"DSLRs Are the New Leica"

Location
Seattle
Name
Andrew

Samuel Street life/ Samuel Lin Taro obviously picked a somewhat absurd title, but does a pretty good job in the article telling what that rings true for him (obviously not everyone). I found it interesting. I've watched his channel skew inevitably towards Leica, more for the prestige and the aura of authenticity surrounding the brand than for anything it contributed to his specific style. He's a Ricoh GR shooter for quite a while and that's was originally drew me to his channel. He did the Leica thing for a year and decided it wasn't for him - probably a good idea to work through that GAS and know at the end point whether something is for you - except, of course, as a content creator on YouTube your videos can still be viewed in isolation from one another, so his Leica phase might not represent his ongoing feelings.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting how he compared the now-legacy DSLR system with the other legacy system, the rangefinder. I've gone a similar path, minus the Leicas which were just.out of my price range. I don't think the Pentax K1 is the best camera I could ever use.for my purposes, but I appreciate the way it makes its inevitable compromises. It's a very good tool for me at this point, and opens up some new avenues to explore. I think the affordability of SLR glass is probably the best thing about choosing to use one nowadays, followed by the IQ of the great sensors put into the recent (possibly tail end) DSLRs out there.
 
I am happy to see him talk bluntly about Leica. And to see him move on to different systems. It also confirms my thoughts on why I don't want one.
 
I totally get the appeal of rangefinders. And of Leica rangefinders as well. But there is a subsection of photographers who think they will ascend to a plane of higher authenticity if they only have a Leica.
I have found that true of several people that used Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Contax, and Minolta SLRs. Photographers that identify with one brand and laud it over all others. Leica more with the Internet, because so few photographers use them you are unlikely to see one in real life. Until switching to Digital- I used Leica, Nikon, Canon, Contax, and Kodak Retina interchangeable lens Rangefinders. I can use most of the lenses from all with adapters in the Leica, the Retina lenses on the Nikon Df.
 
I think mainly because of the influence of the internet, there are a large number of young people who view Leicas as cult/totem objects. On Reddit, for example, you see this behavior, people posting photos of their cameras and lenses and adulating those who have high-status lenses and bodies. And on YouTube, where thousands of newly minted hipster "Leica Experts" post video after video with their newbie revelations about owning Leicas and lenses.

I have to say that I see quite a large number of "Leicas in the wild" here in NYC. Many are wielded by tourists or weekend flea market warriors. If I carry my Leica I don't display it. I keep it hidden in a cheap bag until I'm ready to shoot something.
 
Not too fussed on brands myself. I subscribe to the old adage -the best camera is the one you have with you. And that's likely to be one that you really enjoy using, and is not too big & heavy to bring with you. That's what brought me to m4/3. It's not the best there is out there in camera world as far as image quality, but is more than good enough, & you can create a small, weathersealed/proof high quality kit that breaks neither the back, or the bank. I have a little, high quality kit that comes with me basically everywhere. It may not get used every time I carry it, but it's there in case. And it's great fun to use.
 
I've used many different brands lots of Canon (rangefinder, FD, EF) and various things from 5x7 on down. I currently am using my Leica M 240 and my D7100 DSLR and pulled my Rolleicord III out of storage since I now have access to a lab. But they just happen to be the ones I'm using, there is no epiphany at this point in any of them beyond that of seeing a keeper for the first time.

That said any well-made camera is a joy to use. It could be a Speed Graphic, a Canon T90 or P, or the Olympus EP-3 I had - I find the three I am using right now to be very good examples of that.

And I do thank those who actually have known what they're talking about (Brian is a major one) over the years for teaching me so very much.
 
Haha. I'd like to see one of these new lens "experts" running into Brian. Especially Brian.

I'm reminded of that Woody Allen film where he is waiting on line and listening to some guy talking about Marshall McLuhan. Woody Allen gets fed up and says the guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Woody then pulls over Marshall McLuhan in person who says to the guy "You understand nothing about my work!"

Woody Allen meets Marshall McLuhan - YouTube

Yeah- been running into those types for years, those that think they know it all... Are really annoying to those of us that actually know what we are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Yeah- been running into those types for years, those that think they know it all... Are really annoying to those of us that actually know what we are talking about.

I'm just really annoyed by those that think there are absolutes and THEIR absolutes are the "right" way. They often spout just plain falsehoods as well.

While there is science to photography - that is the easy part. The art of photography is the hard part and the one that a lot don't get. Some never get past the "gear" stage and think that if they can just afford that better lens or the "pro" body, they will ascend to a higher level.

We are all different and I find that after going through many iterations of self introspection that the simpler the camera and the more stills-focused it is, the easier it is for me to connect in the moment and forget about the technical aspects and get more into the creation of the image.
 
Last edited:
I watched the video with not that much concentration, and to me one notion I agree with was that shooting a DSLR (can) feel much like shooting film. Not a surprise, really, since the cameras are derived from basically the same stock. For me, getting an EOS 6D after the X-Pro1 felt refreshingly like shooting a late nineties film SLR. There's this feeling of immediacy. Though for me the limit here is full frame. I didn't like the cheaper APS-C bodies at all. Might have more to do with the "cheap", though, than sensor size, albeit viewfinder size does generally strongly correlate with the former...

I've been tossing around the idea of getting an old Nikon DSLR - a 600/610 or 800/810 - and limiting lens selection to the older screw drives and maybe manual focus lenses. But I'm unsure whether I'd ever use such a thing in the end. I have limited time to go out and shoot, and when I'm in the field I'm there to take photographs, not play around with gear. And a D810 wouldn't make me a better/worse photographer in any way, shape or form compared to my Sony a7R III or a7C. But it might still feel refreshing, who knows...
 
I watched the video with not that much concentration, and to me one notion I agree with was that shooting a DSLR (can) feel much like shooting film. Not a surprise, really, since the cameras are derived from basically the same stock. For me, getting an EOS 6D after the X-Pro1 felt refreshingly like shooting a late nineties film SLR. There's this feeling of immediacy. Though for me the limit here is full frame. I didn't like the cheaper APS-C bodies at all. Might have more to do with the "cheap", though, than sensor size, albeit viewfinder size does generally strongly correlate with the former...

I've been tossing around the idea of getting an old Nikon DSLR - a 600/610 or 800/810 - and limiting lens selection to the older screw drives and maybe manual focus lenses. But I'm unsure whether I'd ever use such a thing in the end. I have limited time to go out and shoot, and when I'm in the field I'm there to take photographs, not play around with gear. And a D810 wouldn't make me a better/worse photographer in any way, shape or form compared to my Sony a7R III or a7C. But it might still feel refreshing, who knows...
That way lies madness ...

Only half joking ...
 
That way lies madness ...

Only half joking ...
Well, I'm already half-bonkers...

But seriously though, DSLR's might achieve some hipster status in the coming years, but I don't really see them achieving cult status as high as Leicas. Leica is still after all quite alone making mechanical rangefinders. And since they've always been restrictive compared to SLR's, they're not abundant the same way.
 
Well, I'm already half-bonkers...

But seriously though, DSLR's might achieve some hipster status in the coming years, but I don't really see them achieving cult status as high as Leicas. Leica is still after all quite alone making mechanical rangefinders. And since they've always been restrictive compared to SLR's, they're not abundant the same way.
Well as the camera market is getting smaller and smaller. I think just using a camera could already be considered "hipster", today. How many people with cameras do you see every week?
 
Well as the camera market is getting smaller and smaller. I think just using a camera could already be considered "hipster", today. How many people with cameras do you see every week?
Good point. But at the same time as more and more people only use their phones for what they photograph, more and more of our world is becoming controlled through touchscreens. And the more I have to use them in everything, the more I absolutely positively loathe them. Yes, you can do almost anything with them and at the same time they suck at everything. So using anything that's been designed physically with the intention to perform some specific task - such as a camera - might become ever more refreshing an experience for many. Actually a hammer would be the perfect example of a purposeful object, it's clearly intended to go through a useless touchscreen.
 
Good point. But at the same time as more and more people only use their phones for what they photograph, more and more of our world is becoming controlled through touchscreens. And the more I have to use them in everything, the more I absolutely positively loathe them. Yes, you can do almost anything with them and at the same time they suck at everything. So using anything that's been designed physically with the intention to perform some specific task - such as a camera - might become ever more refreshing an experience for many. Actually a hammer would be the perfect example of a purposeful object, it's clearly intended to go through a useless touchscreen.
I don't completely agree about the touchscreens. Since I got back into photography a few years ago, 99.9% of my pics have been composed using the backscreen. It's easier on my eyes, and if I'm not using a manual lens, I can get away without my glasses. Frustration with phone cameras, is however, what drove me to get a camera. I'm sure the latest / greatest phones are worlds better then the second hand iPhone 6 i had at the time, but I have little interest in paying the obscene prices for the latest and greatest phones.
 
I don't completely agree about the touchscreens. Since I got back into photography a few years ago, 99.9% of my pics have been composed using the backscreen. It's easier on my eyes, and if I'm not using a manual lens, I can get away without my glasses. Frustration with phone cameras, is however, what drove me to get a camera. I'm sure the latest / greatest phones are worlds better then the second hand iPhone 6 i had at the time, but I have little interest in paying the obscene prices for the latest and greatest phones.
I made a thread here a while ago about how I feel about optical viewfinders, EVFs and rear screens - basically, a bad optical viewfinder (usually I mean small, or dark) or a bad EVF (bad colors, low-res, grainy, etc.) deter me from "connection" with the process. A good OVF makes me feel connected with the scene. A good EVF, or a good rear screen, makes me feel connected to the resulting image. They're different, but they both work for me.
 
I don't completely agree about the touchscreens. Since I got back into photography a few years ago, 99.9% of my pics have been composed using the backscreen. It's easier on my eyes, and if I'm not using a manual lens, I can get away without my glasses. Frustration with phone cameras, is however, what drove me to get a camera. I'm sure the latest / greatest phones are worlds better then the second hand iPhone 6 i had at the time, but I have little interest in paying the obscene prices for the latest and greatest phones.
Oh, I have no objection to using the rear screen for compositing. It's touchscreens I hate, the touch part. And the current insistence in making everything controlled through those. Even cars nowadays have touchscreens, and in worst cases they're used for controlling everything, even the wipers. And in situations where you should keep your eyes on the road, they're kinda dangerous. You can't operate a touchscreen by feel.

Though much of my hate for those things stems from factory automation, where they're also used for controlling all sorts of things. And usually the logic controllers don't really have enough computing power for running a touch UI. So in addition to giving no feedback to the user, they're also hopelessly unresponsive.
 
Back
Top