Official Talk Leica thread

Mostly the lighting. Stage lighting, forgetting moving heads for a moment, is nowhere near as bright as one imagines so we are down to balancing high ISO and wide apertures to get a decent shot with reasonable depth of field and not too much noise, (we don't all have the latest equipment!) hoping all the time that there is enough light for the auto focus to function properly. Having got all that right the lighting engineer then decides to wack on his blinders and other moving heads and it all goes pear shaped.
Then we have the sound man and all his equipment. Mics in front of faces, monitors up to the knees and so on.
I repeat it is not easy. If you've mastered it well done. I had great access for thirteen years and the hit rate was not as high as I would have liked.
 
Mostly the lighting. Stage lighting, forgetting moving heads for a moment, is nowhere near as bright as one imagines so we are down to balancing high ISO and wide apertures to get a decent shot with reasonable depth of field and not too much noise, (we don't all have the latest equipment!) hoping all the time that there is enough light for the auto focus to function properly. Having got all that right the lighting engineer then decides to wack on his blinders and other moving heads and it all goes pear shaped.
Then we have the sound man and all his equipment. Mics in front of faces, monitors up to the knees and so on.
I repeat it is not easy. If you've mastered it well done. I had great access for thirteen years and the hit rate was not as high as I would have liked.

I was genuinely interested, I've had a very limited experience of shooting live music using high end equipment and probably in good conditions, I haven't had to deal with any frustrations.
I'm certainly not a master, I only ever shot live music twice that I can think of and only as a guest of the establishment.

I've tweeted a couple of people this afternoon, offering to shoot live music and the like I would like the opportunity to enjoy it more.

The only other time I've shot live music was at hospital club with a leica Q. Now that I See them again I wonder if the WB is a little off :)

http://www.danielcook.com/events/the-hospital-club/

l1020634_21488678049_o.jpg


l1020653_21664095642_o.jpg


l1020542_21675510955_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was genuinely interested .... I wonder if the WB is a little off :)

http://www.danielcook.com/events/the-hospital-club/
Sorry Dan I did not intend to question your interest.
White balance is another issue and the subject of much debate, particularly when photographing straight plays or musicals. The lighting engineers will often use straw coloured gels or similar to create a warm wash or blue gels to create a colder or night time effect. Different colour spots are then used to highlight individuals and colours used will depend on the costumes. Hit the auto white balance in post and all the introduced colour disappears and everybody looks very natural and the true flesh and costume colours show, which the players like, but the stage 'picture' is lost, which the lighting engineer and director won't. I have always experimented with various temperature settings to get a reasonable balance between the two extremes sometimes even resorting to local temperature adjustments.
My personal preference would be to create a final image that reflected the stage 'picture' but it isn't always what is wanted. Monochrome obviously resolves the issue.
Sadly I don't have any Leica images from stage shoots so best not post here but there are a couple on my Flickr account taken a while back ...
goo.gl/Nu6bsK
goo.gl/pqTIsJ
 
Hello. I am a returner to photography, I've been out of the game for a few years, but I look forward to heading out with my Leica over time. Hopefully this weekend. I only have an entry level model (The leica V lux) and I've not used it for about 4 years or so... I will be reading and following this thread with interest.
 
Hello. I am a returner to photography, I've been out of the game for a few years, but I look forward to heading out with my Leica over time. Hopefully this weekend. I only have an entry level model (The leica V lux) and I've not used it for about 4 years or so... I will be reading and following this thread with interest.

:wave: I hope you have your wallet ready
 
I got my SL a couple of days ago and added the 24-90 to give me a one lens carry round solution. I've been pleased so far.

These two are high ISO images taken in the severe fog we've had over the last day or so.

17380-1482232245-0d39260d5a66f2a87366119b4fa871ca.jpg


17379-1482232235-a7210cc179f47754f380d10153ffe35e.jpg

I have no other words than.. utterly incredible. I take my hat off to you! This is with your new SL then?
 
Shooting manual Leica-M 50mm 1.4 ASPH on dark dance floor, don't get much time to zoom focus because the couple are always moving, you can't make much out in the EVF because it's pretty damn dark.

Most of the time when you get in focus shots, the expressions and/or compositions are terrible - so hit rate was pretty low! One photo that was pretty good, I caught the other photographers head inbetween theirs :D

Here's one that's salvageable, but fortunately mine aren't the only photos of the dance.. I will probably use the Leica Q next time.


Oh and we did only have 90 seconds tops, even half way in the bride beckoned people onto the dance floor..

L1130942 by dancook1982, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Finding composition and creating interest in foilage, something I seem to struggle with :D however other than a crop this was an export from the RAW, just wanting to see how it handled the colours.

