This phrase pops up from time to time, but doesn't really mean very much to me. In my hands, at least, the M6 is just a camera. Would anyone like to comment on what the "Leica philosophy" is? How does it impact on taking pictures in practical terms?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 04, 2001

Answers

Hi Rob!

I'm afraid I can't say anything really new here, as I have already said it, and the philosophy was in fact "invented" by Leica itself ([a] I think it was Leica/Leitz, and [b] at least for their catalogs) but what I do love about Leica Ms is the fact that I here am the boss, I determine everything what has to be dialed in (aperture, time, focus) and I am not the slave or marionette of the camera. That is why I hate all the other automatic stuff e.g. on a Nikon (of which I used to have 5 or 6).

As re impact on taking pictures in practical terms, no, I cannot say that my M6 TTL makes better pictures, but it does give me a better feeling.

Other than that, yes, of course, my M6 TTL is only a camera. I have many other hobbies and interests, but my camera is, and will remain "only" a Leica.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 04, 2001.

Is it a philosophy or is it more of a spirit?

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), October 04, 2001.

But I think all of this is the point. Rob - even "In my hands, at least, the M6 is just a camera" - this in itself can be classed a 'philosophy'. The word is pretty far ranging, but nearly everyone has a 'philosophy' of photography, even a collector. I guess it's more that everyone has a personal philosophy that either the M fit into or doesn't.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), October 04, 2001.

The only difference, a radical one though, is the viewfinder. My first look through a Leica M was a revelation. It forces you to realize that the camera just is a sophisticated pair of cropping "L"s. The rest is all hype and the experience is easily replicated by using an old Canonet. Mind you, you cannot change lenses on a Canonet.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 04, 2001.

It's me again. Philosophy Part II. I knew you would say, "Ahhh, Mike... never heard of an FM or an -2 or -3A ?" I had one myself, and if I look at the new ones too, they still aren't manual enough (for me).

I think it's also the perfection. Here, funnily enough, price is no problem. Either I got the money, or I don't. But I love perfection. I seek perfection. Even although I often don't succeed here.

Then there's the security of sturdiness and durability and replaceability. This may not be of essence as re taking pictures in practical terms, and it may not be a philosophy, but I like its presence in all environments, temperatures, humidities etc.

Then it's the gem I see in timelessness: not today, or tomorrow, but like if any of my kids or kids' kids (not here yet) wanted to buy a new (or a very old) lens someday for the M6 I'll bequeath them, I believe today that this will still be possible even in the distant future.

Finally this whole thing is pretty paradox: on the one hand a Leica is just a camera, and it's the camera which takes the pictures. Whoa! I mean it's the photographer who takes the pictures. Who cares? Me being not any special photographer, my pictures would probably end up being just as good (or bad) if I used any other camera in the world. But I like my Leica, because it's not any other camera in the world. Maybe that's less philosophy and more religion. I think I should philosophize less and shoot more.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 04, 2001.

My definition of the Leica Philosophy is "the series of mental rationalizations by which the design idiosyncrasies and manufacturing defects of the Leica product are not only forgiven but embraced with near religious fervor, and by which Leica has been able to get nearly fifty years out of a product design with only insignificant improvements". In other words, I'm with you Rob. It's a camera, they're lenses. They do what I want them to. I figured how to work around their quirks years ago, but they haven't gone away.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 04, 2001.

I think to answer what the "Leica Philosophy" is, you have to go back to the early '30s when 35mm was a new format for the masses. This was when HCB, Willy Roos, Ben Shan and even Ansel Adams (although with a Contaxt) plus countless others began to record candid 'life on the street' type of photography. At the time Leica reigned supreme and was THE camera to have. So, I think that the "Leica Philosophy" phrase was more related to the style of photography than the camera itself, and it did not hurt Leicas marketing effort to position themselves as the leader in candid street photography. And in IMHO a position they still hold today.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), October 04, 2001.

I've probably said this before: "Any tool in skilled hands will yield acceptable results." We happen to choose Leica.

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), October 04, 2001.

In my view, the "Leica Philosophy" has everything to do with complete control with your camera. No automatic this or that, no matrix metering, and no camera telling you what to do. It also has a lot to do with camera simplicity and lack of "gadgets" which only clutter up the camera and serve to limit us to what the camera "suggests". Of course there are certain "override" capabilities but who needs them? Give me an M6 any day. The humanity,for many, has gone out of photography. The "electronic marvel" does everything. Is that creativity? I, for one, do not think so!

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), October 04, 2001.

Leica philosophy = highest precision, and quality of construction and finest optics with essentially manual operation.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 04, 2001.

