A fairly commonly held (35mm photography) opinion seems to be that "Leica M is meant for people, street and candid photography but for landscapes you need an SLR".

The only reasons I can think of are that an SLR enables the use of lenses longer than 135mm and is better if you want to use certain filters, especially graduated and polarizing filters; otherwise, the M seems to me to be perfectly suitable for landscape photography. Am I missing some subtle point?

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), November 20, 2001

Answers

The only thing I can think of is that WSI-not necessarily-WYG. This makes it hard to use polarizing filters (tho' the large 67mm? adapter for the new 28 Cron seems like a brilliant idea- it's big enough to intrude into the viewfinder so you do see what the effect is), graduated filters... what else.

Maybe it's harder for composition too- if you have to clear away mentally stuff outside of the framelines, or try to scrunch your view into the 90mm, 135mm, or even 75 and 50mm framelines.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), November 20, 2001.

Have a look at Light, Lens, and Landscape by Leica photographer and ex-president of the British Royal Photographic Society Brian Bower. Why not M for landscapes indeed?

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), November 21, 2001.

Whoo, boy. Wait'll Jay gets aholt of this one!

The only weakness I can think of is that doing near-far relationships can be tricky, especially with lenses wider than 28, where parallax really kicks in. I tried doing some very precise 'desert plants in foreground/mountain in background' pix with a 21 (with the Contax G2, which added AF problems to the mix). They weren't as successful as things I've done with a 20 on a Nikon.

But the Ms size makes it easier to take to the landscapes. And there seems (to me) to be a contradiction between seeking out beautiful 'natural' images and then crawling all over them with graduated filters and polarizers.

Dave Harvey and a lot of the other Nat.Geo/Magnum shooters who use Leica take a fair number of landscapes in their work. (HC-B has a whole BOOK of landscapes! M3 & 50).

I can remember when the word was you couldn't use ANY 35mm for landscape - only 8x10.

There was a recently posted question: "What do you like to shoot the most?" What I like to shoot the most is whatever someone has just claimed "can't" be shot with a Leica. Just for fun. 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 21, 2001.

Ray,

The M is a great tool for (35mm) landscape.

A bugging issue can be the usage of ultra-wides with separate viewfinders: you got to use your judgement to figure out how high/low the near attention grabbing objects will be in relation with the far landscape.

The parallax correction in the integrated viewfinder (with 28mm mainly) can also lead to misguided framing as you use hyperfocal to grab both the near and the far objects. You risk including/excluding objects without noticing.

But these are very minor problems next to the luxury of a compact, light and versatile high quality package when you hike. Carrying the R8 with a few R lenses is as painful on your back/shoulders as carrying a medium format SLR.

BTW, polarizer is possible with a M. Graduated filters are obviously more of a problem.

However, as mentionned by others, a larger film surface is maybe a more desirable asset for landscape than highest quality 35mm.

Smallish and (relatively) light interchangeable lens rangefinder options are available up to 6x7...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.

Why not indeed:

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 21, 2001.

Ray:

Why not indeed!

I use my M6 and other similar RF cameras for "landscapes", as the only hassle I have found is the use of polarizers & split filters, and there are ways around that, as noted above. With the new emulsions-Provia 100 & T Max/Delta 100 come to mind- the "Quality" gets better & better.

Galen Rowell uses 35s, albeit Nikons, with Singh Ray filters (he is on retainer with them or something like that, as he is with Nikon) and nobody ever complains about his work. I have seen a 2 hour slide show he presented and NONE of the shots suffered from being on 35mm sources. He has a website - www.mountainlight.com-( if I recall)where some of his work can be seen. Keep in mind Ansel Adams in his later years switched to 6x6 for almost all of his work - Moon over Half Dome is cropped from a 6x6 Kodak Pan F neg shot with a Hasselblad and a 180 mm Sonnar. That quality is definitely available today with Leica glass and the films noted. A 180 mm lens on 6x6 is not far off a 135 on a 24 x 36 mm frame, so off we go to Yosemite.

Having said that, I have just recently started using 8x10 and there is still NOTHING from smaller formats that compares with an 8x10 contact print. Life is a series of compromises, but using a Leica for landscapes is one of the least. Compare the job of carrying an M body and 3 lenses with the 2 cu ft case for the 8x10 and a 25 lb tripod, and the compromise all but disappears.

The other drawback to using a Leica for landscapes is that it tempts one to work too quickly. Among the requisites of LF landscape work is the time it takes to set up the machinery and visualize the image, get it framed correctly and take spot meter readings as needed etc etc. Spending half an hour contemplating a shot does wonders for the final product as well as the photog's soul, as long as nature allows the luxury before shadows or light change.

In my opinion, many landscapes are interchangable with many cityscapes, and what better camera is there for those?

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.

