Something more esoteric- switch to a leica??

mrjames

mrjames

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,240
Edit My Images
Yes
I have become a little bored with photography, the results i'm seeing from my canon kit is too clinical and lacking in character, i'm also not having much fun shooting AF.

I'm thinking of trading in my 1dmk3 for a 5dmk2 with ee-s screen and going back to MF glass (but still use AF for where i'd need it to do paid work), and i'm also putting some thought into a leica system, i'd be a lot more enthusiastic if I could use those M mount lenses on a canon body :(
The extra MP would be useful to me as my work is commercial, so often printed to massive sizes, I think I can see myself using DMF in the future. The 5d would be more discreet than the 1d without battery grip, and hopefully similar to handle when using a grip. FPS isn't important to me, and I mostly shoot commercial and fashion, so AF performance is not critically important as i've always got enough time to make sure my work is bang on. I'm finding the viewfinder on the 1d to be a touch small for my liking too, it shipped with the grid screen, which I think i'd like to switch out.


I used to be a pentax shotoer with MF lenses but I switched to canon and I fully admit that I got drawn in by the measurbator syndrome and made purchases based on MTF and arbitrary ratings. I now have this feeling that my photographs are boring compared to the results I was getting with pentax, I attributte this to the pentax lenses as I was getting similar 'character' with m42 lenses adapted for canon.

Does anyone else share the feeling that they get boring images out of this modern ultra corrected glass? I get the feeling sometimes that i'm just 'photo-copying' the scene in front of me rather than rendering it, I know this has it's merits for colour accuracy and what-knot, but for my non pro work it's just no fun

I know there's a thriving community around manual focus lenses- but I just wondered if there was anyone here who shared a similar view about lenses that have a certain 'I don't know what'. I have heard very good things about the 85mm 1.2 and the 135mm f2, and the images from the 85 L do seem to have a little something my 85 1.8 lacks.

Maybe it's the L series colour rendition that i'm striving for, maybe I should look at the zeiss ze lenses (particularly interested in the 100 f2 and 50 f2)

I have a zeiss 135mm which definitely has that certain something (as well as unmatched edge to edge sharpness), and I used to shoot a takumar which was full of character, but my canon lenses just don't seem to do it for me and never have- it's not something that PP can bring out either as they still look unsharp and drab to my eyes, maybe my camera is just not suited to the type of images I hope to achieve from it, I know the images straight out of camera are unsharp to allow for sharpening during pre-press.

Just wondered if there's any one else on here that has a liberal arts degree and likes to discuss the unquanitfiable aha





edit: I just had a flick through Tobers thread and it seems to echo my sentiments about leica shooting, discreet, quiet, inoffensive, and fun. I think i'm sold

I think my ideal world kit would be
1dmk3/5dmk2: 17-40, zeiss 100mm f2, mpe-65, 85mm 1.2
leica m9: 50mm f2, 35mm f2, 90mm f2

Although I could just as easily ditch the zeiss 100 to go for a 70-200.



I'm also starting to get more into video- I have access to a 550'd, so switching my 1d to a 5d would allow me to use a second cam for B roll footage, and more practice manual focussing would be beneficial because somehow i've managed to get myself a job as DOP so I need to learn as I shoot and practice as much as possible
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you need me to bleat on about the wonderful 3d pop of the Minolta MD 45mm F2.... :D
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Sounds like you need me to bleat on about the wonderful 3d pop of the Minolta MD 45mm F2.... :D
Click to expand...

I've had an MD Rokkor 45/2 in a drawer since the mid-80s. Nice lens. Mind if I ask what you paid for yours?
 
I have definitely come across those rokkors in my research- but unfortunately no mounting on EOS cameras without an adaptor with optics
 
I think the most revealing comment is in your first sentence - "I have become a little bored with photography".

You seem to be looking for a more emotional solution than an objective one. My advice would be to move along the same lines as Tobers, and not give up on your AF Canons (5D2 might be a good move though) but add something alongside for a completely different shooting experience - such as a Leica M9.

Tobers' Leica thread is good and honest, and also refreshing in that it's light on those elusive and fluffy qualities that so many attempt to use to justify a somewhat illogical purchase, and strong on the real challenges of using a very different camera like that, and the satisfaction that comes as reward. But to rely on it to do everything that a top-end DSLR system can deliver would be rash.

On the other hand, reading between the lines of your post, maybe a Pentax 645D might fit the bill?
 
HoppyUK said:
I think the most revealing comment is in your first sentence - "I have become a little bored with photography".

You seem to be looking for a more emotional solution than an objective one. My advice would be to move along the same lines as Tobers, and not give up on your AF Canons (5D2 might be a good move though) but add something alongside for a completely different shooting experience - such as a Leica M9.

Tobers' Leica thread is good and honest, and also refreshing in that it's light on those elusive and fluffy qualities that so many attempt to use to justify a somewhat illogical purchase, and strong on the real challenges of using a very different camera like that, and the satisfaction that comes as reward. But to rely on it to do everything that a top-end DSLR system can deliver would be rash.

On the other hand, reading between the lines of your post, maybe a Pentax 645D might fit the bill?
Click to expand...


I think this is bang on the money. Photography has become less of a hobby for me now, I never shoot in my spare time.

The problems i'm having with the 1d are that it's too obtrusive, it was a gift from my father when I started to shoot seriously and I think he just assumed it was the best and refers to the 5d as an inferior product (which in some cases yes it is...)

Prior to the 1d I used to shoot a pentax SLR, which I took everywhere- whether I was being paid to be there or just to a party, and it was unobtrusive, light, and didn't draw much attention not did I have an obligation to produce great images as people dont look at the camera and want to see the 'magical' images it must produce (much quieter shutter too)
now when I go out with the 1d I constantly get gear heads trying to talk to me, I get asked 'which newspaper I shoot for', and I get the feeling that i'm being judged

I can see the benefit of a 'pro' looking camera, i've blagged my way into the photo pit before just because of my equipment. So I might pick up a 1d mk2 in the future just as my 'big-client' camera



The more I look into a leica m8, the more it seems like a cop-out compared to the m9. Realistically I could only afford 1 lens at the moment anyway so maybe the fuji x100 would be more suited, I can pick up a leica m9 further down the line and some lenses for it. Sharp wide angle lenses for canon don't come cheap anyway so the 35mm 1.4 (used) is about the same price as the fuji, and the manual focus zeiss (even the old stuff) fetches a high price. I'd be very open to suggestions of good wide angle primes to check out, although my research seems to sugegst that wide angle primes were (and perhaps still are) the domain or zeiss and leica, and best suited to the rangefinder camera rather than the SLR, the 50mm and telephoto lenses (being easier to design) are more




I have also been considering the 645, but the price! I think if I really would consider MFD i'd have to be testing FF to it's limits first, and it might be more logical to hire out a 645/H3D when needed.





Anyway this is getting away from the original question:
I have researched the lenses mentioned in the thread, and the summicron is reported to have something about it,

i'd happily jump on a zeiss 50mm 1.4 but the focus shifts put me off. The 50mm macro planar is an option and would see use for product photography
the sigma 50mm has a nice 'character', but it massive, and heavy.


I think a pentax SLR is on the cards in the near future- if only for nostalgia reasons :D

so the choices are: leica m8, pentax k5, canon 5d (and keep 1d), canon 5dmk2 (and sell 1d), fuji x100

I really like the way pentax do business- 5d quality in a 550d sized body, with miniscule primes and comparitively leightweight tele-zooms (50-135)
Not sure I really want to run 2 SLR systems though, and that full frame viewfinder with a precision screen is something I feel I must experience, aha.
 
macvisual said:
Where's it best to look/find these manual lenses, I'm quite keen on that idea myself!

Does the manual glass quality support decent end results?
Click to expand...

it depends on what your looking to achieve from your results. In some cases the older lenses outperform the newer lenses, or provide similar performance for less money.

But I like them mainly because they feel nice to use, and it feels more like you're making a photograph as opposed to taking. Also there is some very 'interesting' glass out there, and some of it has a nice history to it- like Zenit, who's lenses sell for about £3 on ebay but are actually copies of Zeiss lenses after they captured the Zeiss factory during the war and stole all their optical designs, even using Zeiss's own machinery to produce them!
 
You don't say what lenses you have at the moment so an upgrade/change of lenses may be all you need to give your pictures a bit more oomph.

In your spare time why not move away from digital and pick up some old film stuff or try a bit of lomography.
 
I had Canon gear and some of their best glass (85mm f/1.2 II, 300mm f/2.8 IS etc) and Nikon gear and some of their best glass (70-200 VR II, 135mm f/2 DC etc) and got rid of all that and now have just the M9 + 50mm f/2 Summicron. It's far more fun to carry and shoot with the M9.

Like you I felt the DSLR + lenses was too big, too heavy and too intrusive. It was fun sometimes to swan about with the big lens on and people getting out of your way, but I prefer going unnoticed.

It depends on your budget, but you could always look into a Leica M8 + 28mm, a Fuji X100 or if you want wide angle primes a Zeiss 21mm for the Canon gets very good reviews and I've seen some stunning pictures from it. You did say you had the 85mm f/1.8, but the 85L is in a different league to the 1.8 and a great piece of glass.
 
mrjames said:
i'd happily jump on a zeiss 50mm 1.4 but the focus shifts put me off. The 50mm macro planar is an option and would see use for product photography...
Click to expand...

Um, I think it is the 50mm f1.5 Sonnar that has focus shift issues but the 50mm f1.4 is okay. The Sonnar, btw, has huge character to make up for the focus issues and as you'd probably use it wide open anyway, I'm not sure they'd matter much.

Have you thought about trying some legacy MF lenses? Contax Zeiss lenses with Contax/Yashica mount can easily be used on Canon with a simple (and cheap) adaptor - no optical glass involved. You can get some lovely glass to play with for very little money.
 
Last edited:
mrjames said:
I think this is bang on the money. Photography has become less of a hobby for me now, I never shoot in my spare time.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Sorry about the 645D, I thought you were minted :D Won't mention the Leica S2 then, though you'd have to be totally mad and minted for that.

Other possibilities. 5D2 with a couple fast primes, even fast manual focus primes (change focusing screen) to satisfy that masochistic side ;) Fabulous quality, and would go very nicely with a Fuji X100.

Leica M8 :gag: and Pentax K-5 :thinking: :nono:
 
macvisual said:
Does the manual glass quality support decent end results?
Click to expand...

Yes, no question. I've had wonderful results from Minolta Rokkors, Contax Zeiss, Olympus OM Zuiko, Leica to name but a few. My current favourites are a Jupiter-8 50mm f2 and a Zuiko 50mm f1.4. Both cost very little.

A good example of the quality that you can get for a song with manual glass is the Samyang 85mm f1.5 Aspherical. There has been at least one thread on here singing its praises. Supposed to be superior to a Nikon 85mm f1.5 but a quarter the price.

I'm just trying to work out whether to go for one of the Samyangs or a Leica Summicron-R 85mm f2 with a Leitax to Nikon adaptor. The latter will cost about twice as much but would be a lovely chunk of glass. Probably won't perform any better than the Samyang but I'm a sucker for beautifully engineered lenses.
 
The camera is just a tool and only reflects what you see and feel. If it makes boring shots then it is because you were bored and uninspired..... I'd get a little P & S and prat about or find an old film camera and start taking photos for fun rather than just because it is work. If you take out your 'work' camera you'll probably still have a work head on.
 
mrjames said:
I have become a little bored with photography, the results i'm seeing from my canon kit is too clinical and lacking in character, i'm also not having much fun shooting AF.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Boredom seems to be the factor, we all suffer from time to time.

I find that AF is much faster than MF and that just could matter in some situations as although great critical focus isn't really required (IMVHO) in many images these days we pixel peep and expect everything to be extra sharp so speed matters if your subject is likely to move.

Personally I don't agree with Canon kit being too clinical and lacking in character. IMVHO it's just modern, well dsigned kit. A few minutes craping some paint off the body with an old dinner knife and a smear of vaseline on the lens should give you the character you're looking for :)

How about a MFT? A used G? or GH? and a few manual lenses or better still only one lens, Leica or Zeis if you like, might inspire you without emptying your bank account.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't look like any one else has pointed it out but you could get an adapter and use the pentax m42 on your nice camera... :exit:


At least short term then see whether it'd be better on the slr?


But sounds like you'd prefer the m9 or just going back to manual film... :)



I like my m42 28mm f2.5. No where near top notch glass, but when you get the shot in focus - such a feeling.... doesn't come very often tho :/

Anyway - just a thought, you then still get to keep the nice camera and mp yet use the older lenses...
 
