Leica extravaganza

just got back from Fotofusion, the annual week of photography seminars etc at the Palm Beach photography institute. As always some really cool seminars , lectures etc.

Yesterday I attended two seminars. First a studio shoot with the new Leica S2, then a 3hr evening with the M9.

In a sentence, the S2 blew my mind, the M9 was a letdown.

The S2 built from the ground up as a medium format studio camera with the feel of a 35mm DSLR, succeeds. Resolution to drool over with the feel of a slightly larger DSLR.

The M9, I just don't get it. Frankly, I think the Leica style rangefinder camera is passe. Slow, no autofocus, limited metering flexibility, my Nikon D700 runs rings around it in comfort, speed, low light ability, feel..everything.Yes it's smaller and lighter, but nothing else. Old fashioned for the sake of it, makes no sense to me. So many ways the camera could be improved...round the edges, feel more comfortable in the hands, autofocus, more metering flexibility, better control placement etc. S2 yes, M9 fugget aboudit!

I dunno Jeff.... the X1 is the winner for most redundant. And I know 3 people who use it!

The M9 with the Leica lenses are an awesome travel and PJ lens. Everything is small and compact , but not LIGHTWEIGHT! I remember my friend shooting a market scene discreetly, getting candid shots with his fast lenses. Then I pulled out my pro body DSLR with big fat lens and suddenly everyone was staring at me. Size mattes the other way too

I used the M9 at a party and it really is less intimidating. It also made me lust for the Noctilux f0.95 even more. That Leica lens look is unique and pretty special.

AF isn't necessary for many kinds of photography. Sure it's convenient to have for faster action but that's not what the Leica is for. Honestly the size makes it feel uncomfortable and adding anatomic fit buldges the camera, which defeats the purpose. Maybe small hands could wield that camera comfortably

Obviously there's a bit of Vacheron like appeal in the Leica brand, but I wouldn't dismiss the M9 or rangefinder cameras in general. It's not for everyone but it does do an awesome job in its niche.

I dunno Jeff.... the X1 is the winner for most redundant. And I know 3 people who use it!

 

The M9 with the Leica lenses are an awesome travel and PJ lens. Everything is small and compact , but not LIGHTWEIGHT! I remember my friend shooting a market scene discreetly, getting candid shots with his fast lenses. Then I pulled out my pro body DSLR with big fat lens and suddenly everyone was staring at me. Size mattes the other way too

I used the M9 at a party and it really is less intimidating. It also made me lust for the Noctilux f0.95 even more. That Leica lens look is unique and pretty special.

AF isn't necessary for many kinds of photography. Sure it's convenient to have for faster action but that's not what the Leica is for. Honestly the size makes it feel uncomfortable and adding anatomic fit buldges the camera, which defeats the purpose. Maybe small hands could wield that camera comfortably

Obviously there's a bit of Vacheron like appeal in the Leica brand, but I wouldn't dismiss the M9 or rangefinder cameras in general. It's not for everyone but it does do an awesome job in its niche.

Maybe I was a bit harsh. No question this is an awesome camera with fabulous lenses capable of amazing images, and the size for candids can be a great advantage. If I could afford it as a second system, for the specific purpose of being unobtrusive in photographic situations where speed of use was not paramount then it makes sense. As a single system for the broadest possible use it does not.

I just think that they could have improved on the rangefinder camera, adding in all the modern technologies like AF, image stabilization, shutter priority and program auto, etc. Why not expand the capability of the camera rather than keep it relatively restricted. Simply rounding and softening the edges would make it more comfortable. Change the old fashioned shutter speed dial; say add controls like the Nikon aperture and shutter speed controls so the shutter hand does not need to move etc. Metering flexibility why not? Trying to shoot a night scene of a band I really could only shoot manual, because the meter is center weighted only without the ability to lock exposure when one adjusts the composition, I think one actually loses shots because of this.

One gets a clear sense that for Leica keeping it as a niche 'M' camera is more important than expanding it's capabilities, which I think is unfortunate, I think they could have both. Something along the lines of a full frame Panasonic GF1 with a viewfinder, could keep all the advantages of new technologies, without losing any of the benefits of the old M series, using old lenses etc.

