New Yorker piece on Leicas

there are 7 pages of this..might want to set aside a moment

yeah, forgot to mention the length ;)

Long, but it contains the term “Leicaweenies.”

a very good article indeed! thank you for the tip:)
and yes. I’m a leicaphile too…

I bought a used M6 and 35 f/1.4 Asph a few months ago because i wanted to experience the Leica’s optics, slow down my shooting, and have a quiet and small system for my street photography, but i have yet to master this system. Tips?

I’ve got the film loading down, but is getting comfortable (and quicker) with the controls and shooting manual just a matter of time and practice? I find that i really need to set my exposure ahead of time, or get something close, but find that either i get the exposure right and my focus is off or vice versa. And for some reason, my contact sheets are not blowing me away yet—perhaps i need more practice. I’m also not a huge fan of having my viewfinder blocked by the hood on the lens either.

Has anyone else bought a Leica and not immediately fell in love with it in this age of digital photography (i have yet to buy a digital SLR or read this newyorker article).

join the film leica group here at ls :)

http://www.lightstalkers.org/film_leica

or check the rangefinderforum. TONS of tips there…
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/

Well-written, yes; excellent, no. A bit too breathless and too shallow to be excellent. The Leica myth is fine, but it does not need to be puffed up this much.

Also, the article could be more factual: the assertion that the D-Lux 3 could not have taken the picture the author discusses at the end of the article is simply untrue: it could if manual pre-focusing was used, which many people do with this camera because of it’s huge depth of field.

And writing that Leica makes some small digital cameras — including the D-Lux 3 — is simply not true. That never would have passed in New Yorker in the days of William Shawn’s editorship.

My real problem with this is the shallowness of the article. A much more interesting article could have written by dealing woth some of the issues of the company in a real way, and still bring across the enthusiam of Leica users. The New Yorker used to be better than this.

I thought it was a good and interesting piece, written for their audience (who are presumably not all photographers) but sharp enough for actual Leica users. I enjoyed it.

Has anyone else bought a Leica and not immediately >fell in love with it in this age of digital >photography (i have yet to buy a digital SLR or read >this newyorker article).

It depends. Some people were born to shoot a rangefinder and others never get along with them.

Mastering a Leica M is a little like learning how to play the piano. Pracatice, practice, practice. But once you have it down it becomes second nature and you’ll probably have a far better understanding of film, exposure and sheer physical skill with a camera than most people.

It’s a little awkward at first. The first thing you need to learn is to judge distances and thus scale focusing.

Then you need to learn how to let go.

There’s ‘in focus’ and ‘close enough in focus’. Heed the title of Capa’s book: “Sligthly Out of Focus” or HCB’s mantra that “sharpness is a bourgeois concept”. ;-)

But it’s not easy and the only way to make it work is to stick with it. After 10 years of shooting with an M camera, I’m still sometimes baffled how the old masters nailed some of the shots they did, without the help of a built in meter etc.

It’s not easy, but once you figure it out you’ll may not want to use anything else.

Here’s Winogrand in action with an M4 and 28mm

http://tinyurl.com/2l2vhp

Feli

Ithought the piece could have been more informative and less about Lane’s infatuation. And I found it odd that he never once mentioned the rivalry that Leica had with Contax, even though he mentions at least two “Leica” users who were also heavy users of Contax (Evans and Capa). Or how the introduction of Japanese rangefinders forced them into heavier reliance on people willing to pay a premium for their cameras. That made his “history,” incomplete at best. Or maybe I’m simply jealous that I’ve never owned one. W

wayne, is it possible that you still don’t have a Leica?!?
I thought by now you would be hooked for sure!

Still using my Soviet imitations, Alan. Maybe the real thing someday. (I’ve never used a real classic Contax for that matter.) Anyway, as much as I like 35mm, I’m becoming partial to MF, so maybe a Fuji 645 is in my future. Found this message thread on Capa’s use of Contaxes. Interesting that he took the heavier camera for the beach landing. W