"The humanity,for many, has gone out of photography. The "electronic marvel" does everything. Is that creativity? I, for one, do not think so!"

Right, and the quality of photography (say, in magazines, for instance) in general has declined severely since the advent of AE, AF, digital, etc.? I think not. Look at James Nachtwey's body of work, up to and including his wonderful "Shattered" presentation from last month on the Time.com site. How much more humanity do you want from a photography who so lacks creativity and vision that he relies on Canon EOS cameras?

I'm with whomever said the "Leica Philosophy" is all about the viewfinder. On M cameras the viewfinder is a plain, bright window with cropping marks. It somehow encourages the photographer to interact more directly with the subject. An SLR viewfinder/focusing screen can distance the shooter from the scene; a rangefinder camera (no, it doesn't have to be a Leica) puts you in the scene. The fact that an M camera is small and quiet helps, too. In short order people forget that you're taking pictures.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), October 04, 2001.

"...just a camera." Only a camera. My Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., lists the number 1 definition of only as: 1 : unquestionably the best : PEERLESS 2 : alone in its class or kind : SOLE

That, together with the fact that the Leica M camera was designed with only the bare essentials is the Leica philosophy. It is a whole camera and nothing but a camera. It is more "only a camera" than any other.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), October 04, 2001.

Shall we go back to Barnack´s work table; I belive there is where this philosopy begun; small and ligth camera, of the very best quality for big pictures, and ergonomicaly perfect, maybe that´s the reason it hasn´t chage much in many years.

The rest is Leica culture, and other thing is Leica cult, for me a deformation of the first.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 04, 2001.

Hi, Rob:

Sure you already noticed your question is one of those that initiate pasionate discussions here. It's OK with me. Trying to make thoughts clear isn't easy and could even help one to learn something else about oneself.

MY Leica phylosophy: To try to make the best out of my subjects of choice with the simplest possible gear.

Aside from the "phylosophy" I also have reasons to prefer my Leicas: rangefinder (M3, of course), solidity, best mechanics, fast handling, small size, easy acceptance by intended subjects, both-eyes-open aiming (M3, once more), the feeling of being part of a decades long ilustrious tradition, the pleasure of sharing my photo interests with you all, friends.

Aside from that, yes, I agree, they are just cameras.

I couldn't say which of those elements have been more influencial in my photography in practical terms. Most possibly the sum and the blend of them all, I think. But the fact is that my photography has significantly improved since I bought my first M3 and switched to RF practice... in my opinion and some well respected elses' too.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), October 04, 2001.

My first instructor when intorducing me to the Speed Graphic, told me to remember the word FACT. Focus, aperture, cock the shutter, and think. Today with the marvels of electronics, we have auto focus, auto exposure, auto film advance and as a result it is so easy to forget to think. So what you get are pictures which could be missed focus, missed exposed, and poorly composed. With Leica, you return to the basics, with a quality instrument you began to creatively express your views. You may call this a mystique or a philosophy, but should it not be this way?

-- Gene Kent (savantgk@mediaone.net), October 04, 2001.

I can't imagine caring about any corporation's philosophy.

I try to put my own philosophy into my photographs. I'm interested in the philosophical issues around photography. But I'm not real excited about philosophy of metal, glass, and plastic, no matter how it's put together.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), October 04, 2001.

If you have a bad wife you are or will inevitable become a philosopher. If you have a good wife you are an exception. So, a leica-photographer having a bad wife is a leica-philosopher, but one having a good wife is just a leica-shooter :?)

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), October 05, 2001.

Victor, since I spend most of my time and money on Leica, my wife is always trying to shoot me.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 05, 2001.

You sure you don't mean Leica photography? That stuff that strongly resembles Nikon and Canon photography?

As for philosophy, I guess you could say stoicism is the school that applies when you are faced with technical limitations and high expense.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), October 05, 2001.

When the Barnack camera first came out it was the point and shoot of its day. HCB could have been equally sneaky with a TLR or a Voigtlander folder but probably would have missed many shots. Today a clamshell Olypmus P&S probably represents these values better while the Leica is now a very heavy and expensive thing with expensive large lenses. Now I see folks comparing lens specs the way school boys arguing quarter mile stats for hotrods. The toughest part for me was getting over how expenive it is and use it the way it was intended. Also keep that B&H catalog with the prices away from the wife.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), October 05, 2001.

"You can look at technology as a living tree, the trunk bearing branches, the branches leafing out. Or you can see it as a net, each knot tying up threads from many sides. But the human reality is more intricate than either one. We have been looking at one invention which began pretty purely, out of the conception of a need. The hope: to change the person who takes pictures from a harried, offstage observer into someone who is a natural part of the event.

