Re: [Leica] WAS: I've seen the Bokeh! NOW: WHY LEICA?

[Dave Yoder <leica@home.com>]

I didn't mean to imply good sharpness and less quality are the primary reasons I
got into Leica, and I totally agree with you on your reasons for using M's. I
would have loved to go to the M system but I know from previous experience with
rangefinders that I will occasionally miss a moment while trying to focus (I
shoot a lot of transparency in low light at maximum aperture and don't have much
faith in my zone focusing potential).

I'm pretty confident in my skills and decided it's time to use the best tools in
this small window when i'll still have the availability of shooting all the
chrome I can put through a body. It's also a mental thing--for some reason I
felt like Canon EOS was hampering my creative side. Can't tell you why, I just
felt like I had a shovel in my hands rather than a paint brush (please forgive
the romanticized metaphor). When I shoot with my R's I feel more like a
craftsman and it inspires me. And while the R8 is the R's answer to the M5, I
don't understand the criticism of the R bodies. They're small, feel well-built
and solid.

So for me it was, I'm just about where I want to be skill-wise (opportunities
are my greatest defecit right now), and since life's so short I might as well go
for it all and try hard to seek out that beautiful netherzone where art and
journalism can be one.

Dave Yoder

Ted Grant wrote:

> Dave Yoder wrote:
>
> >>From my observations I'd have to preliminarily agree with Simon. I got into
> >Leica looking for good sharpness and less contrast, and that's what I think
> >I've found.>>>>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> The comments I've seen this past few days "why I got into Leica" have been
> interesting as I don't think anyone has hit on my "Why I got into Leica."
>
> Generally others have  reasons for technical results, bokeh, sharpness,
> contrast and others. Where in my case (many of you know I've never been
> much on the technical stuff) and more on results of the content.
>
> I wanted Leica because it was the best and my idols, Esie, Cartier Bresson,
> Capa and others of the '40's and early '50's used them. Therefore, if I
> used Leica my pictures would be great like theirs. How naive we are before
> we learn that it is the person holding the camera that makes greatness, as
> well as being in the right place at the right time. And certainly ones
> re-action time to the moment.
>
> I'll go to the big darkroom in the sky knowing without question that when I
> started using Leica my photographs began to improve, more impact, better
> use of the light, (Like Capa) I got closer, worked quietly and
> unobtrusively without flash. My photography took on a whole new look, I
> found I'd be shooting where others feared to without blasting away with
> flash creating a visual disturbance.
>
> For me, the simplicity of the Leica (rangefinders) and how it is used
> (available light) has more to do with the secret to my photographic
> success, than the technical bits and pieces of the hardware.
>
> If we consider the vast majority of non-using Leica photographers and 99%
> of the public wouldn't know a Leica image from a N or C image, we have to
> accept that it is what we do with the camera and how we see/re-act that
> counts the most and should be the first reason for using Leica, allowing us
> to capture the ultimate moment.
>
> This isn't discounting the quality of the glass, obviously it makes our
> printed images "look better" or viewed on the screen. As lenses improve one
> should consider what the purchase of a new lens will do, merely make their
> picture sharper Or capture the ultimate moment in time?
>
> I guess it falls into ones priority of what they want on film. Me? I'd opt
> for the ultimate moment everytime and that's what Leica means to me.
>
> ted
>
> Ted Grant
> This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
> http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant