Ordering Leica MP

[imageWIS]



Why do you assume because I asked a particular question here that I haven't considered others? I thought the forum might take some interest in a largely aesthetic issue.

That's why I used the word 'seem'. It seemed to me (and others) that you are putting more effort into contemplating the engraving than more fundamental aspects of the camera which are more important for the ultimate goal, which is to take awesome photos.

I bought the 5000ED because the Hasselbad/Imacon scanners you reference cost over $10k. The 5000ED reputedly delivers 98% of the quality at a fraction of the price, though still expensive these days since it is discontinued. Only Plustek currently makes a 35mm-dedicated scanner of decent quality, and it still does not measure up to the 5000ED. When I found a rare, sealed-in-box, unused 5000ED on eBay a few months ago, I snapped it up. So, yes, I have put a great deal of thought into this.

That was my point. At the level of photography you are talking about (the top-end of 35mm, after having invested in a Leica, lenses, and other accessories (not including the dark room set up), it only makes sense that if you want to digitize your photos, you would utilize the best equipment possible, to get the best quality scan possible. Since scanning is a one-time process, it makes sense to me, regardless of ones financial ability, is to send negatives out to a lab with a great scanner (like the X5 drum scanner in the url). Even if you can afford a 20K scanner, its pointless to buy one if you don't have a professional lab.

 

[venessian]



I will try not to be insulted....

Come on, nobody here is insulting you. In fact, there is some excellent advice in this thread. It's an open post, so perhaps not every reply is exclusively directed at you and you alone. I certainly didn't indicate that the MP is a "nonsensical" camera. The MP is a fantastic camera. I think you complete misunderstood my statement. I do hope you are not seriously equating discussing the engraving on a camera body with discussing "movies, books, paintings, etc." Obviously where the engraving is located, on your camera, is significant to you, and I completely understand that. But what more do you want us all to say? Everyone here, myself included, has expressed an opinion or made a suggestion, but perhaps beyond that it just isn't that deep a discussion....

Really? That's silly, knowing what speed film you have in the camera, especially if you shoot 1/2 the roll and then don't use the camera for a month, and forget what speed film you were using.

aizan’s statement surprised me too; mounting a fake film reminder dial is ridiculous. I wonder why they did that.

That was my point. At the level of photography you are talking about (the top-end of 35mm, after having invested in a Leica, lenses, and other accessories (not including the dark room set up), it only makes sense that if you want to digitize your photos, you would utilize the best equipment possible, to get the best quality scan possible. Since scanning is a one-time process, it makes sense to me, regardless of ones financial ability, is to send negatives out to a lab with a great scanner (like the X5 drum scanner in the url). Even if you can afford a 20K scanner, its pointless to buy one if you don't have a professional lab.

Absolutely. Once the home darkroom is set up, that equipment will be valid for decades. Scanning technology will be obsolete in years. I agree with what imageWIS wrote before, that the best possible scenario is: Develop: home. Print: home. Digitize: lab. I know quite a few photographers; all of them use either a pro lab or their university lab for scanning, as the equipment is always up to date for them.

 

[TheFoo]



That was my point. At the level of photography you are talking about (the top-end of 35mm, after having invested in a Leica, lenses, and other accessories (not including the dark room set up), it only makes sense that if you want to digitize your photos, you would utilize the best equipment possible, to get the best quality scan possible. Since scanning is a one-time process, it makes sense to me, regardless of ones financial ability, is to send negatives out to a lab with a great scanner (like the X5 drum scanner in the url). Even if you can afford a 20K scanner, its pointless to buy one if you don't have a professional lab.

I've heard quite the opposite from others, including photographers that use Leica. Not all labs use a Hasselbad or a drum scanner, often relying on equipment inferior to the Nikon 5000ED. And regardless of the equipment, it's the care and experience exercised in executing and processing the scans that makes most of the difference. In other words, I'd rather have all my negatives scanned smartly by a 5000ED than only moderately well with a Hasselbad; the former will yield better results, as the potential quality difference is arguably marginal to begin with.

Anyway, the beauty of shooting film is that the negatives will be around when better scanners become available. No need to worry about megapixel count.