L1140378 by dancook1982, on Flickr
 
Hello again,

I have a quick question - I am tempted to upgrade my V Lux, however I am thinking a few different directions - upgrade to a current or newer Leica as I do have a very soft spot for them, and also purchase a DSLR or Micro(?) DSLR kit. The Leica that I have had a look over Ebay; Leica X1 - X2 and the Leica Type 114 V lux (current model to mine I think). Does anyone have any comments or real life feedback?
 
Whilst I'd like to have the budget to try an M body, the Vlux 114 you've mentioned is a Panasonic FZ1000 with a red plastic dot and and extra £200 for the privilege. Personally, where there are alternative cameras that are exactly the same, I don't see where the Leica adds any benefit?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/panasonic/fz1000/vs/leica/v-lux-(typ-114)/
It's comments like this that irk me. And it's no disrespect but TB companies for years have been sharing panels but they aren't all the same quality. It's like all Fuji's being called a Sony it's not true and right. There will be much more that goes on behind the plastic that will alter the image and change things it's not just this has their this has that. Ferrari own fiat but they aren't the same.
Hell lotus have used Astra engines in their cars for years they aren't the same.
 
That's a different set of analogies though. I get companies sharing panels/engines etc but the Panasonic and Leica are exactly the same bar the dot and 'unique jpg processing'. You only need to read the multiple comparison articles between numerous consumer Leica cameras and their Panasonic counterparts to see that these are marketing jobs by Leica, not different cameras.
 
Just to add an example. If Leica started a strategic partnership with Fuji and took an XT-1, replaced the badge for a red dot then changed the default jpg processing to, (for example) increase the contrast and desaturate it slightly, would that then be a unique Leica camera worth an extra £300 premium or would it be an XT-1 with a different badge and jpg settings?

I've got no problems if people want to own a Leica but I personally feel it would be a better option purchasing the equivalent alternative if one is available and spend the difference on something else. Their M body is a unique system so gives some reason for the premium price but a consumer bridge camera doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I'd like to have the budget to try an M body, the Vlux 114 you've mentioned is a Panasonic FZ1000 with a red plastic dot and and extra £200 for the privilege. Personally, where there are alternative cameras that are exactly the same, I don't see where the Leica adds any benefit?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/panasonic/fz1000/vs/leica/v-lux-(typ-114)/

Thanks for that - I had forgotten that they worked really closely - I actually thought they had stopped doing that "cloning" they did a few years back. It seems times don't change! I will check out that FZ1000 - looks quite impressive given that's the "cheaper version"! Thank you for the link too!!
 
That's a different set of analogies though. I get companies sharing panels/engines etc but the Panasonic and Leica are exactly the same bar the dot and 'unique jpg processing'. You only need to read the multiple comparison articles between numerous consumer Leica cameras and their Panasonic counterparts to see that these are marketing jobs by Leica, not different cameras.

Interesting - again I did know about this practice but didn't realize it was still going on - I've just double checked and it seems only the "cheaper" models appear to have this cloning? The Leica X series and upwards all seem to be their own work?
 
Just to add an example. If Leica started a strategic partnership with Fuji and took an XT-1, replaced the badge for a red dot then changed the default jpg processing to, (for example) increase the contrast and desaturate it slightly, would that then be a unique Leica camera worth an extra £300 premium or would it be an XT-1 with a different badge and jpg settings?

I've got no problems if people want to own a Leica but I personally feel it would be a better option purchasing the equivalent alternative if one is available and spend the difference on something else. Their M body is a unique system so gives some reason for the premium price but a consumer bride camera doesn't.

Wise words. And I agree - I look forward to having a oroper look at the X series (although the Leica T series does look rather revolutionary!?) and indeed the FZ1000 (although perhaps this is an awkward thing to mention in the Leica thread!)
 
It's comments like this that irk me. And it's no disrespect but TB companies for years have been sharing panels but they aren't all the same quality. It's like all Fuji's being called a Sony it's not true and right. There will be much more that goes on behind the plastic that will alter the image and change things it's not just this has their this has that. Ferrari own fiat but they aren't the same.
Hell lotus have used Astra engines in their cars for years they aren't the same.
It's Fiat that own Ferrari ;) :p

Also, AFAIK Leica still do rebrand other cameras. It's not just some Pannys, they've done it with the Fuji instax too.
 
It's Fiat that own Ferrari ;) [emoji14]

Also, AFAIK Leica still do rebrand other cameras. It's not just some Pannys, they've done it with the Fuji instax too.
Rebranding... Is not the same as the camera.
Panasonic by LG panels for their new OLED but the picture is far better than the LG. I'm sure they may make a basic setup but it's for a company not rebranding the same product.
 