If you do high enough level commercial work to justify invoicing your clients for equipment hire such as DMF then I'd seriously consider it as an option. Buy a camera for personal work, something you love to shoot with, and just use DMF as and when you need the quality and image size.

Alternatively, you can get a mint condition Hasselblad H3DII-31 for approx £3500 from procentre most of the time in their 2nd hand dept. So sack off your canon gear to cover it?
 
Mike Jackson said:
You don't say what lenses you have at the moment so an upgrade/change of lenses may be all you need to give your pictures a bit more oomph.

In your spare time why not move away from digital and pick up some old film stuff or try a bit of lomography.
Click to expand...

The thing is, I want my weekend enjoyment of photography to serve as 'enjoyable training' for my pro-shooting, but my problem with film (and I own a spotmatic and a zenit E) is that I want instant results (so I can improve quicker) and really I need something that is both enjoyable and I can justify owning professionally, as I understand it clients won't pay more for 35mm film, so there is no point shooting film- I do enjoy taking the spotmatic out, but I always am left thinking that the development costs could be better spent elsewhere, I have access to a darkroom- but I have neither the time nor the desire to process my own film, it probably seems i'm giving out mixed messages here (and I probably am), but I don't want to be one of these niche art photographers who only shoots on film and only drinks tea in one particular cafe in shoreditch- I want to have pro-grade kit, but use it like an artist, I think the heft of the 1d gets in the way of my creativity.

I think a leica would fit the bill as a viable second body to an SLR as rangefinder design lends itself to higher quality (non retrofocus) wide angle lenses so a m9 with wide angles and a 50 (for street shooting, and studio wide angle), and a 5d with tele, macro, 85L and all the things the leica can't do

a film camera is also not really any smaller than a 5d


the lenses I have (and have had) are:

sigma 15-30 (so so poor, even compared to the 17-40 which gets a terrible rep, i'll post up some pics when I get back to my laptop- if you thought the 17-40 had bad IQ at the image borders...) Sold

manual focus 28mm macro (fun to use for it's close focus and tiny, but difficult to focus properly without live view, a 5d viewdfinder with a faster screen could help here- also not really very sharp until f4) Still own this one

sigma 28mm 1.8 macro (super sharp at f2.8, and focusses to 1" in front of the lens- actually I want to get this lens again, shame it's so big and has poor af- great manual focus feel though, very long throw) Sold but want it back

canon 50mm 1.8/1.4- broke the 1.8, fixed it and gave it away, fixed another one for a friend, so poorly made I could never wish for another. The 50mm 1.4 is sharp enough wide open (on a good copy) but feels rubbish to manual focus (which is no good for video, and also just feels no fun), weird outlining to the bokeh, and has that canon dullness that I am beginning to hate. Sold both of them

takumar 50mm 1.4- lovely feel and a joy to use, but wasn't all that sharp at 2.8, the canon lens beat it. A 5d and ee-s would have helped nail focus as I got a very low number of keepers. Slightly yellow (due to yellowing of lens elements due to radioactive coatings on the lens :eek:) but had very nice bokeh. Sold

pentax 50mm 1.7- so so sharp at 2.8, soft at 1.7, tiny, but has very rough bokeh when stopped down due to 7 bladed apperture. Sold

helios 44 58mm- crazy lens, feels like a piece of russian crap though- and i'm not crazy about the 58mm focal length. I also hate the way the apperture works so this never gets used. Worth about £4 so sits on a zenit E I have on display somewhere

canon 85mm- sharp, good bokeh, small, light, ok build quality- what's the issue? It's boring and I get uninspiring images from it- find it a bit long on a 1.3 crop too. Minimum focus distance is too long so pretty much strictly for portraits or for larger product shots. Wicked CA until about f2.5. Still own it

tamron 90mm- the sharpest lens I have ever shot, at f2.8 it is as sharp as it gets- shoddy construction, annoying 'push-pull' AF/MF, noisy/slow/poor in low light AF. Sold, but I do miss it, sharper than the canon

canon 100mm- a much more useable lens than the tamron, great AF. Horrible bokeh when stopped down. Sold, considering the 100mm L or the 100mm zeiss + MPE-65

zeiss 135mm f3.5- a bit slow, but sharp edge to edge, tiny, and fun- just wish it was f2.8. Still own this.

