Leicas

fingerz

fingerz

Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
No
This is basically a continuation of my "First attempt at street..." thread, but I thought it warranted a thread of it's own so that anyone else who's interested might find it in a search.

I'm not sure how much you lot use/know about them but it seems that anyone who's anyone in the world of street photography uses Leicas. Or at the very least, they use rangefinder film cameras and certainly not digital SLRs.

As I keep saying, I like street stuff a lot. The problem is that I also like digital a lot. Are Leica's digital models considered to be any good? Do people say "wow, it's just like a film Leica but on digital" or do they say "why can't they make it just like a film Leica but on digital?"

Also, on a general note about rangefinders. What do you actually see? How do you focus? Do you see the same thing regardless of what length the lens is? I'm not very clued up about them, as you can tell.

Edit: a cursory glance at Leica's website reveals that the Digilux-1 doesn't seem to have manual controls on the lens and the Digilux-2, while it does have manual controls on the lens, uses an electronic viewfinder. Which isn't ideal.
 
Leica's digital cameras are ok, but not as good as you might expect. I think you pay for the name and with the Digilux 2, the identical (developed jointly) Panasonic DMC-LC1 is several hundred pounds cheaper, and still overpriced for what you get. These cameras aren't rangefinders BTW - the only digital rangefinder currently in production is the Epson RD-1.

Here's a couple of sites with good examples of what you see through a rangefinder viewfinder... http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Rangefinder-Camera.html, http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/camtec2.htm
 
fingerz said:
Both good reads. Thanks Adrian.

Looks like I have two options:

1) Save my pennies, buy a proper Leica RF and abandon digital for street stuff.

2) Keep trying with my 300D
Click to expand...

If you really want to start using rangefinders there are much cheaper options from Voightlander and Contax than Leica that will still give excellent results and can be found on Ebay for "reasonable" money, and they're just the cameras with interchangeable lenses. There are dozens with fixed lenses. I've got a couple of Canon Canonet QL17 GIII's (like this one) which have a fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens - it's often called the poor man's Leica and gives extremely sharp results.
 
Just to repeat this from the other thread. You really need to have a look at the Contax G2 stuff if you do go down the film rangefinder route. It's actaully significantly better than Leica and alot cheaper.
 
I think the use of rangefinders came about as a way for the photographer not to stand out. To be able to take candid shots you needs to be 'invisible' to your subject and pointing a big clunky camera at someone is a surefire way to get their attention. It's not that rangefinders take better street pictures, they were just smaller and less noticeable. You should be able to get similar shots with any small digital compact today.
 
Steep said:
It's not that rangefinders take better street pictures, they were just smaller and less noticeable.
Click to expand...

They are smaller and less noticeable but there seem to be technical advantages as well. Quoting from the second link in Adrian's first reply:

Generally, RF cameras produce vibrations magnitudes smaller compared to those of SLR’s, as there is no mass transfer related to the mirror movement. In practice it translates into exceptional ability to shoot at shutter speeds 2-3 f/stops below limits set by the rule of focal length reciprocity commonly used with SLR cameras without fear to get blurry images. For example, shutter speeds ranged between 1/8-1/15 for 50 mm lens are not unusual. Another hallmark of RF system is its optical performance. Since there is no minimal distance between rear lens element and shutter, the RF lenses are constructed without bulky retrofocus design, resulting is significant advantages in optical quality of wide angle – normal lenses at full-medium apertures. Meaning of this? You can shoot with f/2.0 and results will be barely distinctguishable from those taken at f/5.6 – a dream for street and available light photographer. For comparison, almost any SLR lens in 28-80 mm range must be stopped down to f/8.0-11.00 to obtain maximum optical quality
Click to expand...
 
Get a lomo :) Far cheaper and it can produce some cool street style shots. I would love to have the money to spend on a Leica. I love the fact that I could buy the same camera that Henri Besson used. *Could* :)
 
Yeah I guess... I just don't want to have to use film. I'm totally at home with digital and everyone always says to develop (no pun intended) your own style. Well my style isn't comfortable with film. It would be really inconvenient for me.

I think I started this thread in the hope that Leica had cracked the digital RF thing but it's obviously not the case. It's a shame there are no digital compacts with super-sharp lenses, no shutter lag (with MF anyway) and decent low-light results. Also a reliable way of manually focusing would be handy. LCDs make it impossible.
 
fingerz said:
It's a shame there are no digital compacts with super-sharp lenses, no shutter lag (with MF anyway) and decent low-light results. Also a reliable way of manually focusing would be handy. LCDs make it impossible.
Click to expand...

The closest you will get to that is by adding the f1.4 50mm lens to your DSLR and then have a look here to get around the manual focus issue.

Not absolutely ideal but it should give you a little more scope than you have currently.
 
I meant the manual focus issue on compacts. I'm actually pretty happy with the speed of autofocus on the 300D. But autofocus on compacts takes 1-2 secs usually and the manual modes are almost always next to useless.

That screen thing looks nice. What is it? :)

I'll probably try using my 50mm f/1.8 and shooting properly (ie not pre-focusing and shooting 'from the hip') next time I go out. But still:

A) That article above said that RF cameras give much better results at wide apertures than SLRs. I presume they're talking about the depth of field issue. If so, that's quite appealing, being able to shoot at f/2 and have it compare to the f/5.6 shots I take on my 300D sounds very nice.

B) Everyone says that people pay much less attention to you when you use a RF instead of an SLR. I can see why. Most of the RFs have quite an olde worlde look to them. I'd imagine most people's reaction is "oh, look at that quaint man with his vintage camera" rather than "why is he taking photos of me?"
 
The screen gives you a real visual of your focus, it splits your subject onto two planes unless its perfectly in focus so is very easy to get clean sharp shots and quick focus. Its a device from the old school of film cameras ;)

Getting great results depends on all parts of the puzzel falling into place, if any one part of that fails the results will be poor. Now think of the developing of the film, I stopped shooting film due to being left at the mercy of the lab boys and the cost, for me thats a massive part of this and one that would make me look at the minor issues you are suffering comparred to the potential ones you could encounter if you switch to film.

Just my 2p's worth
 
Yeah I really don't want to switch to film. But at the moment the digital domain is a compromise between being obvious (DSLR) or living with shutter lag and bad manual focus (compacts and phone cams).

It's fairly academic anyway because I've not got the funds to be investing in new stuff at the moment so I've got to stick with the 300D for now. I'll just have to work around the being obvious thing by concentrating my street efforts in London where cameras are par for the course on the street.
 
There's fair few Canon Canonets about on eBay - one from the early 60s would go for about £35 or so. John from Shots uses a 35mm f/2 prime on his 10D for his street work - as per Joe T's post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top