SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
hm. bollocks. I know more bad photographers/total with DSLRs than I've seen bad photographers/total with Leicas. the average quality of the LFI's site gallery is higher than flickr's average quality, or deviantArt's or whatever. that's probably because most people with little to no experience or a certain kind of taste in a way of working don't see why they should spend money on a leica (and they're right! why spend money on something you probably don't even like or know enough to judge! neither should people with a lot of experience, because if it doesn't work for you, it just doesn't, eh?). the number of people who have the money to buy premium leica gear, just because they think it will make their photographs better, is actually very small. a lot more upper middle-class daddies with huge DSLRs and tons of lenses out there who don't even know what end of the beast you have to look through to see stuff.
that, again, doesn't mean that a Leica will make you a better photographer, of course.
if you're sh*t at it, you're sh*t at it with a leica or without, because obviously, the camera doesn't mean sh*t.
Last edited:
Mcary
Well-known
Hello Juan, a bit stereotypical don't you think ?
Actually I think the learning curve with a Leica is much longer then a DSLR for example. The all manual aspect means a lot of practice will be needed before one masters the camera and gets the shots he wants. The lack of zoom means one needs to move around and not stay back. And finally, I am pretty convinced by now that you can't take good pictures with a rangefinder if you are not ready to engage with your subjects.
So when you add up beginners, lack of technique and shyness, galleries might indeed show quite a bunch of average shots. Nevertheless I also tend to think that people that have resources to spend thousands of dollars on equipment, are not that stupid in the first place to think Leica will make them a better photographer. There will always be a few show off people, but the majority (and I have met quite a few RFF members) are just passionate about photography. Like you obviously.
Come on now, there's no need to be defensive after all Juan is 100% correct about people that use Leica having no talent and only buying and using Leica to stroke their fragile ego's
I know that's why I bought my M4-2 but then I learned that the M4-2 isn't a real Leica so now my ego's feeling fragile again and will continue to be so until I can save up the money to buy a real Leica.
Dam getting that out felt so good.
Last edited:
Paul_C
Established
Instead you should try posting horrifically worded polls, slanted so that the results can't possibly do anything but push and back up your own opinion.
Much cheaper.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Well... I guess I just took a huge step back... I started using my M5 with the Nokton 50/1.1 again after 6 months of using my Nikon F and Nikkors... a Leica and a superfast normal lens... I am beyond hope!
I guess I could only sink lower if I acquired a Noctilux... is the any hope for my photographic soul?
I guess I could only sink lower if I acquired a Noctilux... is the any hope for my photographic soul?
Mcary
Well-known
Don't be silly! Then what would I do with all the money I've been spending trying to make up for my completely lack of talent and ability.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Juan,
So do most Voigtländer photographers, most Nikon photographers, most Hasslblad photographers, most photographers...
You know Sturgeon's Law, his response to "Ninety per cent of science fiction is crap." He replied, "Ninety per cent of anything is crap."
The question is, are Leica photographers, taken overall, slightly better or slightly worse than average? I suspect that the 'rich twit', trying to buy talent along with his camera, is more than cancelled out by the serious photographer who wants the best camera he can afford in order to give full rein to his talent, no matter how modest it may be. Otherwise you'd have to argue that artistic ability is inversely proportional to wealth and indeed intelligence.
In other words, assuming that 90% of all photographers produce rubbish, I'd guess that it's probably only 88% of Leica users instead of 92%. Obviously you can chose any percentage you like as a starting point.
Cheers,
R.
dmr
Registered Abuser
If we assume that your proposition (less than average crap level from Leica users) is true, is it the gear that's responsible, or that the more skilled photographer prefers the Leica?
Would anyone, even the most respected photo critics, truly be able to tell the difference between a shot done on the Leica and, say, a GIII? Maybe even an Olympus Stylus P&S?
(I'm going for the concept of quality threshold again here ...)
LOL!
A local radio promo which used to air around here said something like:
"We don't play every song ever recorded -- because 90% of them suck!"
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Photographers, not equipment: no question. My sole thesis here is that probably Leicas are bought by people who put more into their photography, whether financially or in terms of sheer effort, and that probably it's therefore likely that Leica users are slightly above average in the quality of their pictures -- though it may only be slightly, if at all. It's almost certainly nonsense to say that Leica users are significantly worse than average: this sounds to me like the worst kind of reverse snobbery.
Cheers,
R.
Pico
-
http://www.digoliardi.net/ra_epstein2.jpg
Funny, but when I was a professional news photographer, I went to law school. Recognize the man in the picture? Probably not. It was a long time ago.
Pico
-
Question to our Continental friends - Is it true that some countries require that a photographer be certified as a "professional" in order to practice the same?
Pico
-
AgentX
Well-known
The very idea of "image quality" is contextual; abstracting it is not a useful way to look at the problem.
I may want my work to be the obvious product of a Holga. Someone else may be dedicated to 8x10 b/w contact prints that describe a subject in massive detail. Neither one of us would be happy or successful with the others' gear, method, or output.
I may want my work to be the obvious product of a Holga. Someone else may be dedicated to 8x10 b/w contact prints that describe a subject in massive detail. Neither one of us would be happy or successful with the others' gear, method, or output.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hello Juan, a bit stereotypical don't you think ?
Actually I think the learning curve with a Leica is much longer then a DSLR for example. The all manual aspect means a lot of practice will be needed before one masters the camera and gets the shots he wants. The lack of zoom means one needs to move around and not stay back. And finally, I am pretty convinced by now that you can't take good pictures with a rangefinder if you are not ready to engage with your subjects.
So when you add up beginners, lack of technique and shyness, galleries might indeed show quite a bunch of average shots. Nevertheless I also tend to think that people that have resources to spend thousands of dollars on equipment, are not that stupid in the first place to think Leica will make them a better photographer. There will always be a few show off people, but the majority (and I have met quite a few RFF members) are just passionate about photography. Like you obviously.
Passionate all of us, good photographers, who am I to say?
I guess this is all this post's about: passionate photographers who instead of working hard on their skills, go other easier way and pay a brand and wear it after seeing a good web review... (Not the common case on RFF, please...)
This reminds me of the evolution in fashion business... First, the best designers and creators of hand made expensive clothes, found lots of people wanted to wear their products -the brand- and that they didn't really care or were able to even see if the clothes had a perfect fit, so designers started to create a few pre-made sizes for everyone, and that's how the prêt-à-porter thing was born... Then, as some people were not very appealing physically as to look great on their clothes or even decide to buy them, those companies started to design a product that was easier to "fit" on anyone... A product that would never look bad on anyone no matter their looks... And then they started to sell their parfums...
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
Sparrow
Mentor
I can do better than 90% crap with any type of equipment
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
We totally agree, Roger... I never meant shots with Leica gear are worse than those made with other brands... I only said Leica shots are not better in any way.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
No paradox: I enjoy having sunny film and ultrafast film on both my Ts to use my 15 only, anywhere anytime without composing, so one of those cameras has no lens on, and waits inside a bag with a cap on. They weigh nothing... That leaves my R4M for one kind of film and my 28 on... I want another body for my 40 and my 90 and another kind of film loaded.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
narsuitus
Well-known
I hope the Holga people do not read this.
Pico
-
That's funny. I am reminded of a poetry reading where the speaker forced his voice through a kazoo. To this day I do not understand the message.