What does he mean it has almost no controls? Aperture/focussing ring are on the lens, there’s a shutter speed dial on the top, and there is an ISO adjust button (which you use with the menu ring). The only thing I can think of that’s not easily to-hand is the exposure comp – that is a bit of a nuisance as it’s a submenu but usually I set it once for the scene at hand and leave it at that…

/M9 user who is not a celebrity or a member of the “glitterati”.

His wife is a pro photog, but her work is fairly run-of-the-mill washed out wedding fare.  Nothing wrong with it (well, depending on who you’re asking), but nothing special either.

For such a famous and well-reviewed camera, this is an odd review to choose.

He’s a perfect choice if you want to demonstrate that, while Leica film cameras were/are excellent, their digital cameras made him abandon them when he went digital. 

In every interview I can find he says that he first switched to a medium format Pentax, and now uses a custom-modified Canon 1D.

He has expressed hope in interviews that Leica will one day make digital cameras that he can use, and that the S2 seemed promising but it wasn’t there yet.

I’d love to see images he has taken with a Leica digital if you can find a link.

Thanks for mentioning him though – here’s a sample of what he’s producing with digital now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2012/dec/07/photography-sebastiao-salgado-genesis

it’s focused at 3″; 6″; 10″; etc.

Your comment is great, easily the most informative one so far, and I clicked the “Like” button myself, but I want to point out that if you keep using quotation marks to mean feet you’re likely to wind up with a Stonehenge monument that is danger of being crushed by a dwarf, as the saying goes.

Some people find a Leica rangefinder reconnects them with their love of photography, for instance:

 Leica M-E – why it’s worth the money – Guardian photographer Sarah Lee on the camera that has reinvigorated her passion for photography, and how to justify the cost attached to it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/photography-blog/2012/dec/28/leica-m-e-rangefinder-photography

or: http://amanwithaleica.tumblr.com/

Personally I’ve always been more of a b&w film SLR person. Those cameras were alot smaller than these modern DSLR tanks we can haul about now. Thus one’s direct involvement with the scene, and the making of an image was one that was more connected than the DSLR experience.

So I am a bit intrigued with Leica’s M Monochrom offering: http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_monochrom/

Although early on, the ability to  see a scene more clearly directly through the lens I use, was my preference. Considering too that Leica’s were never cheap in the currency of any day only made my preference easier to live with, while noting that Leica’s seemed to be more of a fashion accessory for the glitterati once I noticed them about.

I was a bit unnerved yesterday when I saw a comment that the old Leica lenses used whale oil, so they tend to fog with age. Personally I quite prefer the company of whales to any Leica lens I might be induced to desire.

Try Sebastio Salgado for someone who’s using Leica in the 21st Century. 

I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the article was about contemporary DSLRs, not 20th century film cameras.

Perspective distortion is solely a matter of the ratio of distances in a composition.  The distance ratio depends on the camera placement. 

Retrofocus lens design does not impact on either of these factors.

Perspective = camera distance from subject, regardless of focal length.

First let me agree with the critics, Leicas are absurdly expensive. It’s a combination of the Leica “name” (sometimes called the “Leica Tax”), the collector’s market and the fact that they are still hand manufactured by the “Gnomes at Solms.” The rangefinder in particular is a complicated mechanical part, as is the linkage between the rangefinder and lens. The lenses are similarly made (I hear it takes a year to make a Noctilux). Luckily you can find lenses on the used market (advantages of keeping the same lens mount for 50+ years) and Cosina/Zeiss make some nice, cheaper alternatives to the Leica glass.

Technically, digital Leica rangefinders are also well behind the times. High ISO performance is poor compared to the latest and greatest in the SLR world.

That said, I enjoy shooting with my Leica more than any other camera (aside from the Epson R-D1 that got me started in the rangefinder world). It feels comfortable in my hand. The weight is right for extended use (I carried it around for 12 hours a day on a trip to the South Caucasus with no discomfort). The lenses are tiny, so the whole kit fits in a small bag. I find focusing with the rangefinder suits me, since you can see beyond the frame and I find it easier to pinpoint focus (I can’t say I’m very fast though). I also like the physical controls (shutter speed, aperture), and I have learned a lot about photography from using them.

I also find I like the images I produce with the Leica more than those I take with others. I think it encourages me to be more deliberate in my shooting, and some combination of the lenses and sensor gives a rather appealing rendition of my subject (you might be able to get the same look with a Lightroom profile, but I haven’t found it yet).

So, basically what I’m saying is this. Find a camera you like using and stick with it. I have more fun and get pictures I love with my under spec-ed and overpriced Leica. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.

Their retrofocus (and reverse retrofocus) designs were responsible for this… when you can get closer to the film plane without a mirror box, you don`t need as much magnification, so you don`t get the longer lens perspective effect.Others did this, but Leica was known for doing it the best.

DXOlabs publishes both normalized (subsampled data which equalizes values to an image level) and straight-up per-pixel data.  You will see comparing like-to-like that CMOS stomps all over CCD today.  A large part of this is the fact that manufactures have made great strides in moving the ADCs closer to the photosite, Nikon/Sony have moved the ADCs on-die to even more significantly reduce noise levels. That can’t be done with traditional CCD technology.

Regardless, all the high-sensitivity sensors are CMOS today.  The fact that medium format CCD sensors can’t achieve the light sensitivity (on an image, not pixel level) of an inexpensive APS CMOS sensor despite a significant physical advantage only underlines the point.

I don’t think there’s anything particularly magical that Leitz lenses could do to change this.

The manual focus rangefinder has largely been replaced by autofocus SLRs for good reasons, but the implication that it’s only for “celebrities holding Leicas” is wrong.

Perspective distortion is (roughly) a function of focal length (magnification). With wide angle lenses, closer objects appear closer than distant objects (expanded perspective)… with telephoto lenses perspective is compressed. This is different than say, the typical barrel or pincushion distortion that you see produced by wide angle lenses.

An ideal lens would be able to produce the same perspective and field of view as the human eye. Using the 24×36 frame as a reference, a 30mm lens gives (roughly) the same field of view, but a 70mm lens the same perspective. The compromise is the standard 50mm.