Tair 11a 135mm f2.8- at 2.8 even sharper than the zeiss at f4, 20 bladed aperture, but huge, heavy and a russian piece of crap :p. Sold

mayer optik orestor 135mm f2.8 preset- awful looking 'zebra' lens, not sharp, not deserving of it's reputation as the 'bokeh monster', not very smooth to use- the tair is a better lens, and better made. Sold

Had a few other 135mm lenses too, but nothing worth writing about as most of them sucked

sigma 150mm macro- nice lens- nearly as sharp as the canon, but horrible to use, ugly, not very good as a tele lens, heavy, poor AF, and a bit long (making depth of field very tricky). I used to shoot a lot of macro with the 100mm, but I sold it for the 85- now I never use the 150. It will likely be sold


so I don't really have many lenses left, only 2 canon mount and I want to get rid of both of them. A 17-40, a fast 50 (probably zeiss or sigma) and a new macro (again likely zeiss, but I wish it did 1:1 so likely the 100L) will probably give me the buzz I need, a sharp wide angle prime might be nice too

i've never shot the 17-40 on full frame so corner sharpness does concern me as I never saw much of an issue on a 1.3 crop but I really need the width as I shoot hotel interiors and I prefer not to do panorama's
I shot the 12-24 and it was a terrible lens...I think the sigma 8-16 on a crop camera could deliver better results


I also have access to a d300 (my dad's), but I hate the weight of the camera, the ergonomics, menu, implimentation of live view, and the 18-200 f5.6 lens


Laudrup said:
I had Canon gear and some of their best glass (85mm f/1.2 II, 300mm f/2.8 IS etc) and Nikon gear and some of their best glass (70-200 VR II, 135mm f/2 DC etc) and got rid of all that and now have just the M9 + 50mm f/2 Summicron. It's far more fun to carry and shoot with the M9.

Like you I felt the DSLR + lenses was too big, too heavy and too intrusive. It was fun sometimes to swan about with the big lens on and people getting out of your way, but I prefer going unnoticed.

It depends on your budget, but you could always look into a Leica M8 + 28mm, a Fuji X100 or if you want wide angle primes a Zeiss 21mm for the Canon gets very good reviews and I've seen some stunning pictures from it. You did say you had the 85mm f/1.8, but the 85L is in a different league to the 1.8 and a great piece of glass.
Click to expand...

The 85L is a definite option, but i'm just not set on the 85mm focal length (but if I change to a full frame cam then i'll have to forget everything I know) the minimum focus distance restricts it's use to portrait only imo, where as I think the zeiss 100mm could do double duty as portrait and product, and I don't do enough portraits (and likely not at f1.2) to justify the cost. It is also so huge and so heavy, and perhaps a 90mm summicron on a leica would be a better option than the 85L- i'd really need to have a serious think about where i'd like to put my entire life savings, i've only ever seen a leica from across the street, I might hate it for all I know. What is it about the 85L that puts it in a 'different league'- colour, bokeh and speed?

HoppyUK said:
Sorry about the 645D, I thought you were minted :D Won't mention the Leica S2 then, though you'd have to be totally mad and minted for that.

Other possibilities. 5D2 with a couple fast primes, even fast manual focus primes (change focusing screen) to satisfy that masochistic side ;) Fabulous quality, and would go very nicely with a Fuji X100.

Leica M8 :gag: and Pentax K-5 :thinking: :nono:
Click to expand...

oh no no i'm definitely not minted, i'm technically still a student...
this is my entire student loan at stake here, aha

woof woof said:
Hmmm. Boredom seems to be the factor, we all suffer from time to time.

I find that AF is much faster than MF and that just could matter in some situations as although great critical focus isn't really required (IMVHO) in many images these days we pixel peep and expect everything to be extra sharp so speed matters if your subject is likely to move.

Personally I don't agree with Canon kit being too clinical and lacking in character. IMVHO it's just modern, well dsigned kit. A few minutes craping some paint off the body with an old dinner knife and a smear of vaseline on the lens should give you the character you're looking for :)

How about a MFT? A used G? or GH? and a few manual lenses or better still only one lens, Leica or Zeis if you like, might inspire you without emptying your bank account.
Click to expand...

