Experience with the MP

[erikvanstraten]

you don't see what you will have on your negative, I'm sorry.! You don't see what is on focus and not. You only have to imagine it. The reflex will help you more.

Laurent, this is exactly what I mean. You have to imagine it, it needs imagination, fantasy. Artists are supposed to have that.

And yes, with different lenses such as 135mm or 21mm it is really something to get used to. In my view only the 35mm and 50mm are to be used on a M-Leica. The 35mm on M2,4,5,6,7 and MP and the 50mm on the M3.

Regards,

Erik.

 

[laurent_ldp]

Thanks Erik,
it is good to see how some people take pictures.
You are right that we have to develop one strong side of imagination. But I think that our imagination is to buil the picture, not to think how technicaly our camera will do it.
If we can't manage it, we allways have one surprise. And with a viewfinder system it is not possible to manage it in 100%.
I like to see that you use only lenses that are like you see with your eyes. But in your answer we see that we have one limitation in the viewfinder system, that we don't have with the reflex system.

Regards

Laurent

 

[thinkofcole]

Re: Andrew Pickup(agp's) comment that it's not the camera but the photographer-- I seem to recall that years ago when Polaroid first introduced its revolutionary camera, it hired Ansel Adams, the great photographer, to take photos with it and then published them in upscale magazines to show what its camera was capable of. The rest is history.-- bob cole

 

[erikvanstraten]

To all of you,
I started photography at the age of 15, my camera being an Ilford Sportsman 300, 35mm viewfinder camera. No rangefinder, no meter. I could do nothing with the thing. All the eldery people around me told me that it was the photographer who was important, a good photographer could make masterpieces with the simplest thing. But its not true. To make a good photograph you need a good camera.

By the way, how do you Leica MP-users think that this camera can be improved? I personally do hate the on/off switch on the shutterspeed-dial, forgetting allways that it should be at 'off' when storing the camera tensioned. It eats batteries this way. I would like to see that the on/off switch was actuated by the transport-lever, in exactly the same way as the good old Nikkormat did.

regards,

Erik.

 

[sungnee]

I mentioned my daughter was a graphics design major simply to say that she has been exposed to good photographs (in her classes) and therefore have developed some sort of sense about what makes a good photograph, that's all.

I personally have found that the camera, and especially the lens, does make a difference.

I have used almost all brands of cameras (exceptions are Alpa and most 4X5s). And in my experience, Leica, actually only the M lenses, is the only one that can deliver what I saw. In some instances it improved my image so much that what I thought was an ordinary image turned out great.

I held a solo exhibition last year and I blew up some Leica photos that I took almost twenty years ago; and I was shocked by how beautiful some of the large prints looked. Had I known they were so good then my confidence would have been boosted tremendously. But I was only a poor young man then.

Now I look upon my Leica M lenses as my partner, or more accurately, the designer(s) of these lenses as my partner(s).

May be the Japanese lenses are just as well designed, but the fact of the matter is that the precision of manufacture ensured that the designers' intentions are "realised" in the Leica lens that is in my hand and it performed as the designer intended it to perform.

I digressed.


Sung Nee

 

[jorks]

Erik Jan van Straten correctly points out that with a rangefinder "you don't see what you will have on your negative ... You don't see what is on focus and not. You only have to imagine it".

This is true. But I don't agree with him that "The reflex will help you more". The SLR shows you only what is in focus at maximum aperture, not at the taking aperture. Unless of course you use the DoF preview feature, but this generally darkens the image so much that you ofter can't really see what is in focus anyway. Both systems have their good and bad points.

For me the VF system plus the DoF scale on the lens and my imagination are preferable to the reflex system, and then there are all the other advantages of a good rangefinder that we all know about.

Louis

 

[garth]

hmmm,

what i like about my m6

1. most important is that in composing I am not looking at a narrow plane of focus. this allows better 'follow through' in composing compositional shapes that are at varying distances.

2. the rangefinder also splits your functions into two: focus and compose. with an slr I find it more difficult to compose, though i'm only talking about the 50mm. i love my slr w/135 lens. it's great. i've also used a f3hp with a 24 and it was great to compose with: it sucked to focus! with the 50mm, I was behaviorally led to make more two dimensional images, rather than three dimensional. this tends to equate into pictures that are one-liners, rather than ones that tell stories.

3. it is a small camera, easy to carry everywhere, feels great.

4. minimum of controls. for my personality it's the zen simplicity i like.

5. it is quiet, this matters a lot less than people think, but sometimes it is vital.

6. the rangefinder is generally easier on my eyes, when it's not flaring....

ultimately it's what feels right to you. no one's going to heaven or hell over this.

cheereo,
garth

 

[agp]

This thread has turned out to be very interesting, though much of it has little to do specifically with the MP. I agree totally with Sun Nee - the camera does make a difference. My point was that the camera in itself won't make the picture. The skill and vision of the photographer is obviously the most important aspect of taking a picture. Second is the camera. I would still rather have Salgado's skill and a point and shoot than my two Leicas and my own relatively meagre ability. Combine a great photographer of the right genre and a Leica, though, and the results can be amazing. I agree with Garth that it's what's right for you.

 

[erikvanstraten]

Louis,
just for the record, but I was quoting Laurent De Palma: ' with a rangefinder "you don't see what you will have on your negative ... You don't see what is on focus and not. You only have to imagine it".'
I do agree with it, Laurent was saying with other words what I ment, but these are his words!

Andrew,
You are right, this thread has to go more into the direction of the MP. So: what would you like to change on that camera?

regards,

Erik.

 

[oskar_b]

This thread is much broader than the MP and it has developed into a more interesting discussion than I thought it would. Perhaps a kind moderator can redirect it to a more suitable location.

Referring to my earlier post in this thread, my feelings are that photographic art, particularly as it is defined today, is largely independent of the system used. Art firmly lays within the realm of the individual. The tenor of the arguments here are more along the lines of how Leica RF cameras help in the visualisation of a potential subject and how these cameras aid in the execution of that vision. This I feel has more to do with the craft element of photographic practice.

This said the documentary photographers of the 1930 and 1940s considered their best work as fine-art and the tools they employed definitely helped them realise their vision. In Australia the camera of choice for these worker-artists were Rollei TLRs rather than Leicas. But a factor in this had to do with the poor availability and cost of Zeiss and Leica 35mm cameras at the time. Interestingly, several contemporary “street shooters†are now experimenting with the X-pan in addition to their M6s and MPs, and producing some interesting results.

Regards Craig