I recently posted a link to a fairly recent image I shot (with an F3 and 55/2.8) in order to have it critiqued. I got a few responses, but one in particular disturbed me- I was told I was in the wrong forum! I thought this was absurd, so let me explain.

The Leica came about in 1924 (I think), and I'm sure many will agree with me when I say that they popularized 35mm for the masses. Of course, Henry Ford would have had to have been an idiot to think that he would be the only one to build an automobile. So too, Leica probably expected many competitors to adopt the configuration of their cameras. Admirably, Leica had remained relatively true to the original design, which explains their cult following today.

But what is Leica doing with a reflex system? A moving mirror? I'm sure you will all agree with me when I say that for some types of photography, the SLR is preferable. I'm sure more would agree with me when I say that for some types of photography, the Rangefinder is preferable. Nevertheless, Leica makes a reflex, complete with AE bodies. Does this mean that one who simply uses (or more correctly, owns) Leicas is practicing Leica Photography? I don't think so...

In the entire scope of photography, there are a lot of possiblities, many possibly unexplored. Using a Pinhole vs. a TLR vs. Pen+Ink+Camera Obscura can yield wildly different results.

Street shots? Learn to use the AF on an Olympus Stylus, turn the flash off, Load some fast film, and I'm sure you'll be surprised.

Tonality? Get A LF camera. Have to handhold it? Get a MF rangefinder.

Portraiture? Just pick a camera and get on with it!

Within this scope of possibilities, I admittedly am within a narrow sliver, shooting B+W stictly, processing and printing myself, limiting myself to the 35mm SLR and a handful of good primes. This is how I like to shoot. Often times it's handheld. Sometimes I'll flip the mirror up to reduce shutter lag, guessing where in the frame my subject will fall(surprising what hyperfocal+4 f.p.s. can do). Other times, I need to (and look forward to using) use my tripod. At a relatively low cost, I am able to take care of my shooting needs with equipment that satifies me. It just happens to be a Nikon. I doubt an equivalent R system would change my shooting style or images. An M, however, probably would change my shooting style, and thus, my images would change too. I can't say how, but give me an M and I'll show you :-)

Leica Photography(to me) means excellent 35mm image quality and has little to do with equipment. If you disagree, maybe we should destroy this forum (Oh no- what would Alfie do? Work??) and split into two camps, "Leica M Photography" and "Leica R photography". That may be tragic, however, as this is a very popular forum. That's why I posted here. I wanted responses from shooters who think photography (an image is worth much more than 1000 words), rather than just speak it. Here is where I have found them. Unfortunately, some Ferrari owners rave about the ride, but have been waxing it more than driving it. So too, I'm sure many who frequent this forum spend more time looking at their cameras rather than their images. Yes, the Leica is beatiful, but you aren't a photographer because you own one. You just own a Leica. Photographers use them. And Nikon. And Canon. And Contax. Photographers are those who pursue the image, not simply a camera. I love coming to a place such as this to communicate with Photographers. I understand the allure that is Leica, and fine if you are wrapped up in fondling Leicas, you belong here! It's OK, you can admit it! But don't claim to be a local circuit racer if all you do is wax.

Leica Photography means Excellent 35mm Images, if you were to ask me. Photographers pursuing such should be welcome here as well. You might help "convert" them, whether image or equipment-wise.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 06, 2001

Answers

In some ways I do agree with you on that point. I got some major flak in my argument that the Nikon F Photomic design was superior to the design of the Leicaflex/SL during that same era despite the superior optics of the Leica from that time period. Of course I enjoy using my Leicaflex but it is rather unwieldly to use because of its weight and fairly sizable grip.

Of course, I think that I posted a few of my pictures and got some good reception and a lot of criticism. Of course I'm still learning about Leica photography and you have to admit that a guy with Leica R4 for only a few weeks can't be a master all that quickly.

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

But, the stated purpose of this forum is to discuss Leica related stuff. If your arguments are accepted, this would become like the unmoderated forum on photo.net. I think you post was innappropriate, and I chose not to comment. No offense intended. You might ask for critiques on the photo.net critique section. You'll probably get more responses there anyway.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), December 06, 2001.

As far as I am aware, a critique of baby pictures made with a Nikon has nothing to do with "Leica Photography." It belongs, where it was posted, on Photo.Net.

-- Willhelmn (bmitch@home.com), December 06, 2001.