Rebranding... Is not the same as the camera.
Panasonic by LG panels for their new OLED but the picture is far better than the LG. I'm sure they may make a basic setup but it's for a company not rebranding the same product.
Look at the Vlux 109 and LX100, same internals, lens etc. Vlux just has a different case and a red dot, likewise the Vlux 114 and Panny FZ1000. Not all Leica are high end masterpieces ;)
 
Last edited:
Wise words. And I agree - I look forward to having a oroper look at the X series (although the Leica T series does look rather revolutionary!?) and indeed the FZ1000 (although perhaps this is an awkward thing to mention in the Leica thread!)

Sorry to sound like a real Leica downer but I'm not sure how revolutionary the T is either? It's an APS-C body like an XT-1/XT-2/A6000/6300/6500 but has no built in viewfinder and instead features a larger touchscreen for the majority of controls. It's over £1k for the body alone and the kit lens is no more exciting than the Sony 16-50 (Leica is 18-56 3.5-5.6) but costs a ridiculous £1200! The only other lens is a 23mm F2 prime that's also over £1300. It's a solid aluminium body which is nice but will be freezing in the winter :0).

Again, it feels like the Leica badge is trying to justify the cost rather than technical value so I'd choose an XT2 or A6500 with their wider selection of lenses any day.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to sound like a real Leica downer but I'm not sure how revolutionary the T is either? It's an APS-C body like an XT-1/XT-2/A6000/6300/6500 but has no built in viewfinder and instead features a larger touchscreen for the majority of controls. It's over £1k for the body alone and the kit lens is no more exciting than the Sony 16-50 (Leica is 18-56 3.5-5.6) but costs a ridiculous £1200! The only other lens is a 23mm F2 prime that's also over £1300. It's a solid aluminium body which is nice but will be freezing in the winter :0).

Again, it feels like the Leica badge is trying to justify the cost rather than technical value so I'd choose an XT2 or A6500 with their wider selection of lenses any day.
The T is older there is a new TL which I have been quite interested in.
The T however has just had an AF upgrade which has made it pretty slick.

I'm not sure why people keep banging on about Fuji all the time. Yes they have great specs but specs don't make cameras.

The optics the sensor the firmware all render the photo nicely unless you shoot in jpg I wouldnt say a Fuji is a great purchase.

Leica don't have to justify their badge they made it they own it, Rolls Royce and Bentley don't compete with Skoda's.
 
That's the funny thing about Leica and brand loyalty. They're expensive across the board which makes them an aspirational product but that doesn't mean they're actually any better than other brands. The T/TL appears to be a nice looking APS-C system that has minimal lenses that are ridiculously expensive. In comparison, either Fuji or Sony offer the same sensor size along with a more complete lens lineup for considerably less outlay. I obviously haven't shot with a T/TL myself so can't compare actual results but having seen the struggles Dan has had with his SL which are exactly the same as any other mirrorless system with slow variable aperture lenses it proves again that more expensive doesn't necessarily make it better.

As above, the M system is the only truly unique camera made by Leica. Nobody else makes a digital true rangefinder so if you want that, there are no alternatives. For everything else I think it's naive to not look at the alternatives.
 
Last edited:
That's the funny thing about Leica and brand loyalty. They're expensive across the board which makes them an aspirational product but that doesn't mean they're actually any better than other brands. The T/TL appears to be a nice looking APS-C system that has minimal lenses that are ridiculously expensive. In comparison, either Fuji or Sony offer the same sensor size along with a more complete lens lineup for considerably less outlay. I obviously haven't shot with a T/TL myself so can't compare actual results but having seen the struggles Dan has had with his SL which are exactly the same as any other mirrorless system with slow variable aperture lenses it proves again that more expensive doesn't necessarily make it better.
You are comparing apples and oranges though.

I've used the SL and it instantly made me want one. It's so f*****g sexy seriously it is. It's still on the first firmware and all mirrorless have th issue Dan was having which actually isn't an issue it's a learning curve going from a DSLR Trojan like the D750 to the SL.

The Fuji isn't a great bit of kit yes it tracks well or does it? Take some photos tracking and see if they are pin sharp they won't be against the Nikon mark my words and it's no cheaper why but a cheap mirrorless camera when the D750 is so good it makes no sense??

What you get with the Leica is a different way it renders the image the bokeh the colours it's like a good drunk of Vodka it doesn't burn or take an effort to drink where as cheaper just gets you p***ed with no taste.

I'll never buy an SL as my budget wouldn't even dictate it, but that's not to say it's not a good camera, if Dan just decided to do portraits all the time you'd see far more. Give him until march when he's given up testing the camera out and just getting stunning results.