 

[TheFoo]



Come on, nobody here is insulting you. In fact, there is some excellent advice in this thread. It's an open post, so perhaps not every reply is exclusively directed at you and you alone. I certainly didn't indicate that the MP is a "nonsensical" camera. The MP is a fantastic camera. I think you complete misunderstood my statement.

I understood it perfectly. You aren't following your own logic to its conclusion. The MP is, by design, limited in function compared to other rangefinders sold by Leica, past and present. There may be many good reasons to keep the light meter, but to argue that removing it is antithetical to the purpose of the MP is to either vastly misconstrue that purpose or simply an exercise in poor reasoning.

I do hope you are not seriously equating discussing the engraving on a camera body with discussing "movies, books, paintings, etc." Obviously where the engraving is located, on your camera, is significant to you, and I completely understand that. But what more do you want us all to say? Everyone here, myself included, has expressed an opinion or made a suggestion, but perhaps beyond that it just isn't that deep a discussion....

The Leica rangefinder is as iconic and beautiful piece of design as a Porsche 911. Part of the reason it perseveres is its beauty, and I consider it something worth consideration. As far as the value of seeking opinions on the aesthetics of personal details: perhaps I am just not so small-minded as to believe my taste cannot be influenced by what others have to say.

 

[aizan]



Really? That's silly, knowing what speed film you have in the camera, especially if you shoot 1/2 the roll and then don't use the camera for a month, and forget what speed film you were using.

yup. maybe they did that because it was easier and cheaper, or maybe the dealer had fond memories of his m4-2 or m4-p.

now, why they didn't paint it black is harder to understand.

scanning is one of those pick two out of three situations: high quality, low cost, convenience. i packed up my scanners after digitizing the family photos. if you want to upload photos to the internet, it's easier to let the lab take care of it. you don't need great scans for that. if you can't set up a darkroom, a film scanner and inkjet printer is a good way to diy at home.

 

[imageWIS]



yup. maybe they did that because it was easier and cheaper, or maybe the dealer had fond memories of his m4-2 or m4-p.

now, why they didn't paint it black is harder to understand.

scanning is one of those pick two out of three situations: high quality, low cost, convenience. i packed up my scanners after digitizing the family photos. if you want to upload photos to the internet, it's easier to let the lab take care of it. you don't need great scans for that. if you can't set up a darkroom, a film scanner and inkjet printer is a good way to diy at home.

My photos were all scanned using a flatbed scanner (designed for photos) that we had in the digital room of the photo-lab at school. Granted, I was able to choose the options regarding dpi (I can't recall what I used, I have notes somewhere in a notebook in FL), so I used the highest setting possible (I looked at the file attributes and the size of 12 negatives is 12800 × 29120, 745 MB), amongst other settings, which on the one hand is great since I have greater control. However, my scans will not look as good as if I would have sent them to a great lab that specializes in say, digitizing negatives for professional art.

When it comes to digitization, like you mention, its all about what you are using the scans for. Personally, however, I like to have everything stored in the highest quality possible, just in case I ever feel like having a photo printed and mounted. I also consider that I have edited the composition, attributes and other variables of my photos, so to redo all that editing all over again is unbelievably time consuming.

 

[venessian]



I've heard quite the opposite from others, including photographers that use Leica. Not all labs use a Hasselbad or a drum scanner, often relying on equipment inferior to the Nikon 5000ED. And regardless of the equipment, it's the care and experience exercised in executing and processing the scans that makes most of the difference. In other words, I'd rather have all my negatives scanned smartly by a 5000ED than only moderately well with a Hasselbad; the former will yield better results, as the potential quality difference is arguably marginal to begin with. Anyway, the beauty of shooting film is that the negatives will be around when better scanners become available. No need to worry about megapixel count.

I think everyone who has posted on this subject has prefaced their comments by indicating that the lab be a professional lab, one with the best, most current equipment. That equipment will be progressively updated. Are you going to continually update your 5000ED, as better versions come on the market? Whether or not the anti-lab photographers you spoke with use Leica is completely irrelevant to the issue of scanner quality. Color negatives too? Transparencies?

I understood it perfectly. You aren't following your own logic to its conclusion. The MP is, by design, limited in function compared to other rangefinders sold by Leica, past and present. There may be many good reasons to keep the light meter, but to argue that removing it is antithetical to the purpose of the MP is to either vastly misconstrue that purpose or simply poor reasoning. The Leica rangefinder is as iconic and beautiful piece of design as a Porsche 911. Part of the reason it perseveres is its beauty, and I consider it something worth consideration. As far as the value of seeking opinions on the aesthetics of personal details: perhaps I am just not so small-minded as to believe my taste cannot be influenced by what others have to say.