More specifically, the stated purpose is:

This forum is for discussing Leica cameras and any associated equipment in the persuit of great photography. You are encouraged to post any questions, or contribute any answers, about Leica photography.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), December 06, 2001.

Again, what is Leica Photography?

More specifically, the stated purpose is: This forum is for discussing Leica cameras and any associated equipment in the persuit of great photography. You are encouraged to post any questions, or contribute any answers, about Leica photography.

Discussing Leica Cameras and ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT IN THE PURSUIT OF GREAT PHOTOGRAPHY.

Or is the forum for discussing "Leica cameras and associated equipment" primarily, with the second criteria, "the pursuit of great photography". If so, many of you don't belong here because you are not collecting cameras vs. images. Lucky you own a Leica, I guess.

So I take it I am not welcome because I don't own a Leica? Very Elitist. Anyone disagree?

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 06, 2001.

And again, someone please define leica photography and how it differs from non-leica photography.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 06, 2001.

Actually, Mike's post made me realize whether the Leica photography forum can include pictures taken with Leica-compatiable rangefinders. For example, Nikon used to make lots of RF lens in M39 mount back in the early days and the question is whether mounting a Nikkor RF lens on a Leica III can produce pictures which are allowed to be critiqued on this forum instead of a photo from a Canon VT with that same Nikkor lens. The question is what does "associated Leica items" encompass?

I personally would believe that when I post pictures taken with a FED II w/ Leica lens outfit (considering that my Leica IIIF is going to DAG for repairs) that the pictures would be under the umbrella of the LUSENET rules here :)

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

What's the big problem? Why is it "elitist" to limit discussion to Leica-related topics in the, ahem, *Leica* Photography forum? Someone who owns a Leica may not be practicing "Leica Photography" by any definition; indeed they may not be taking photographs @ all. However, one thing that *is* clear is that you can't practice Leica photography without a Leica--otherwise, what is there to distinguish it from "photography?" If you want to discuss "excellence in photography" or whatever in a non-equipment-oriented atmosphere, there are plenty of other fora on the internet that cover that ground. You should even be able to discuss such topics on the numerous Nikon-related fora. If they're not as popular or photography-oriented as the Leica fora, which I doubt very much, well that's their problem!

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), December 06, 2001.

I disagree on the point that if photographs are posted by other makes (like Nikon or other equipment) that it would bring the forum down to the level of the unmoderated photo.net Q&A.

The thing I care most about is that Mike posted a beautiful photograph. He could have easily withheld the fact that it was taken with a Nikon. If so, what would we have done, ask him to prove it was taken with a Leica? That's not what our forum is all about. So what if it wasn't taken with a Leica. It sure could have been.

I do however understand Dan's and bmitch's point of view. I know exactly what they're saying. But I would ask them (and others) to consider this: Wouldn't you believe that a Leica forum would more easily welcome a photograph taken with a Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Minolta than a Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Minolta forum accepting a photograph taken with a Leica camera? Think about it.

Leica photography is not just about pictures taken with Leica cameras.

We have been divisive enough over the past weeks. Our discussions here aren't even 100% about photography (and that is probably good). Why wouldn't we welcome a post that is about photography?

I sometimes regret having started this forum as the "Leica Photography" forum, because it is no longer obvious to me what that actually means. Photography is much more interesting to me than equipment. I don't like it that we are considered an "equipment-only" forum. I can admire and participate in discussions about equipment, but I am more interested in the style of photography that the Leica originally fostered. I consider Mike's photograph here a healthy example - a descendant - of what the Leica camera was originally developed for.

These are just some of my own thoughts. Let's hear your opinions, folks.

-Tony as a particpant, not a moderator

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 06, 2001.

Whow, and I always thought that Leica Photographie is using my N/C/M hitec body to photograph my lowtec Leicas. Medium format can be used also!

-- Paul Sander (pr.sander@gmx.net), December 06, 2001.

Tony:

IMO, I would have no problem discussing completely non-Leica-related topics on the forum, so long as its name is changed to something more descriptive & accurate (e.g.,"Excellence in 35mm Photography"?). Truth in advertising!

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), December 06, 2001.

This forum is valuable to me because there is a good concentration of photographers here who know quite a bit about making best use of Leica, the cameras I am using, to make photographs. I don't mind reading the occasional post about the advantages another camera may have in some situations but I visit here because the signal-to-noise ratio is good. Revise the focus of the forum and the s/n ratio drops for me.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), December 06, 2001.

