On another thread, someone accused me of being a Leica snob and said:

"Christopher, if u think a $1200 lens will give better pictures than a $100 one, then i'd think u should just use a video cam."

What I'd actually said was the very opposite of the first part of that odd rejoinder: that you don't need to spend $4000 on Leica gear to take good photographs. In fact, as some of the photos posted on this forum show, it seldom helps!

I'm actually a Leica un-snob. I believe that a good photographer can take wonderful pictures with a disposable camera, or even a videocam! You don't need to spend $4000 on Leica gear!

Look, Leica friends, at these wonderful photographs of Cuba, all taken on videocams!

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0203/dt01.htm

Now, were those photos taken with the blazingly sharp Summilux 1.4 or the softer at the edges Summicron? Erwin?

I'm willing to bet the Leica gear I don't have that if those Cuba photos had been posted on this forum, not a single person here, including myself, would have realised that they were not taken with a Leica. Tell me I'm wrong.

-- Christophr Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002

Answers

I Don't like to ask this, BUT WHY ARE YOU HERE THEN? Why don't you use your disposable camera, take some nice pictures and post it in the "Disposable forum"?

No one is saying the GEAR is important. So why are you repeteadly asking why we can't take better pictures with a $4000 leica?

Aren't you seriously contradicting yourself?

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

We just happen to have Leicas and are USING them.

Looks like you are the only one complaining.

NB: Im usually not easily irritated, but I just feel like if you don't own a Leica, like u said, and don't think using them will help, and is not a Leica snob, and thinks that every other camera is good enough, well then, STAY AWAY.

Unless of cause your pirpose here is to bring the forum into chaos, which I think you are wasting your DISPOSABLE TIME.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Hey, Travis,

Chaos?

I'm making a serious point here. Have you looked at those Cuba photos taken on a videocam? Can you tell the difference? And have you compared them to your photos, taken on Leicas?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

A certain amount of Leica-enthusiasm does seem to overwhelm and (perhaps) cloud one's judgment . . .

An important point to make is that the folks here shoot Leica because it's more fun; they enjoy it. You can have all the lens test/Erwin Puts/bokeh discussions you want--and the point & shoot photos may (actually) be indistinguishable from the Summicrons--but none of it matters.

Leica lovers love Leica--unconditionally. No attempt to deflate their balloons will work.

Notice how many posts, especially photos submissions, should be subtitled "The Fun I Had with My Leica" and not "Arresting Images to Promote World Peace." This is not a judgment on my part--this forum is for people to share their enthusiasm.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 02, 2002.

"No one is saying the GEAR is important."

Travis, how many threads have you followed on this forum? The GEAR is most of what this place is about. This (and the LUG, LEG) is the safe haven. People can hang out hear and obsess about this generation of Summilux vs. that one and not have to wade through the swamp of Canon/Nikon/Contax G users asking, "You paid HOW MUCH for that lens? To take pictures of your dog?"

How many people around hear are aching to trade perfectly good M6's for brand new M7's?

It's not about the gear. . . .ROFLOL!

-- Geoge T. (davecasman@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.

Christopher, since when did I say my Leica Pics are better than any other camera? WHEN?!

U r picking on me because I have some pics taken on Leicas which u dun like and thinks its rubbish. SO u have made your opinion clear. Thats about pics, not Leicas or not. But u seemed to wanna drag Leica into this.

I like using Leicas because, like Preston said, its FUN. Obviously u like Batteries or what not.

This has nothing to do with the quality of my pictures. If u find them as rubbish, liked u said in may posts, so be it. Obviously u dunno what fun is.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

George, before u get into this chaos, please read the thread "35 asph cron pics" by me, and the comments by christopher.

The gear is impt, why else do u think im using them?!

But they r impt to me because they r intuitive to use and are of exceptionally quality.

Christopher is saying he can match that with a disposable camera, because he thinks that my pics taken with leicas are rubbish!

The gear is not impt as long as we enjoy our photos. But I used leicas more not because they give me better pictures, but the process of getting them.

Thats the last I have to say in this mess of a thread.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Actually, while some of the pictures are frames from a camcorder, the B&W are real, genuine, honest 35mm stills.

-- Willhelmn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

OK, now Travis has, thankfully, left us, I'd be really interested in hearing what people think of my original post.

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

Willhelmn, look again. If you click on the thumbnails of the black and white photos and then look at the bottom of the pages, it clearly says they are "video frames".