Frankly, your obstinacy re: considered advice and statements re: my logic and "small-mindedness" are becoming tedious. At least 3 people here who seem pretty experienced recommend scanning by a lab, and you apparently reject that suggestion...for illogical reasons, to boot. OK, but I still think you're wrong. I know what the MP is, and where it fits in the range. My logic (which includes a Deardorff 5x7 if you want to talk stripped-down functions, along with long-term experience in photography including a degree) doesn't understand buying a very expensive camera and then deleting components from that design in order to...do what, exactly? Achieve simplicity? In that case logic would advise you to just buy an excellent black M4 or M2 (I would take either over an MP Classic), save money, invest in lenses and darkroom. I thought I provided a good (albeit a practical, not philosophical or aesthetic) reason for keeping the light meter on the MP, esp. considering it comes with one. I personally don't understand removing it, when there are myriad excellent film cameras without built-in meters readily available. Why do you continue to push this aesthetic issue as if I have refuted it? I certainly agree that Leica rangefinders are extremely beautiful, but we're not discussing that...we're discussing engraving options on one particular camera for one particular client and I already gave you my opinion on that: the most minimal possible, and if Leica won't remove certain engravings, then ask if they can paint those particular elements black rather than white (which, as I previously stated, I think would look elegant). What more can I/we say? We can't really discuss hypothetical revisions (ones not provided in a la carte) without knowing whether Leica would agree to those. Just put the ******* engraving wherever you want and go make good use of the camera. For the record, I am not so small-minded that my taste cannot be influenced by others; my feelings about pants cuff size have been quite strongly influenced by...you.

yup. maybe they did that because it was easier and cheaper, or maybe the dealer had fond memories of his m4-2 or m4-p. if you can't set up a darkroom, a film scanner and inkjet printer is a good way to diy at home.

Weird. Perhaps I have misunderstood. By "if you can't set up a darkroom" do you mean no darkroom at all, or only no ability to print (I mean in a darkroom)? Because if one can't even develop film at home then isn't it simpler to have the film developed and scanned (even at more than one resolution if required) at the same time by the lab, rather than having the lab develop and then scan film at home?

 

[imageWIS]

Foo,

If you are going to shoot B+W, please, please, please develop the film at home. Trust me, no lab on earth is ever going develop B+W as well as you will, by hand. I speak from experience, utilizing several labs. The good thing is that its rather easy, and pretty inexpensive to develop B+W film at home, you don't even need a dark room, just a light-proof bag.

 

[aizan]

i mean not having a darkroom with an enlarger, water supply, and all the other knick knacks.

to develop film (b&w) at home, you'll need a film changing bag if you don't have a darkroom. anyone can do that. color film is a little more difficult and you might want to let the lab develop it instead. you'd need a special thermometer and some other stuff to control water temp and agitation, and be very precise and methodical.

from a 35mm neg, flatbed scanners can put out an excellent 4x6 print, film scanners a 5x7 or 6x9 print, and drum scanners an 8x10 or 8x12 print (or larger). you can go one paper size larger and still get a pretty good print. beyond that is stretching it. that's a good reason to set up a darkroom, if you asked me!

leicas, being luxury goods, sort of beg to have more money thrown at them. and it's fun!

 

[venessian]



Foo, If you are going to shoot B+W, please, please, please develop the film at home. Trust me, no lab on earth is ever going develop B+W as well as you will, by hand. I speak from experience, utilizing several labs. The good thing is that its rather easy, and pretty inexpensive to develop B+W film at home, you don't even need a dark room, just a light-proof bag.

+ 1000.

i mean not having a darkroom with an enlarger, water supply, and all the other knick knacks. to develop film (b&w) at home, you'll need a film changing bag if you don't have a darkroom. anyone can do that. color film is a little more difficult and you might want to let the lab develop it instead. you'd need a special thermometer and some other stuff to control water temp and agitation, and be very precise and methodical. from a 35mm neg, flatbed scanners can put out an excellent 4x6 print, film scanners a 5x7 or 6x9 print, and drum scanners an 8x10 or 8x12 print (or larger). you can go one paper size larger and still get a pretty good print. beyond that is stretching it. that's a good reason to set up a darkroom, if you asked me! leicas, being luxury goods, sort of beg to have more money thrown at them. and it's fun!

Got it, and I agree. B&W film is extremely easy, and color is only marginally more difficult. Most of the time I was developing 5x7 BW sheet film, so any canister developing was much more simple, and temp. control equally rigorous in all 3 instances. Yes, having the full darkroom is the best, and printing is the most fun by far.

 

[TheFoo]



yup. maybe they did that because it was easier and cheaper, or maybe the dealer had fond memories of his m4-2 or m4-p.

The original M3 also had a non-rotating ISO reminder dial. The current rotating dial on the MP is an evolution of what they put on the M6.

My photos were all scanned using a flatbed scanner (designed for photos) that we had in the digital room of the photo-lab at school. Granted, I was able to choose the options regarding dpi (I can't recall what I used, I have notes somewhere in a notebook in FL), so I used the highest setting possible (I looked at the file attributes and the size of 12 negatives is 12800 × 29120, 745 MB), amongst other settings, which on the one hand is great since I have greater control. However, my scans will not look as good as if I would have sent them to a great lab that specializes in say, digitizing negatives for professional art.

Well, your problem begins with having to use a flatbed scanner. They will never be able to scan a 35mm negative better than dedicated film scanners (like the 5000ED). Also, regardless of what spec sheets say or what you set your scanner to, 4000dpi is where quality maxes out. And in truth, few scanners actually reach 4000dpi, even if they say they do.

I think everyone who has posted on this subject has prefaced their comments by indicating that the lab be a professional lab, one with the best, most current equipment. That equipment will be progressively updated. Are you going to continually update your 5000ED, as better versions come on the market?

Maybe you are not as well-versed as you believe. The market for film scanners shrank dramatically over the past decade. Nobody is developing top-line models anymore. The Nikon 5000ED was the best film scanner for 35mm film short of an Imacon (now, Hasselbad) when it was released in 2004 and was never surpassed. Versus an Imacon/Hasselbad scanner, results are close enough that the operator matters more than the scanner. It was discontinued in 2008 or 2009. It’s original MSRP was $1,100. Now, good-condition used models sell for over $3,000 on eBay.

In short, there is little to no chance of a better film scanner coming out any time soon and the quality of the scans are near best possible.

At least 3 people here who seem pretty experienced recommend scanning by a lab . . .

On a clothing forum, and one of whom doesn’t have a strong grasp of scanning technology.

I know what the MP is, and where it fits in the range. My logic (which includes a Deardorff 5x7 if you want to talk stripped-down functions, along with long-term experience in photography including a degree) doesn't understand buying a very expensive camera and then deleting components from that design in order to...do what, exactly? Achieve simplicity? In that case logic would advise you to just buy an excellent black M4 or M2 (I would take either over an MP Classic), save money, invest in lenses and darkroom.

You cannot be this dense. The MP was designed as a pared down camera, under the philosophy that fewer features can actually improve its utility as a tool for taking pictures. Thus, your original point that it’s stupid to remove features from a camera and, therefore, stupid to remove features from the MP, is poorly reasoned. Put another way: if you think it’s stupid to remove features from a camera, the MP is inherently stupid to you and you’re better off buying an M7 (or a DSLR, for that matter).

Moreover, Leica’s A la Carte program exists specifically to allow customers to modify the features of their cameras, including the MP.

There may be many good reasons to keep the light meter, but not based on your argument that removing it contradicts the design and purpose of an A la Carte MP.

As for investing in a good lens: I don’t see why you’d assume I haven’t already accounted for it. I asked a simple question about aesthetics. That you assume I haven’t thought of anything else is your own failure of comprehension.

Why do you continue to push this aesthetic issue as if I have refuted it? I certainly agree that Leica rangefinders are extremely beautiful, but we're not discussing that...we're discussing engraving options on one particular camera for one particular client . . .

Jeezus. Are you actually mentally processing the stuff you write? By your reasoning here, it makes no sense to discuss the aesthetics of things that people don’t physically share. Of course it will be my own personal camera, but that doesn’t mean that my aesthetic appreciation for its design and details cannot be influenced or guided by information I receive from others. Why the heck is that so difficult for you to grasp?