Have to agree with the majority (so far) here. There are other forums I frequent that are more general in scope than this one (and there are lots of them). I come here to discuss Leica. I post my Rollei images on the Rollei site as I assume that's what it's there for........

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

Anybody a HAM radio operator? The neat thing about HAM radio is that the members are self policed. Every now and then some joker comes along and starts transmitting trash or violating the reasonable rules of conduct. The other HAMs rally together and force the joker off the air, then things get back to the way they were. This has worked in the HAM community for 60 or 70 years.

In the opinion of Dan Brown (me), this Leica Digest should be like a HAM community. It has a stated purpose and that is why I visit here so frequently. I like Leicas, I like to talk about them. I like to learn about them. I like to hear what other Lieca users think about their Leicas. I would like all those who post questions and answers here to conduct themselves in a civilized way, and, limit the principal topic of each thread to the subject matter of the forum. Otherwise, this might as well be an un-moderated USENET forum.

Even more narrow-mindedly, photo-critiques that got to issues of Leica bokeh, or corner sharpness, or image characteristics seem fine, but, critiques based on artistic impressions and composition are inconsistent with my view of what a Leica forum should be.

Tony, it’s your forum, do what you like. The foregoing is merely one visitor’s point of view.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), December 06, 2001.

Well put, Doug. I like the s/n ratio- good analogy.

If there is such a thing as "Leica Photography" or "Nikon Photography", I doubt I would fall into the latter camp, as Nikon sales show that Zooms are far more popular than primes, and built-in flash, dependence on batteries, etc. also being repeating themes. Using primes, abandoning flash, and other back-to roots efforts has been very rewarding. I know that here no-one will tell me to buy a zoom, flash, or color film, for that matter. That's why I love this forum.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 06, 2001.

Tony,

There seem to be two topics here: 1) HARDWARE/EQUIPMENT questions, and 2) 35mm TECHNIQUES (USE of equipment). Should these two topics be combined or separated? Should either of them be restricted to Leica related equipment? My preference would be to restrict the Hardware topic to Leica related equipment for better in-depth coverage. But the Techniques topic could be open to all 35mm equipment. Many 35mm photographic techniques are not limited to a specific camera brand and could be useful regardless of brand used. LB

-- Luther Berry (lberrytx@aol.com), December 06, 2001.

I have to agree with Doug. There are forums galore that deal with general and subject-specific critiques of photography. There are also forums that discuss practical-use issues regarding other marques. With Leica, heretofore the other forums were (and still are) such that whenever they happen to actually stumble back on topic, the Leica-talk is all syrupy praise and homage and anyone daring to raise a contrarian eyebrow is immediately and savagely flamed to a cinder. I don't object to the mention of other brands, nor to the posting of a picture not taken with a Leica--after all, many of us shoot with more than one brand--but I wouldn't like to see the %-Leica content of this forum go down.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 06, 2001.

It's about context. I hadn't owned a Leica when I started posting here, and did not feel uninvited. I poked around and asked questions as someone who was thinking of getting a Leica. If you had posted your photo with some more context- are you interested in shooting with Leica, and are you asking, "Here's a photo I did with a Nikon- will I be able to get this or better with Leica?" I think it would've been met with less criticism.

I think when you placed the photo for critique without any reference to its relevance to the Leica Forum (which, as others state, is about photography done with Leica equipment), people naturally wondered why you were here.

Or- at least you could address that. Like, "I know this wasn't done by a Leica, but it as what I think are Leica-esque qualities. What do you think?"

What if you went to the Medium Format forum and posted your 35mm photo there, with as little background as you did here- would you be terribly surprised if people showed a little protest?

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 06, 2001.

"A sense of achievement arises when intense involvement with the product leads users to discover and perfect new capabilities and new ways of seeing"

These words were copied directly from the Leica Website

Based on those words, one could make the argument that we should only discuss Leica gear and images made with Leicas. That of course seems hopelessly limiting to me. And it is a forum to which I would rather not participate. Mr. DeVoue I'm with you. Tony, I think you do a great job and I look forward to reading the posts of others who know way more about Leicas than I ever will. But I also like hearing about how others go about shooting, maybe with an M6 or a Fuji disposable.

I've always been fond of the saying: "Any tool in skilled hands will yield acceptable results". If this is an "equipment only" forum, maybe we can discuss hammers sometime. I own 5 or 6 and each has its own specific use...