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

Before I leave for good,

Christopher, understand this and I hope u r matured enough to do so:

U can take "similar" pics with a disposable or a vidcam but just not as fun as some of us find with a Leica.

Thats the bottomline. The actual quality of pics comes later...

I wish u all the best in whoever u flame..;)

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

He's undead!

Willhelmn, I've looked again and we're both right, I think. I think the smaller images at the top are videoframes, the bottom 35mms. Taken with a Leica?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

To compare images on a viewing surface as poor as a tv screen is simply sad.Only real prints portray the magic of film.As far I have seen few digital cameras come close...Yes possible but the cost?! If you feel disposable cameras equal great... True a good photographer can make "good" images with almost anything. The cameras are tools.Good tools make the job easier. You could save even more money by building a pinhole camera using a used cereal box.Use photo paper as the negative.Its fun but trust me,it aint a Leica photo.To make good photos that say/tell what you want to communicate,one should use the best tools for the job.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

"George, before u get into this chaos, please read the thread "35 asph cron pics" by me, and the comments by christopher. "

Oops, sorry, didn't realize this was personal.

You boys fight it out amongst yourselves.

-- George T. (davecasman@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.

I have to agree with Jason, how can one compare images on a computer screen? All these images are low resolution, JPEG files. You wish to compare Leica quality with a videocamer, use an image from each and enlarge/print to at least 8 x 10...make me a believer!

-- Don M (maldos@cox.net), April 02, 2002.

Perhaps those that "don't have",shouldn't bet.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Travis, Yesterday I got roped in by this sad Christopher, and forgot a truism from my youth--"When you wrestly with a pig, you both get dirty." Just ignore him. He is provoking arguments, doesn't shoot photographs himself, and seems to hate the gear represented by the forum he is on. I say, "Go away, fly!"

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 02, 2002.

(Read "wrestle," not "wrestly," above.)

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 02, 2002.

Charles, who's christopher??? ;)

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

not me

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), April 02, 2002.

Travis--now you've got it!

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 02, 2002.

Charles, sweetie,

You've found me!

As you will recall, in that other thread I responded to one of your, er, rants with this:

"For me what's most interesting and useful about this forum is the advice on cameras, lenses, film, accessories etc, from people who are more knowledgable than me."

Leica gear is fabulous, a fetish even, but a good photographer it does not of itself make, as some who post photos here seem to think.

And to others on this thread, of course it's impossible to assess the full 'technical' quality of a photograph on line. My point was simply to answer Travis by showing that you CAN take wonderful, evocative, moving black and white photographs converted from a digital color image on a videocam. Aren't they wonderful photos?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

And Charles,

I am intrigued know whether you tell your students that they would take better photos if only they could afford Leicas?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

Charles, what gear do u have? care to share??;))

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Sorry to intrude on the Travis and Chris debate for a moment ... {grin}

I looked at your Cuba shots, Chris, and they look fine on the website. But then I've posted photos taken with Rolleiflex 6x6cm and Minox 8x11mm format cameras next to each other on a website and asked people to tell me which was which ... A few got it right but not many.

However, I would wager that the difference between these pictures in technical terms would be much more evident when you go to a large format print. Not that the Cuba photos would look bad, mind you ... they might look very good indeed ... but if you start trying to make 11x and larger scale prints, lens quality is pushed to its limits for 35mm and a relatively low-rez digicam can't compete for technical quality.

That said, good photographs should transcend format. I shoot with formats ranging from the aforesaid Minox to Rolleiflex and now include digital cameras as well. Each has its place and its capabilities to enhance your photographic endeavors. Each can make photos that satisfy.

However, I see no reason to say on a Leica equipment forum "Hey, you don't really need a Leica to take good pictures!" That much is obvious to anyone except a marque snob. I might read the forum even if I didn't own Leica gear or like Leica gear, just to see what people are saying about the equipment, but it's a little rude to say to people gathered for the purpose of discussing the equipment "Your equipment isn't needed."

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 02, 2002.