 

[TheFoo]



I have no thoughts on the engraving, and I didn't even know that could be customized. To be blunt, many of the questions you're asking indicate that you are a beginning photographer, or at least one who is not familiar with many basic photographic principles: worrying about things like forgoing a light meter, sunny 16, etc. These are not either-or binary kinds of choices. You use what is given to you as it is appropriate for the situation. I don't want to discourage you from asking more questions, but formulating your shooting style before you even have your tool is putting the cart before the horse, and indicates newbieness and possible poseurship, and an unawareness of what is important in photography. Sorry.

I bet if you delayed buying the MP for 1 year, and perhaps the engraving will do that for you, and used your cellphone camera every day, taking at least 100 shots/week, and thoughtfully edit and study them at the end of each week, you will be a much, much better photographer when you finally do get your MP, and have a better idea of how to use it to suit your artistic vision.

--Andre

1. Obtaining the tool must precede using the tool. One will necessarily lack experience with any given tool until after he’s obtained it.

2. I don’t have an “artistic vision,” nor do I intend to carefully nurture one. I buy bespoke clothes to wear them, not to put on a one-man fashion show or play dress-up. Likewise, I intend to buy a camera to take pictures, not to become an artist. I choose film over digital because I like the way it looks better, not because it furthers my artistry. I choose a Leica MP because I like finely made, well-designed objects intended for permanence and because Leica glass is the best there is.

We can all agree that a Leica will not make one a better photographer; just as a better guitar will not make one a better guitar player, or a better knife a better cook. Yet it should be equally obvious that you don’t need the most skill to enjoy using a nice camera, guitar, or knife.

Anyway, I may be less well-versed in photography than I’d like, but that doesn’t mean I’m entirely without experience, knowledge or skill. Moroever, I’m confident in my general acuity for visual arts. I’m sure I’ll be just fine.

 

[A Y]



1. Obtaining the tool must precede using the tool. One will necessarily lack experience with any given tool until after he’s obtained it.

So why are you limiting yourself when you clearly have no idea whether you want to limit yourself (cf. asking about sunny 16)?

2. I don’t have an “artistic vision,” nor do I intend to carefully nurture one. I buy bespoke clothes to wear them, not to put on a one-man fashion show or play dress-up. Likewise, I intend to buy a camera to take pictures, not to become an artist. I choose film over digital because I like the way it looks better, not because it furthers my artistry. I choose a Leica MP because I like finely made, well-designed objects intended for permanence and because Leica glass is the best there is.

The reference to bespoke clothing is a non sequitur, especially in the context of men's clothing. The rest of the paragraph just makes me sad, but I suppose that is the bulk of their market these days. As for Leica glass being the best there is, such normative proclamation makes no sense without saying how you're going to use the lens or camera.

--Andre

 

[TheFoo]



So why are you limiting yourself when you clearly have no idea whether you want to limit yourself (cf. asking about sunny 16)?

Did I say I'd made the decision? I mentioned I was considering it and solicited input. The whole point of asking for others' experiences is to determine whether removing the light meter is a limitation at all. If it's possible to walk without a crutch, it's easier to learn to do it without one.

The reference to bespoke clothing is a non sequitur, especially in the context of men's clothing. The rest of the paragraph just makes me sad, but I suppose that is the bulk of their market these days. As for Leica glass being the best there is, such normative proclamation makes no sense without saying how you're going to use the lens or camera.

How on earth is it a non sequitur? Bespoke clothing is an example I'd think this forum particularly ready to comprehend. One should buy bespoke clothes because he enjoys it and can afford it, not because he's earned the right through practice. Whether he has any style has got nothing to do with whether his clothes are bespoke and bespoke clothing will not grant anyone more style.

My potential talent as a photographer is unknown, and no camera will increase that potential. But in any event, I think I would enjoy this camera. You may think such a perspective flippant or impoverished, but the opposing view is at least as impoverished and infinitely more snobbish.

 

[venessian]

OJFC. What a load. I was going to write a longer response, but between the arrogance and the insults it just isn’t worth it. This thread has become ridiculous and inane.

My potential talent as a photographer is unknown, and no camera will increase that potential.

While the first part of this phrase is correct, the second is not. Therein lies the problem.