For most of my photographic life (20+ years) I shot with Pentax equipment, but I knew at some point I wanted a Leica rangefinder. I've only had that for 3 years. Based on some of the recent replies to Mr. DeVoue, I would not be allowed to participate until I was "an owner". Someday I'll post some images from my 50 Summicron and some from my 50/1.7 K mount Pentax lens and some of you can try to guess which is which. Does wanting a Leica rather than owning one disqualify someone from participation? What books should we ban next?

Don't go away Mike.

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), December 06, 2001.

This is an interesting question but maybe the title of this forum "Leica Photography" is misleading you (Mike)- perhaps it should be named "Leica talk". I would imagine that most Leica users are primarily of the mechanical M rangefinder models. Other people make arguably better SLR's than Leica but at present no-one does a RF quite like our German friends! This is Leica's forte and heritage and a market they still have predominantly to themselves.

We like discussing Leica equipment, occasionally other manufacturers get a mention but if you are a Nikon lover there are Nikon lovers out there who club together just like us Leica devotees!

If you really want to delve into the meaning of Leica "photography" then just look up the endless threads on "bokeh" or "tonality" or "extension of one's eye" or "vision" or "thinking" etc, etc.

We talk here because we have discovered Leica; it IS different to Nikon and Canon, not eliteist or better or even perfect, just, different.

I use a Leica rangefinder because it is 100% mechanical (M4-P), beautifully made and it does the job for which it is intended. It may be silly to say but for me the whole Leica history can be felt in your hands when you hold the M.

Incidently, if I was to buy an SLR again it would be a Nikon or Canon, not a Leica. IMO for the features, and method of using an SLR Leica cannot compete.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 06, 2001.

Did someone really talk about radio hams earlier or did I dream that?

-- Harry (hnelson1@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

We talk here because we have discovered Leica; it IS different to Nikon and Canon, not eliteist or better or even perfect, just, different.

Little would change if I had a 6.2 and similiar primes. If Nikon "got a hold of me(af+zooms+color+flash)" it would change radically.

I'm sad you "discovered Leica". I would never claim such a thing. Discovering a new way of shooting, however......

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 06, 2001.

Mike

Like others I don't see what your issue is: Leica Photography means "photography using a Leica of any kind". If the forum is filled with people talking about other cameras then it is no longer "Leica photography" and we all leave the forum. In practice though all of us pretty well are interested in photography and cameras in general, so the odd totally off topic question is just fine. Some things are strongly leica related such as the virtues of r/f cameras and so on. But our ultimate reference and baseline is the Leica. So if you post a shot taken by a Nikon and say "what do you think of this shot", you should not be surprised if the odd person does say - why is this relevant to a Leica forum? We were otherwise nice to you I seem to remember weren't we?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

>>>
Little would change if I had a 6.2 and similiar primes. If Nikon "got a hold of me(af+zooms+color+flash)" it would change radically. I'm sad you "discovered Leica". I would never claim such a thing. Discovering a new way of shooting, however......
<<<

Mike, I was surprised how my way of shooting changed when I replaced my Nikon FTn and Nikon primes with "similar" Leica reflex equipment. I was never into the zooms, flash, and other automation-stuff that comprises the majority of Nikon's sales now, I just swapped one mechanical camera for another. The way the camera responded to my hands, and the clearer, brighter images the lenses gave me, made it possible to discover a new way of seeing and shooting. In my case, much changed when I replaced the FTn with an SL and similar primes.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), December 06, 2001.

"I can admire and participate in discussions about equipment, but I am more interested in the style of photography that the Leica originally fostered." - Tony's wish for the site.

"...photo-critiques that got to issues of Leica bokeh, or corner sharpness, or image characteristics seem fine, but, critiques based on artistic impressions and composition are inconsistent with my view of what a Leica forum should be." -Dan's wish for the site

I hope Tony's view prevails, because there can be only so many posts about superior corner resolution, etc. before things start to blur, and not optically! There really isnt very much Leica equipment and Erwin Puts pretty much has that covered. Whereas the particular sort of photography made possible by Leica -and for which which the M is still the supreme instrument- has stretched from Barnack himself through Marks and Harvey and beyond with no sign of ever becoming boring or repetitious....

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), December 06, 2001.

Anyone keeping score?

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), December 06, 2001.