Godfrey,

Rude? Or heresy?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

Rude is Charles - an academic no less - calling me a 'pig'. Or is that what passes for Socratric argument in American academia these days?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

why did anyone even bother to respond to this post? but now that dam has been breached . . . how an artist selects his tools is a very subjective thing. did yo yo ma really need that $4.2 million 'cello he just bought. could i (or chris or george) consistently tell the difference on a recording between that and a good $1200 student model from one of the many chinese factory makers?? probably not. but (a) there actually is an objective quality difference between cheap and expensive celli, just as there is between the quality of leica and videocam glass; (b) the million dollar cello will give yo yo more pleasure when he plays it, and so encourage him to play more often. the sheer beauty and quality of the instrument may also inspire him to raise the level of his playing; (c) yo yo may derive pleasure from his cello even when he is not playing it. many humans display an irrational, but undeniable affection for inanimate objects, especially those that are beautiful, and/or evince good craftsmanship. as a musician, yo yo has an especial appreciation for 'celli, as a photog, it would be natural to have an especial affection for cameras; and (d) yo yo would not bother to debate with anyone his highly subjective reasons for buying a particular instrument. i feel the same way about my camera purchases. in the end, if your video cam is something you enjoy bringing with you wherever you go, brings you pleasure to use, offers an ideal medium for your own artistic vision, then make that your axe. i would never question your choice.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 02, 2002.

and by the way, the off-axis performance of any of the summicrons is superior to any comparable summilux.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 02, 2002.

Look every one the quality of my photos look just good as on low res computer screen as those taken by a Leica.Suprise,Suprise thanks for telling us all.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 02, 2002.

Christophr, everyone responding to your origional post is beating around the bush. Please allow me to say it out loud. Leica equipment IS SUPERIOR. Don't you wish you had one?

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 02, 2002.

OF COURSE Leica equipment is superior for taking photographs. Which is why many of the world's greatest photographers, including our very own Charles Mason, use Leica. That really is, as Roger beautifully points out, self-evident.

But that wasn't really my point.

I was provoked into this thread, as I tried to make clear right in the beginning, by Travis saying:

"...then i'd think u should just use a video cam".

So I found some terrific photos that were taken with a videocam! And tried to start a provocative thead.

But having been provoked, I'm saying that there's more genuine photographic artistry in those Cuban photos, downloaded by firewire off a "videocam", than anything I've seen on this forum taken with the world's best and most expensive photographic tools. Sorry chaps.

But then the modest Mr Mason hasn't yet shown us his work, which is when I surely stand to be corrected. (This is not sarcasm, by the way; as inelegant as he may be in debate, the man is one of the modern photographic greats.)

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

Christopher, After going back and looking at the Cuban photos I would say they are okay. Nothing I haven't seen before. I work with motion pictures in my job. Often we have to pull frames to construct a story board for print representation. The process is one of editing a single frame from 24 frames a second ( or its' video equivalent.). It ain't hard to scan with an Avid. A 10 or 11 minute film/video yeilds roughly 15,000 images. Any idiot with half an eye can get the shot. I send junior art directors to make these selections. However, the real issue is the comparison of artistic abilities that pits one person against another. Let's use your competitive criteria on you, shall we? No matter how good your photos are Christopher, whatever your camera, or its cost, I personally know someone who could easily make your work look like shit using a $12. disposable. Improving artistic ability is a personal quest, where one tries to widen their world, and become better than themselves--not someone else. If you can afford a better camera it just makes that quest all the more enjoyable. If you want to hose off 10,000 frames to get a few good ones, go to it. I still know people who'll whip anything you get with a 12 frame disposable. Contrary to your claims, your whole premise is competitively elitist and insulting.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 02, 2002.

Roger: "and by the way, the off-axis performance of any of the summicrons is superior to any comparable summilux."

Not at f/1.4.

If you need the extra stop, that superior off-axis performance don't mean diddly.

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.

I use lieca because i like the operating feel (it just seem to suit me best), like the build quality and like how unobtrusive it is... I can take better pictures with a lieca because of these factors... the fact that the lenses are better then most others is just a bonus in my opinion - i am of the opinion that critical sharpness is highly overrated, and that most people hand holding their cameras negates this anyways. I am not paying for the most perfect 35mm lenses, i am paying for the shape, feel and friendly reactions other people have towards this camera in comparison to a EOS 1v HS with a 70-200 zoom.

Your comparison is just like saying, a $6 dollar bottle of sparkling wine, sekt, whatever you want to call it will get you drunk just as well as a $250 bottle of champagne... this is true, but i wouldn't enjoy drinking it nearly as much, and for me since I am not a pro, the enjoyment is by far the most important factor.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.