"No single thread wove this invention: not lens, not moving mirror, not film chemistry, not clever circuits. They are coordinate: parts of a single strategy working together to protect and fulfill the original hope. This invention is finally a system - call it a system of novelties.

"But even that is not enough. The camera enters the real world only once it is precisely manufactured in quantity. That process too reflects a civilized concern. It has its visual beauty. It rewards skill and care with immediate feedback. In the end, it links the inventors, the engineers, the workers, the distributors into one chain of craftsmanship.

"The user is the final link. The device helps meet the universal need to do things well. It offers as a matter of course a tool for supplying a rich texture to memory. More than that, thoughtful use can help reveal meaning in the flood of images that makes up so much of human life." - Charles and Ray Eames.

-- Tristan (tristan@tristantom.com), October 05, 2001.

It's all in the viewfinder. I can stand close up to my subject, and still not feel like the camera comes in between. This, and the lack of a mirror (now viewfinder blackout + less in-camera vibrations) makes all the difference to me,

-- Arild Reppen (arilre@online.no), October 05, 2001.

Just so we get our terms straight: Here is a link to the OFFICIAL Leica Philosophy

Now that the corporate boiler-plate is out of the way, we can get back to our OWN versions.

Curiously, many of the expressed philosophies here tend to NOT include attributes of the Leica R, which may explain its decline. Just an observation.

For me, the prime philosphical impact/effect of the M-Leica is to redefine photography as a narrative, rather than a graphic, medium and to emphasize creating pictures that are more about time (moment/ gesture) than image (form/design).

This is nowhere near an absolute distinction. Regardless of what camera you use, you still end up with a 2-dimensional graphic image.

And photographers more interested in graphic rather than moment images (yeah, that's an oversimplification, but I'm trying to be brief) may still choose the M-Leica for (perceived) lens quality or compactness or better low-shutter-speed stability or low-light focusing or mechanical reliability(?).

But the attributes distinct to M-Leica; open viewfinder, rough framing, fast shutter response, unobtrusiveness, limited reach (and corresponding forced intimacy) all tend, on balance, to make moment- catching EASIER and careful graphic image-making HARDER.

So there is a bias, and it does tend to show up in our pictures.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 05, 2001.

I think you've summed it up best Andy. I own both rangefinder and R Leica's, yet when this subject came up I didn't think of the SLR at all. So it's not so much a 'Leica' philosophy, but a philosophy of the rangefinder camera.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), October 06, 2001.

OK, now I've stirred up the wasp's nest, here's my own feeling.

I first started snapping in the mid eighties because I saw a book of HCB portraits. I knew he used the Leica, so that's what I got. It promised a kind of spontaneity and simplicity, I don't know why. Mainly the transparency of the viewfinder and the small size.

Nowadays, I feel the same way, with the added impulse that I can't focus an SLR.

I still love the Leica M and can hardly imaging using another 35 mm camera.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 06, 2001.

After using a M for a wile, and get conscient of the frame and the time of exposure, perfect focus, the demand from the camera to be ON IT, and if with a little of talent it transform into good work, yes my dear rob is hard to pick up another system.

At the end it is a very demanding camera.

-- r watson (al123123@hotmail.com), October 06, 2001.

Hey Victor, I have a good wife, and she is a philosopher (expert on French philosophy, Merleau-Ponty, Feminism) and I shoot with a Leica. So what does that make me?

Rob, try this:

L ove of quality E ngineering I ngenuity C raftsmanship A ttention to detail

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), October 10, 2001.

My two bits:

Luxury Expense Improbably Coveted by All.

Laughably Expensive and Inconvenient - Crazy Afcionados.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), October 10, 2001.

Bob, sounds like you are just twice as exception :?)

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), October 10, 2001.

Ok, I don't own a real Leica. Reading the posts here though reminds me of the Porsche 356 and 911s. They are widely acknowledged as fundamentally ill-designed cars. In fact in terms of conventional vehicle dynamics they are all wrong (too much weight way in the back). However, those who have adapted to them have turned those quirks into advantages. They do some things other cars just won't do (and maybe thankfully in the hands of the average driver). As a result Porsche drivers tend to have a distinct philosophy that involves their cars as distinct from others. As for my camera.. I have a FED-2 Russian copy of some imaginary Leica, perhaps with even more quirks. A camera such as mine forces one to be philosophical about everything ;)

-- Dean G (dgranro1@att.net), October 10, 2001.

"Narrative rather than graphic, more about time than form". That is a brilliantly simple statement that I wholeheartedly endorse as the core of this slippery concept. It's precisely what I got out of my switch from Nikon to M. Thanks, Andy - that's going in my little box of photographic aphorisms.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), October 10, 2001.