18 Leica 5 Nikon 1 Canon 1 Shortwave radio

-- Harry (hnelson1@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

Mike, I should mention that I welcome your presence on this forum, and your interest in "back to roots" equipment and technique, and how it influences the photographer's vision, seems very much in line with what a Leica represents to me.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), December 06, 2001.

And 5 'Bokeh'

-- (hnelson1@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

Mike,

Sorry for your perceived persecution. I wonder if this thread would even exist if you credited the image to a Voigtlander lens on a Russian camera?

I am a user of both Leicas (M's) and Nikons, and if the subject warrants it, I am not shy to mention that I would use a Nikon rather than the Leica. The point is that it would be in the context of a comparison or a contrasting to a Leica... not as a stand alone Nikon statement. For example, Robin (who posted above) was trying to decide whether a f/2.0 or f/1.4 35mm lens would be better for his Leica SLR. I offered a narrative on my experience from using those two lenses on my Nikon's, simply to explain an advantage / dis- advantage recommendation. In this case the subject was a focal length and lens aperture choice for practical photography, so my points were valid (to me) even though the camera system was not Leica. I also freely state that I am more at home with my Nikkor 105mm lens over my 90mm lens on my Leica, due to the handling... again this is a contrasting of the two systems.

If you wish to discuss Nikon cameras and lenses, as well as images made with them, then I invite you to join the Nikon discussion group at the following link. You can post images there and talk openly about your pictures made with Nikon cameras. go to Nikon user group, "Nikonians" The funny thing is that I get beat up there when I mention that I would rather use a Leica M in some situations.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 06, 2001.

Douglas-

Indeed!

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), December 06, 2001.

I found this forum when I was trying to decide if a Leica camera could be for me. I read this forum for Leica M related topics, either equipment, technique, etc. I mostly skip the R topics, as these are not what I am interested in right now. I like that this forum is a fine sieve for Leica-related stuff, but do not mind occasional non- Leica discussions, since ultimately, photography is my hobby. I would rather an interesting non-Leica thread here than go looking through the mire of a general or other-brand specific forum for something interesting. To answer the question, Leica photography for >me< is the minimalist approach with a rangefinder, one or two lenses, and film. Handheld, mostly available light, a camera that I control. I used a Nikon F2AS for 25 years, and ultimately it was the mirror slap, the black out, the viewfinder with blinders on, and the frequent dependence on a tripod that moved me toward Leica. For about 8 months, until I broke it in a fall, I used a Kodak 290 digital. It was enough to convince me how much I dislike auto- everything cameras. I was seldom happy with the picture >it< took, and had to change settings constantly. I hated that I couldn't set an aperture or film speed. Instead, you >un-set< what the camera wanted to do. Drove me nuts. Glad it broke. Bought a Leica. Leica bonuses: 1. Remarkable worksmanship and craftsmanship, a beautiful tool that complements my approach to photography - I like the tools and the process as much as the results. That is why its a hobby, not a job. 2. My God, the lenses. If Nikon had anything that came this close (No they don't, end-of-argument) I would be still happily using my F2. They got it with the camera, missed it with the lenses. Mike DeVoue, keep posting. I'll take a look. Sorry about the ramble. Hil

-- Hil (hegomez@aol.com), December 06, 2001.

Yes, Robin, you all have been quite nice.

Leica designs their products very well. Utmost attention is paid to quality- of the equipment itself, and the images they produce. Which may explain their narrower range of products offered. The Nikon equipment I deem acceptable for use is very limited in comparison to their incredibly comprehensive line-up of cameras, lenses, flash, etc. I almost want to cringe when I hear "Nikon". To me, It seems like they lost focus(except that FM3a-Whoa!). But I am not sure that switching to the R will give me much better performance. I've used the R5 and R6.2 briefly a few years (OK, several) ago, and wasn't too impressed. A recent thread (Should I switch to R from Nikon?), got me thinking, so I went through a lot of unprinted work to see what I liked and didn't like. This time around I paid more attention to OOF areas, as there is probably not much difference between Nikkor and Leitz @f/8. I do have to admit that my 50/1.4 has HORRIBLE "Bokeh". In one shot (I really need a scanner) I watched a single line at the bottom of the frame separate into two lines, and a double image surrounding the OOF areas. I'm 100% sure that a 50 Summicron would have done better, and am not sure about the 'Lux. I could argue that the summicron is pathetic at f/1.4, but I can push film, I love grain when it gets me the shot. A beatiful image is a beautiful image. I've decided, however to stick with my current reflex rig.

