche. Also, if you're out of the SF office,
jet me an e-mail. I can stop by and lend you my M8, you'll figure this
rangefinder thing out pretty quickly, warts and all.
As for Why there are so many Leicaweenies? Well I?d say that one is too many,
but not all Leica owners are weenies. I happen to love my Nikons and I have a
"cheap" Japanese lens attached to my Leica. I, for one, find it amusing that a
lens so well built and expensive could be considered "cheap" simply because
it isn?t made in Germany. :-D
pointed it out last week, I hadn't realized the New Yorker had run a story.
Damn, them for making my private vice really popular. I guess I have to dig
up the issue just so I can spit on it.
I?ll say that there are hardly any Leicaweenies out there because the exclusive
price and limited versatility simply puts it out of people's reach.
BTW, reading your piece there are a couple corrections:
Rangefinders can be shot from the hip literally?pre-focusing is de rigeur
even when using the viewfinder, because focusing and aperture are manually
set and the metering system has serious limitations by design.
You forgot to mention the rangefinder's viewfinder shows not just the area
around it, it is much brighter. Also, rangefinder focusing is more accurate at
shorter focal lengths.
OTOH:
The M8 has a sharper shutter sound than the other Leicas, because the
shutter is metal instead of cloth, so unobtrusive shutter is not so unobtrusive
anymore. It also has an auto-cocking mechanism which is audible.
There are a whole slew of compromises that come from a digital design in a
rangefinder that are easily compensated for or don't exist in the SLR world.
Most notably telecentricity and tight register distance requirements, but more
generally the general set is SLR's have always benefited by design from
improved electronics, while rangefinders, by design, don?t.
In fact, in general, nothing beats the versatility of the SLR design. Shots like
any photography done with long telephotos, action photography which
requires high speed shutters and predictive autofocusing, macro
photography, or electronically coupled and metered flash are all difficult to
impossible to do with rangefinders. If you ask why there are any
rangefinders, why not ask your collegue Peter Glakowsky why he shoots
medium format?
Different camera designs have their niche. Also, if you're out of the SF office,
jet me an e-mail. I can stop by and lend you my M8, you'll figure this
rangefinder thing out pretty quickly, warts and all.
As for Why there are so many Leicaweenies? Well I?d say that one is too many,
but not all Leica owners are weenies. I happen to love my Nikons and I have a
"cheap" Japanese lens attached to my Leica. I, for one, find it amusing that a
lens so well built and expensive could be considered "cheap" simply because
it isn?t made in Germany. :-D