PS

I just revisited Rowell's website and had forgotten how dramatic 35mm landscapes can be. The shot on the opening page knocked my socks off. The rest of the shots in the galleries were no less impressive.

Try photographing a flying eagle with an 8x10, or a pre-dawn mountain scene with light too low to focus on a groundglass.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.

Someone once said "to a man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" Of course you can do landscape with a Leica. Mine is with me almost all the time, I even take it into meetings at work. I'm convinced I could actually hammer in a nail with it if I needed to! On the other hand, having a huge amount of detail on the negative for a landscape is a good thing and the larger formats do do that. I have found that for me, the size of the format I prefer matches the size of the subject. I would prefer a 4x5 negative of the Grand Canyon over a 35mm negative of the same subject. So my Leica could hammer in a nail but if I had a hammer handy I'd use it instead. My Leica could do a credible landscape shot but if I had my 4x5 handy I'd use it instead.

-- jeff schraeder (jeff@circlesofclarity.com), November 21, 2001.

Ray, as to your quotation "Leica M... SLR", I've never heard that one before. I love landscapes, used to have an FM and an F3 and lots of long lenses. The only thing I always do hear (again and again) is that e.g. if you want a shot with more than 135 mm, then you need an SLR. Otherwise, the only serious discussions I've seen (and keep on looking for) regarding my M and landscapes are "when do I need a 28 or a 24 instead of my 35 or my 21?". Great shot, Rob.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 21, 2001.

The only things I can add to the excellent things said above (very encouraging BTW, and surprising since most of the M talk is always about people/street-shooting/low-light) are some specific "tricks" for using the M for landscapes:

1. Framing. At longer distances the 50 and 90 frames are signficantly smaller than the on-film recording. Either use the older B/L finders (which are framed for infinity), or for the 50 back your eye from the finder about 1" (or wear glasses!)and compose to the fuzzy black border outside the frame; for the 90, use the lever to bring up the 75 frames, which are quite accurate at infinity for the 90mm lens. The 35 frame is reasonably trustable, as is the 28 but with the latter the accessory finder is more "realistic" in its spatial view. The 135 frame is accurate even at infinity (due to its very small size and the lens 1.5m near limit)but the older B/L finder is nicer to use.

2. Polarizer: the Universal swing-out is good but can't be used on lenses shorter than 35mm or the Tri-Elmar. A step-up adaptor into which cutouts have been made to sight through is a solution.

3. Split N/D: a major problem. I use the circular ones but they are very limited in scope because they're not adjustable. You can use a rectangular one in a Cokin A holder but positioning is a crap- shoot...UNLESS! You make a series of test slides at various apertures and vertical positions of the filter (scribe a small mark on the filter near the holder, and a series of marks on the holder). With the slides in a transparent filing page in your bag, they'll serve as a guide as to how to position the filter. Crude and clumsy but effective.

4. Longer lenses: I carry a Komura 2x. In a pinch I use it with the 135 APO-Telyt (use the rangefinder patch to frame), stopped down to about f/8. It's not too bad.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 21, 2001.

The above referrences to parallex error is the reason why I don't think any 35mm rangefinder is the best tool for "CERTAIN TYPES" of landscape photography...that being the above-mentioned shots where acurate near-far framing is desired.

I also much prefer my Nikon 20 and my "E" grid screen in the viewfinder to line things up where I want them to be. SLRs also focus closer in this regard and have things like CRC (close range correction) to aide in sharp focus.

It's a common held opinion that Leicas are best used for street photos in the 28-50 range because it's been proven over and over again.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), November 21, 2001.

Between the time the Leica rangefinder was offered in the 1930s until the onslaught of the mass-market 35mm SLRs in the early 1960s, tons of scenic photography was done with the Leica. That the Leica has some qualities that make it especially convenient for street photography with 28-50 lenses is undeniable; however it was not designed as a niche camera and its capabilities are more than adequate for general photography.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 21, 2001.

I'm certainly not disputing that, Jay. If that's all that was available in the "small" format at that time, then that's what was used.

But the fact that there was a mass exodus away from rangefinders and towards SLRs in the 60s is telling. And I think that happened...and still happens...because you can see in the viewfinder exactly what the lens is seeing, viewfinder coverage aside.

No doubt there are those quite happy using a Leica M for all types of landscape work. And I'm sure it's quite possible to get consistently good results. But FOR ME, I just prefer an SLR for near-far compositions.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), November 21, 2001.

My two major interests as a photographer are landscape and dance. I started out shooting both subjects with an M6 and three lenses (35-50-90). I later sold my Leica outfit to help finance the purchase of a Nikon SLR outfit to shoot dance and a view camera to shoot landscapes.

Next month I am going to get a new M6. It turns out that the Leica has virtues for shooting both of these subjects that are hard to replicate with other cameras.