Well, most of it. That 50/1.4 and the 35/2.8 I use aren't too smashing. The shop I work at just sent a M3(SS) to Leica, and there's a 35/3.5 summaron and 50 'lux available. I think this would be a smashing outfit and would compliment my current system.

Anywho, I posted the image because I liked it, and I hoped others would too. I expected criticism. I'd be stupid to think the image was universally loved.

I feel that the posted image was totally acceptable. Remember, half of "Leica Photography" is Photography. Had I been holding a Leica R6.2 and 60mm, I don't think the result would have been much different.

Lastly, I check on this forum because of the intellegent contributions that seem unending. Have you seen some of the other forums? I don't think I need much expaination as to why I'm here vs. somewhere else.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 06, 2001.

I think Leica Photography is a state of mind, including a certain set of values and orientation to photography. Did some people gravitate to the LP state of mind only after purchasing Leica equipment? Sure. Did some people purchase Leica equipment as a result of his/her LP state of mind? Of course. Do others possess the LP state of mind but apply it with non-Leica equipment? You bet, including (at least occastionally) a large portion of regular contributors to this forum.

In that context I don't object at all to the name of this forum, nor to the discussion of images generated with something other than Leica hardware. I don't think there is a conflict.

I don't think the occasional Nikon or Hasselblad image will cause the fabric of the forum to unravel. I don't think that one person's comment about the image "belonging on another forum" constitutes the group philosophy, nor does it warrant more than passing notice.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 06, 2001.

Thankfully it seems like this thread got there in the end.

Appreciation from me to Al Smith in particular for making his usual tolerant and balanced sense.

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), December 06, 2001.

It is a substantial investment to get into Leica photography. So it is perfectly natural for nervous potential converts to ask all sorts of questions relating to M v R v N v C v K v MM v etc. After all if someone can tell me this lens from x performs the sames as R for $$$$ less then I will just stick to x and wait for the IS version. It is up to Leica users in this forum to politely point out that nothing in this world can stand up to optical qualities of Leica. Now repeat after me: Ernst Leitz is the father of all things important to me....

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 06, 2001.

Trolls sure are thick this year.

Mike, this forum is for people who like to talk about Leicas and make pictures with them. We don't go to the Nikon forum to talk about Leicas, or post our pictures there. You're being simply discourteous to post your Nikon photos on this forum, unless it's for the purpose of making an on-topic point. And your arguements in your own defense are simply disingenuous.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), December 06, 2001.

I'm a new kid on this block, so I'm a bit reticent to stick my nose in here. But, I'll do it anyway.

For me, "Leica Photography" has both a hardware side and a software side - our brains and approach to photography being the software side. I bough a Leica M6 TTL both as a means of expanding my way of seeing, and a way of getting back, at least part of the time, to a minimalist approach with 35mm. I did not, however, sell any of the Nikon, Hasselblad, or large-format gear when I bought the M6. They all have their uses, and I'm still learning the nuances of the Leica.

What drew me to this forum as a new Leica user was that it represented a place where both sides (hardware and software) of "Leica Photography" were being discussed. On one hand, some of the Leica historical threads don't draw my attention because I'm not a collector. On the other hand, some of the discussion here about older Summicrons helped me decide to buy a used 50mm Summicron DR, and that was greatly appreciated.

I would suggest that threads on techniques that can be applied with either a Leica or some other brand are still in the spirit of "Leica Photography" and should be encouraged. Those who use Leicas will just get better 35mm results most of the time. ;-) I do, however, appreciate the primary focus of the forum being Leica.

One of the first shots with the DR:

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), December 06, 2001.

Tony started this as a forum for people who use Leicas to get together to ask and answer questions in a more cordial and focused way than the LUG. People who don't use them but are interested in Leica usage or equipment or history are welcome too.

Seems simple enough to me. What is there to fix or think about especially since its working very well indeed?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 06, 2001.

For me, the three facets of Leica photography which explain why I went to Leica and got rid of my autofocus cameras:

1) simplicity (which means not having to change some rotary dial where you have to read the shutter speed in the viewfinder only on some LCD)

2) elegance (lots to be said of screw mount Leicas here)

and

3) reliability of engineering (Nikon ranks close esp. with the F series for me)

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

i think that some of you got your noses bent out of whack for no reason. Mike was contributing a picture for you to critique. He did not press that Nikon is better, or equivalent, for that matter. He was asking an opinion!! This forum was chosen for the purposes of 1) he respects the opinions contributed here and 2)Leica Photography means more than just using Leica equipment. So are you saying that only pictures taken with Leica are worth your time? Or would you rather help a peer? What is more important, the equipment or the image??

