[Leica] M8

[wildlightphoto at earthlink.net (Doug Herr)]

Neil Beddoe wrote:

> ... I don't think your [Tina's] pictures would be any worse or less 
> marketable
> if you shot them on a Nikon D300 or its Canon equivalent or any other 
> decent digital
> camera 

I won't try to speak for Tina or for the 99.99999% of the population you 
refer to, but the owner of Appel Gallery here in Sacramento was struck by 
the color quality and detail of several of the prints I brought to him last 
week.  The photos I brought to our meeting were made with two brands of 
cameras, three brands of lenses, both film and digital.  No doubt there were 
aesthetic factors involved as well, but the prints he selected for the 
gallery were all made with the DMR, all made with Leica lenses (mostly the 
280mm f/4 APO).  Steve Appel might only represent 0.000001% of the 
population, but he represents the portion of the population I'm marketing to.

> You can buy NINE Nikon 50mm f1.4s for the price of one 50mm Summilux and 
> 99.99999% of
> the population of the world would be unable to understand any 
> justification you may care
> to make for that,  particularly when the difference in resolution is 
> difficult to detect
> on ultra fine grain film let alone a digital sensor. 

The cost comparison is meaningless unless the two lenses perform exactly the 
same.  If only one lens meets my needs, it doesn't matter how little the 
alternatives cost.  Even if resolution and other optical properties were 
identical (they're not in my experience), ergonomic factors often make the 
difference between the photo I wanted and one that is 'pretty good but not 
quite'.

For example, the tall tripod foot on many long lenses: an ergonomic 
disaster.  The tall foot not only makes a longer moment arm for the camera's 
vibrations, but it also prevent the left hand from supporting the lens while 
using the focusing ring.  With this kind of lens I found I had to use faster 
shutter speeds than with a comparable Leica lens (short tripod foot) for 
equivalent lack of camera motion blur.

Another example is viewfinders: the typical DSLR viewfinder has numerous 
focus points, which if the subject's eye and the active AF sensor coincide 
(and the sensor is functional and accurate at f/4 or smaller aperture), all 
is well.  However my subjects are frequently all over the viewfinder with 
the plane of optimum focus changing from one moment to the next as the 
creature shifts its weight, scratches an itch, grabs a snack or reacts to an 
unexpected sound.  Focus-lock-recompose doesn't work at the narrow DOF I'm 
often encountering (even Canon recommends against this technique) so my 
choice (as Canon suggests) is to focus manually at any point on the 
viewscreen or alter my composition to suit the camera's focusing aids.  I've 
chosen to focus using the entire viewscreen and a camera optimized for 
manual focus.

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com