Much of the best landscape photography takes place in unsettled weather. I'm sure there are view camera photographers who can set up, compose, focus, meter, and get off the shot in the face of an approaching thunderstorm; it turns out, though, that I am not one of them. For catching fleeting conditions of light and weather there is nothing like 35 mm. And among 35 mm cameras only Leica seems to have a continuing commitment to developing and producing state of the art prime lenses. I have landscap pictures I took with the 35 Summicron ASPH on tech pan that, at enlargement sizes up to 11 X 14, can stand comparison with anything I have done with the view camera.

With the Leica I can travel light, work fast, and yet feel that I am making hardly any compromises on technical quality. I look forward to rejoining the ranks of Leica M landscape shooters.

-- David B. Mark (dbmark@ix.netcom.com), November 21, 2001.

It depends on your expectations.

There are limitations in both subject matter (see previous anwers) and final result: a projected slide will not show as much the technical short comings as a black and white enlargement large enough to hang on your wall. With the transparency you have more frustrations related to the imprecise viewfinder framing, in B&W printing this is easier to deal with through cropping, if you are lucky.

You have no depth of field preview with the M- but with experience you can learn to some degree where to focus and what F stop to use for a given shot. You also cannot compensate for the shift in focus if a filter is used- except stopping down. Accurate groundglass focusing is done with the filter in place.

The M series is great for shots on the fly as well as contemplative (landscape)photography. If you believe in your camera, you can do with it whatever you want- it's being in the right frame of mind that counts.

Don't forget your tripod.

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), November 21, 2001.

I'd have been the first to nominate Brian Bower as a fine example of the viability of shooting landscape with the Leica, had not David Killick beaten me to it. I just bought Bower's book, "The Leica Lens Book" and was very impresssed with Bower's ability to get the most out of the rangefinder approach to this subject matter.

I think there are two issues here. One is the applicability of the rangefinder/measuring viewfinder to landscape, as opposed to groundglass viewing. As far as that goes, I think it's really a question of the photographer making a commitment to learning to visualize the desired result with a given finder system. Or else discovering which kind of viewing best fulfills the original intention.

The other issue is about quality. As others have noted, a 4x5 or 8x10 is really king for crisp image detail. I took an architectural photography course that quickly taught me that in some ways, a view camera is a "real" camera. Often we can glance at a calander photo and know it was taken with large format. It just has that "look." This is where Brian Bower's work bridges the gap, because he has some double-page spreads that look at least 6x6 quality, if not 4x5. All his Leica photos look brilliant and "snappy."

Continuing on the quality issue, I have to question whether landscape work has to be about sharpness. Was Monet about sharpness? Image detail? Counting how many straws are in the haystacks? Or is it more about the image having something to say; evoking a feeling, a mood, or transporting the viewer to someplace s/he's never been? I tend to think that these are the things that count the most.

An early influence for me was Walther Benser's book, "Color Magic," which featured his travel, scenic, and landscape work with a Leica. Even his habit of posing his daughter, Petra, in the foreground, wearing a red skirt to add depth to the shot, taught me something. The most beautiful background can appear banal without something interesting in the foreground to "anchor" the shot. These things count as much as the format. There's an old adage, to answer the question of how to take a great picture: "f/8 and be there." Another way to put it might be, "Be there and have your camera with you." From that point of view, I think the Leica is a viable choice for landscapes. It's both portable and able to rival the results you can get with a rather larger camera.

Well, that's enough on that.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 22, 2001.

All cameras can do all jobs with the right person behind or next to them. The LEICA M is supposed to be a bad camera for weddings according to some recent (or not so recent) posts here.

This is nonsense I think. Why not M for landscapes, architecture, weddings, flowers? The LEICA does everything the photographer want. And the abilities of the LEICA are much more than those of the average LEICA owner.

There are of course other cameras which can do things better. Certainly a pc- lens on an slr for archtecture is the near to perfect gear. But even better is a large format camera with hinged back etc. Where do you stop? Itīs like the military, they always want more.

Exploit the LEICA for everything you want to shoot. It can do much more than you think.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (K.g.wolf@web.de), November 23, 2001.

All cameras on the photomarketplace can do all jobs with the right person behind or next to them. The LEICA M is supposed to be a bad camera for weddings according to some recent (or not so recent) posts here.

This is nonsense I think. Why not M for landscapes, for architecture, weddings, flowers? The LEICA does everything the photographer wants within some limitations perhaps. And the abilities of the LEICA M are much more than those of the average LEICA owner.

There are of course other cameras which can do things better. Certainly a pc- lens on an slr for archtecture is the near to perfect tool. But even better could be a large format camera with hinged back etc. Where do you stop? Itīs like the military, they always want more even to tackle simple requirements.

Exploit the LEICA for everything you want to shoot. It can do much more than you think.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (K.g.wolf@web.de), November 23, 2001.

OOPS,

sorry for this mess.

Didnīt realize the thing had been sent off already. There was no proper feedback in the first instance.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), November 23, 2001.