-- charity gonitzke (daizies@att.net), December 06, 2001.

Dave-

When I originally posted this image of Regina, I made no metion of the equipment used. I don't feel that is was my Nikon that made the image. The equipment will always take the backseat to the image. It was my technique and approach to photography that Iconsider to be "Leica Photography". My back to roots approach to photography is echoed by thousands of Leica users today.

Today I confirmed that I can practice Leica Photography without ever touching the german gems.

Leica is more than a camera, I'm sure you'll agree. It's a camera, yes, but I would agree with Ken- it's"a certain set of values and orientation to photography" that will be evident in the resulting image. After all, that's what it's all about. I change my values and orientation to photography radically, and it's not Leica Photography anymore. Not so hard to understand, is it?

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 06, 2001.

BS.

This is becoming intolerable. I'm going to take a few days off and shoot some film WITH MY LEICA. Maybe get dome darkroom time to.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), December 06, 2001.

Leica photography is photography done with Leicas. And, IMHO, that's really the only distinguishing characteristic.

Thie forum is primarily about Leicas as equipment and only secondarily (IMHO) about any sort of photographic subject.

If you want a general image discussion forum, you should go elsewhere.

If you want a forum to discuss Nikon equipment, you should go elsewhere.

If you want a forum to kibitz about Leica equipment and hang around with other people who use the equipment, then you've come to the right place. It's not elitism, it's just selective focus.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), December 06, 2001.

Lastly, I check on this forum because of the intellegent contributions that seem unending. Have you seen some of the other forums? I don't think I need much expaination as to why I'm here vs. somewhere else.

Then act like you care about it! :) Really. It's generally tolerant, and a lot more civil, as you yourself have mentioned it. There are no real rules, nothing really written. But there are community norms. Is it a lot to ask you to at least show some respect for them? Your comments make me think you're trying to change most people's minds here. And in so doing, you drive them away, corrupting the very forum that you yourself recognize as being valuable. As in all things, choose your battles carefully. Sometimes it's more important to make friends than prove a point.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 07, 2001.

I thought this forum is about Leica equipment and photography using Leica or Leica-compatible equipment. I was attracted to this forum because of its well-defined theme, and not one that covers every brand of equipment and every aspect of photography. This should not be mis-construed as "elitist," although it is easy to do so because of the mystique that the "Leica" brand name is unfortunately associated with. The Photo.net forum went the way of a "generalist" and became unmanageable, and it tries to re-establishe a strong technique-oriented direction by screening out equipment and philosophical related questions under a non-archived section (or direct them to the Camera Equipment or Philosophy of Photograhy forum), as well as a photo-critic section for people who want to get some feedback on their work or just simply try to show off their pictures. The Camera Equipment isn't that successful also for the same reason--it scope is too general. I just hope this forum won't lose the well-defined direction it has establishe. One more thing, please don't drag Alfie into the argument. Every question that he's posted is relevant to the theme of this forum, and he is a popular and well-accepted member of this forum, despite the controversies that often surround him!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 07, 2001.

Mike:

1) As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to browse around here and ask questions and give answers.

2) I don't think there's a bright shining line that defines where Leica photography starts and ends. As a matter of fact, although some here may forget it, there was a post within the past 3-4 months where someone showed some Nikon or Canon images and asked if they were "Leica" type images (which they were, in the sense of being captures moments). And most of us responded more or less positively to the post (if not the images !). But at least "Leica" got mentioned in the original question. 8^)

I think there's a continuum - ranging from very on-topic posts about Leica-style pictures made with uniquely Leica products (e.g. Noctilux on an M3) to more loosely associated subjects including equipment that shares a lens mount or a shooting style (viz. Canon/Nikon/Voigtlander/ Fed rangefinder bodies and lenses), to stuff that's pretty off-the-wall (anyone remember single-malts and sour-apple martinis? (Mike - Don't ask!!) but that we get away with because it's among folks who - by their log-ons - we recognize as sharing the Leica interest as well as the OTW subject of the moment.)