The M is lovely as well from what I've seen but for my hands and use its pointless I can't focus for s***.

Don't get tied up with other reviews of the Fuji or Sony that they can do this that or the other as they aren't for everyone.

I hated the XT2 and sold it, awful to me doesn't mean I didn't get any good shots just really wasn't what I wanted or expected, as for Sony well their tech is old and very expensive.
 
I shoot with an A6000 so am speaking as a user rather than someone reading reviews. A camera is a camera. All mirrorless bodies have EVF gain issues that make viewing in low light more difficult. They all have more trouble autofocusing in lower light than a DSLR and they all have more trouble tracking than a DSLR. The fact the SL makes you go weak at the knees confirms it's an inspirational product but when it comes down to it, it's a full frame mirrorless camera like an A7 with a variable aperture huge zoom lens that if Sony released it the forums would have a field day about it.

As I commented on Dan's shots, in good conditions or with studio lights, the lens/sensor combo delivers lovely results but so does an A7/D750/5D realistically.
 
I shoot with an A6000 so am speaking as a user rather than someone reading reviews. A camera is a camera. All mirrorless bodies have EVF gain issues that make viewing in low light more difficult. They all have more trouble autofocusing in lower light than a DSLR and they all have more trouble tracking than a DSLR. The fact the SL makes you go weak at the knees confirms it's an inspirational product but when it comes down to it, it's a full frame mirrorless camera like an A7 with a variable aperture huge zoom lens that if Sony released it the forums would have a field day about it.

As I commented on Dan's shots, in good conditions or with studio lights, the lens/sensor combo delivers lovely results but so does an A7/D750/5D realistically.
Steve Anichabe is a premier league striker so is Diego Costa.
 
Just to add an example. If Leica started a strategic partnership with Fuji and took an XT-1, replaced the badge for a red dot then changed the default jpg processing to, (for example) increase the contrast and desaturate it slightly, would that then be a unique Leica camera worth an extra £300 premium or would it be an XT-1 with a different badge and jpg settings?

I've got no problems if people want to own a Leica but I personally feel it would be a better option purchasing the equivalent alternative if one is available and spend the difference on something else. Their M body is a unique system so gives some reason for the premium price but a consumer bridge camera doesn't.

Yup.

I can see the attraction of some of the "real" Leica's and there's very limited competition for the that stuff but I'm not a badge buyer and I wouldn't pay over the odds for a rebadge Panasonic with a tweaked grip, unique JPEG's and some free software and the fact that others do does phase me a bit. Leica aren't the only ones rebadging though, look at what Hasselblad did.
 
Which would probably put it about a 1k piece of kit when it was first released. And that photo does nothing for me.

Yup, the FM2 was obviously the high end model of its' day but I can buy one today for a few hundred and it still gives the same result.

My point though was initially in relation to the rebranded Panasonic cameras in that they won't magically deliver better results because they've got a plastic dot on them.
 
Last edited:
Yup, the FM2 was obviously the high end model of its' day but I can buy one today for a few hundred and it still gives the same result.

My point though was initially in relation to the rebranded Panasonic cameras in that they won't magically deliver better results because they've got a plastic dot on them.
And my point was that they aren't just rebrands their are differences
 
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/leica_v_lux_typ_114_review/conclusion/

"That just leaves it to contend with the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000, which, at £750, undercuts the Leica by around £175, yet is essentially the same camera. However, it’s not quite that simple. Leica bundles the V-Lux with Adobe Lightroom, which at the time of writing will set you back £102.57 for a standalone licence. This closes the price gap to just under £75, but remember that the V-Lux also comes with a three year warranty, compared to Panasonic’s one year protection for the FZ1000. Given that many camera retailers will charge more than that for an extended warranty, the V-Lux actually makes good financial sense, should you want added peace of mind and not already own Lightroom."

So it comes with a copy of Lightroom and a 3 year warranty
 
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/leica_v_lux_typ_114_review/conclusion/

"That just leaves it to contend with the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000, which, at £750, undercuts the Leica by around £175, yet is essentially the same camera. However, it’s not quite that simple. Leica bundles the V-Lux with Adobe Lightroom, which at the time of writing will set you back £102.57 for a standalone licence. This closes the price gap to just under £75, but remember that the V-Lux also comes with a three year warranty, compared to Panasonic’s one year protection for the FZ1000. Given that many camera retailers will charge more than that for an extended warranty, the V-Lux actually makes good financial sense, should you want added peace of mind and not already own Lightroom."

So it comes with a copy of Lightroom and a 3 year warranty
Shall I find Ken Rockwell's review?
 
Back
Top