I have toyed with the thought of a m4/3, as it might be nice to work with a full frame and a 2xcrop, as the same lens would have a totally different purpose, and a gh2 would be very useful for film-making (if only canon lenses weren't electronically controlled :() I'd really have to play with a 4/3 camera more to see how i'd get on with an EVF

ecniv said:
Doesn't look like any one else has pointed it out but you could get an adapter and use the pentax m42 on your nice camera... :exit:


At least short term then see whether it'd be better on the slr?


But sounds like you'd prefer the m9 or just going back to manual film... :)



I like my m42 28mm f2.5. No where near top notch glass, but when you get the shot in focus - such a feeling.... doesn't come very often tho :/

Anyway - just a thought, you then still get to keep the nice camera and mp yet use the older lenses...
Click to expand...

I do use m42, and pentax lenses on my canon, but I sold most of them off to pay for canon AF gear. The more I think about it the more I think it's the camera at fault for making me un-inspired rather than the lens.

Mahoneyd187 said:
If you do high enough level commercial work to justify invoicing your clients for equipment hire such as DMF then I'd seriously consider it as an option. Buy a camera for personal work, something you love to shoot with, and just use DMF as and when you need the quality and image size.

Alternatively, you can get a mint condition Hasselblad H3DII-31 for approx £3500 from procentre most of the time in their 2nd hand dept. So sack off your canon gear to cover it?
Click to expand...

I do think there's a definite possibility of this happening, leica m9 and a h3d (hello lottery :wave:), but also a part of me wants to have one camera (or at least one crop factor) which I love to shoot with and get to know inside out as I shoot with it as much as possible so I can visualise the shot before having to get the camera out, to shoot instinctively with the camera as an extension of my brain. I learnt to do this with the pentax, but swithcing to a different crop factor threw me off (they say it takes 6 months to re-learn) and the fact the camera rarely comes out with me means i'm just not learning to shoot. I think I have to make the choice about whether I'm going to shoot with just primes (where it would be more beneficial to have a consistant crop factor across multiple cameras), or use zooms on one of the cameras, where it wouldn't be so much of an issue if I was too close/far away

I don't think i'm at the invoice stage yet, i'm very much at the tipping point of where the equipment I buy will dictate where I go as a photographer. I.e. studio or field. The course I'm doing at university is 'interactive product and service' design, and although not related to photography- it is very much related to advertising and is highly commercial, so I have found myself a lot of oppertunities to shoot product photography or to shoot ad campaigns which actually ended up going to press as most of the projects we are set are with a live client, it was really an unexpected (but mutual) bonus for the client to get a high quality campaign at a student price. But this whole experience has brought to light some issues with my current SLR as it is neither a studio quality camera, nor a walkabout camera, and I have no desire to be an event/sports photographer so i'm just not sure it's the right camera for me- although I do often get asked to shoot gigs/events/sports so the camera does see use there, enough to justify it over a 5dmk2, perhaps not...

at present I do make money from photography, but it is not full time- and i'm not even sure it's a career I really want to go into as a freelancer, I imagine that my skills and equipment would be beneficial to me as a designer as I could hold the position of in-house photographer/documentor which would likely be a valuable asset for a smaller company, maybe they would have access to medium format digital's I could borrow for studio work, but if they can afford to have MFD i'm sure they can afford to contract a pro, I really don't know- further research is required...


Basically I'm in a position where I have enough to buy the right tool for the job, I just need to figure out what that job is- and I don't want to make the wrong decision and have to work for years to be able to rectify my mistake

I am trying to avoid owning anything which only has one function as it would be difficult to justify to myself and my financial advisers (my parents...)



also it should probably be noted (as if you couldn't tell), that I am an aesthetic driven hipster who enjoys to look at and use beautiful objects- my justification for this is that it is my job to design and create things for people to enjoy and use, so I wish for my life to be stuffed full of enjoyable things. I dress sharply (bespoke suit, hermes tie) everyday as an aesthetic choice, you will rarely see me using anything for the sake of it, i'm not the kind of person to wear jeans and a t shirt and buy things that are on 'special offer', i'm the opposite of my bargain hunter pragmatic father and i'm not exactly your typical topman wearing, 550d sporting 'student' either (although I do love rice and beans...), so I think a commitment to luxury as opposed to nessescity is what defines me as a designer, as a photographer, and as a person. I make large, defining purchases with the long game in mind, 10 years from now when the leica is beyond obselete, it will still function as a sculptural object and as a source of inspiration for me as a designer.