A post about a picture taken with a non-Leica and without any particular reference to Leica matters just got a lee-tle far out in the continuum for some folks, it looks like.

Here's a LINK to some more musings on what makes Leica photography, which may be more what you're looking for.

I'm kinda proud of it myself, and probably couldn't come up with a better statement of "What is Leica photography" at least from my perspective, if I took another stab at it here.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 07, 2001.

Lemmee put it this way: I am "just" a Leica freak, partly as re taking pictures, partly as in the equipment itself (only Ms) and I'm here because this is, well... a Leica forum. Anytime/everytime I see a posting whose question has nothing to do with Leica, or has much more to do with any other brand, I just ignore it. But that costs me unnecessary time and reading, and costs us all unnecessary space.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), December 08, 2001.

Like Leica fotographie

-- martin tai (cg081@torfree.net), December 08, 2001.

A good response to the original question "What is Leica Photography?" can be found in the portfolio shown in This thread. Jeff Spirer and Mike Dixon can also give us excellent examples supporting the definition of Leica photography!

-- George (gdgianni@aol.com), December 08, 2001.

I suppose the traditional meaning of the phrase "Leica Photography" would mean documentary images, shot with M cameras with wide angle lenses. Since this type of photography doesn't appeal to me, and since the M proved unsuitable for the kind of photography I do, I ended up trading it for an R8.

But why Leica?

My dealer said to me recently, "You buy Leica for the lenses." That's certainly partially true: the 90mm Summicron, in both its M & R incarnations, is in a class by itself. But the R8 is a magnificent camera in its own right, easily the equal of an EOS-1v or an F5, but with a wonderfully different design philosophy--part electronic marvel, part back-to-basics minimalism, integrating the best of both worlds in one camera, without the frustrating limitations and quirks of the M.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 08, 2001.

When I started to study photography seriously I discovered most of my favourite photographers used Leica. Once I got to university I realised my sh@**y Canon had the optical qualities of a blind bat! I came across my SL and bought it with this theory in mind...

'If a bad workman blames his tools then buy a tool I can't blame'

As soon as I started using it I found I was having to think more, about exposure, about composition, about everything. Sometimes the SL blesses me with freakishly good shots, the rest of the time it just does what its told.

These cameras are very basic, you have to do everything for it. Garbage In - Garbage Out.

Leica Photography is about thoughful considered photography. Concerned Photography (to borrow a phrase from Cornell Capa)

ps. Shortwave radio rocks!!! SWL'ing for 20 years

-- Philip Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), December 08, 2001.

Hi, gentlemen:

Well, finally somebody did it again . . . It is a well known truth here that a question (subject?) like this one calls for endless threads and gives everybody a golden opportunity to add an additional point of view. Good ! But I'd second Andy about the link he brought here. Most of what we can say has already been said on it but I can't help stating that "Leica Photography" has no strict straight basic logic meaning without Leica been involved though the additional meanings we can attribute to the same words. And still we should be aware that different interpretations will severely decrease the signal-to-noise ratio (what a useful concept!) of the meaning we intend to convey.

I shoot other brands and formats too but keep reading this site and posting to it only (or mainly, by far)regarding Leica (what else ?) and what I do with my Leicas and because of what I can learn about how to use them better if I can.

That said, Mike's is an important image. I envy it no matter what he did it with . . .

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), December 08, 2001.

all i got to say is: picture shot with canon= canon photography, picture shot with nikon= nikon photography, and picture shot with leica = leica photography. if we keep it simple like that then we can all be happy, right?

-- jeff nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

no.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 11, 2001.

With a few notable exceptions (you choose them) most of the above is utter drivel.

My preference would be to stick to Leica Photography. "But what is Leica photography...?" Oh spare us please.

Perhaps I'm getting old and impatient but I think this thread has lowered the standard. (and I can't believe I've added to it!)

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), December 12, 2001.

Mike, Of course you can do an excellent 35 mm images with any camera; that means you are doing excellent 35 mm photography ; and it is not always Leica photography. It may done with a Nikon or Canon or whatever.

But if you are asking comments from other participants in a Leica Photography Forum without describing any background/context/link of your Nikon image ; than I understand it may be better belong to Photo.net; where you originally post.

BTW, I am taking photographs with both Leica & Nikon, both the same method. And incidentally, the Leica images are better (70%:30%). I don’t know why…. Regards,

-- Andy Wijono (andywijono@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.