Function loses to form, and instead of building the best possible rangefinder camera incorporating all the advancements in technology of the last 40 years, tradition is more important.

I had an interesting discussion with the Leica rep; when discussing the S2 he was extolling the virtues of designing a system from scratch, purpose built lenses etc, the best with no compromise. Yet when discussing the M9 it was heresy to suggest that Leica change the design, or develop an additional set of new lenses that would allow all the modern options like AF etc, even if it meant improving the functionality of the camera. No compromise even if it limited the camera's abilities.

I'll post a couple of images with the S2 if I can ever upload the JPEG's

Here they are, maybe not perfectly in focus, but still some pretty nice detail.

and about a 100% crop

I think all models will want release rights past 12mp Gee that's a lot of detail. Was this off the DNG or a jpeg direct from the S2? I liked the build of the lenses but have to say metal lenses and sea shoots just don't mix... even if it is marine grade aluminum.

38mp is nice... but in a few months, 35mm DSLR will break the 30mp barrier as well... at 14 bit no less.

I think all models will want release rights past 12mp Gee that's a lot of detail. Was this off the DNG or a jpeg direct from the S2? I liked the build of the lenses but have to say metal lenses and sea shoots just don't mix... even if it is marine grade aluminum.

38mp is nice... but in a few months, 35mm DSLR will break the 30mp barrier as well... at 14 bit no less.

This was a DNG that I imported and converted in Aperture, sharpened in Photoshop. No other adjustments.

This camera is purely for studio; though it could be a landscape and limited wildlife camera - they are apparently planning a 24mm and 400mm lens at some point and possibly 2xTC. But no VR.

Interestingly, yesterday I sat in on a high end fashion shoot with Douglas Dubler http://douglasdubler3.com/ he shoots mostly D3x and D3s. Sitting on the table at this shoot were a Hasselblad, a D3x and a D3s. Frequently his camera of choice when shooting fashion with black in it is the D3s, and that's what he's shooting with here. The second pic is a one off $10,000 plus Chanel shmatte. He thinks no other camera, including the high end studio Hasselblad etc can beat it when it comes to showing clean detail in the blacks. He displayed some 40x60 prints done with the D3S and using Genuine Fractals which were quite impressive for their detail. Interesting for a guy with hundreds of magazine covers and features under his belt who has worked with every fashion house and cosmetic brand you can think of, whose Broncolor studio lighting setup alone yesterday was about $60,000, and who can use any camera he chooses. Got to make one rethink the MP race.

Well I always say shooters choose their tools based on their needs. Just because one photographer endorses a camera for their artistic needs doesn't mean it suits the rest of the world. If you ask Douglas, he probably uses film once in a while too. As well as his Leaf... tools for a job. Annie Leibovitz uses Canons and that didn't help her with her creditors!

I do think you do bring up an interesting point about where the technology is going. The medium format digital backs must be feeling the reach of DSLR taking over many of the tasks they use to perform. Plus for every generational leap, it's the price of an entry level luxury car please! That means they are dependent on sensor makers like Dalsa and Kodak (and Kodak is shrinking FAST!), which means their technological leaps won't meet those of the tiny APS sensors which have jumped leaps and bounds in terms of resolution and quality. Still not quite there yet but every 2 years they are getting closer and closer.

It is more interesting that even the most stalwart film buffs have moved to digital, pushed by the practicalities of digital. Sebastiao Salgado has moved to digital in the last year or so, forced by travel restricts and hand checking of film at airports (DO NOT TRAVEL with people who have to check in with suitcases of film and insist on hand checks at airports unless you have the patience of Buddha!).

The true day of digital domination will come when Chris Newbert gives up his E6

If you ask Douglas, he probably uses film once in a while too.

No film at all anymore; everything he does now is tethered with immediate review. Interesting point he made was that shooting this way with tethered digital, is that he actually shoots far fewer frames than he ever did with film. With productions often costing $100,000 a day, he used to shoot rolls and rolls of film to be sure he had the shot because there was no redoing the shoot.

Now he may shoot 50-100 frames in a day, spending much more time in the setup and planning, but knowing when he's done that he has the shot(s) he needs