I think it's clear that the 1d just has to go to be replaced by at least a 5d for now- but the build quality and AF of the 1d really do make me want to keep it! From my perspective as an aesthete it also looks very very cool I do have to say



I'm sorry this has turned into such a monster of a post
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Hmmm. Boredom seems to be the factor, we all suffer from time to time.

I find that AF is much faster than MF and that just could matter in some situations as although great critical focus isn't really required (IMVHO) in many images these days we pixel peep and expect everything to be extra sharp so speed matters if your subject is likely to move.

Personally I don't agree with Canon kit being too clinical and lacking in character. IMVHO it's just modern, well dsigned kit. A few minutes craping some paint off the body with an old dinner knife and a smear of vaseline on the lens should give you the character you're looking for :)

How about a MFT? A used G? or GH? and a few manual lenses or better still only one lens, Leica or Zeis if you like, might inspire you without emptying your bank account.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing AF as being quicker than MF, it usually is- but I just get the impression that i'm not 'making' a photograph when it's auto-everything. There is certainly a time and a place for autofocus, and I can imagine myself with a 70-200/24-70 as my pro 'ever ready' kit as SLR's are obviously designed with that in mind. But using prime lenses on an SLR is a bit like using a spanner as a hammer, it works but it's just not ideal. If i'm going to limit myself to a single focal length then the trade off better be worth it, and with the weight and size of even a small full frame SLR I don't think it's pocketable (the 550d is too ugly, annoying and has a tiny finder for me to spend £500 on, and the 60d perhaps comes out second best against the pentax k5)
The g/gh is an option, and a zeiss 21mm f2.8 would be perfect to share between the 2 cameras if only the zeiss ze had an apperture ring (and wasn't massive). There is always the nikon mount version I guess.
I played around with a gf1 and hated the lack of a viewfinder though. I did play with a gh1 last year and was impressed, but i'd really need a second go

at least if I buy the leica, the trade off is that it looks awesome, is small and light and is inspiring to use

decisions decisions :bonk:
 
Last edited:
If you want something nice to look at in 10 years buy a Leica M6 and you will still be able to use it. £5k for an M9 + 3 lenses at minimum of £1k each is a big commitment to make.

Rent a few nice Canon lenses as a lot of the lenses you listed owning aren't exactly known for being stellar performers.
 
Maybe try getting away from the equipment altogether for a bit - build yourself a pinhole camera? You wont get the instant gratification you're after but it will be very different to using your Canon gear.

For more of a middle way a Pentax adapter for your EOS bodies sounds like a good idea to me. I'm a big fan of those cheap old Takumars. Maybe pair that with a dirt cheap EOS 500 off ebay and some black and white film while you're at it, that'll change the aesthetic of what you're shooting and will be a lot smaller than your current Canon gear.
 
mrjames said:
I'm not disputing AF as being quicker than MF, it usually is- but I just get the impression that i'm not 'making' a photograph when it's auto-everything. There is certainly a time and a place for autofocus, and I can imagine myself with a 70-200/24-70 as my pro 'ever ready' kit as SLR's are obviously designed with that in mind. But using prime lenses on an SLR is a bit like using a spanner as a hammer, it works but it's just not ideal. If i'm going to limit myself to a single focal length then the trade off better be worth it, and with the weight and size of even a small full frame SLR I don't think it's pocketable (the 550d is too ugly, annoying and has a tiny finder for me to spend £500 on, and the 60d perhaps comes out second best against the pentax k5)
The g/gh is an option, and a zeiss 21mm f2.8 would be perfect to share between the 2 cameras if only the zeiss ze had an apperture ring (and wasn't massive). There is always the nikon mount version I guess.
I played around with a gf1 and hated the lack of a viewfinder though. I did play with a gh1 last year and was impressed, but i'd really need a second go

at least if I buy the leica, the trade off is that it looks awesome, is small and light and is inspiring to use

decisions decisions :bonk:
Click to expand...

Zuiko 21mm? - the lighter than, smaller than and damn near equal to Distagon lens? Upwards of 1k for a fast one though :eek:

if you're ever this way feel free to pop round and play with GH1 and manual lenses, as you may gather it keeps me entertained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top