Do many Leica M photographers actually use a Leica M camera to photograph the landscape? I keep hearing of how wonderful it is in photographing people as in street photography. I agree, but what about landscape photography? Look at your typical MF or LF landscape photographer. The vast majority of them are using nothing more in lens focal length than what would be the equivelent of a semi-wide angle to a short telephoto lens in the 35mm format. My tripod mounted M4,35 summi asph, 50 summi (latest) and 90 elmerit m deliver stunning images when used in this way. Polarizing is easy. Why don't I read of more Leica M photographers using their equipment to the fullest for this type of photography? Just one curious photographer... :-}

-- ron snyder (studio1401@aol.com), January 06, 2002

Answers

Try to locate a book, "Lens, Light and Landscape...The art and technique of scenic photography" by Brian Bower. Many if not most of the images in this book are shot with 35mm Leicas, and many with M series cameras. There are some very nice shots in there.

I will use my M camera if that is what I have with me. If I know in advance that landscapes are my desire though, I'll use an SLR. I like to control all of the variables if I can, so I'll use the tripod, cable release, stop the lens down and most importantly (and my biggest deterrent to using the M), I'll use filters that require the viewing through the lens, like graduated neutral density filters.

Often I will be surprised at the quality of the "grab-shot" landscapes done with the M camera, but still for the ultimate in control for a 35mm image, I'll go to the SLR given the choice.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 06, 2002.

Scenic travel photography, and landscapes while backpacking are about all I use the Leica M for. True, when I'm travelling by private automobile and don't need to walk too far from it I prefer the Hasselblad, but unfortunately that's not most of the time. (I toyed with the idea of a Mamiya-7 but found it too plasticky-feeling for my taste). Polarizing is not a problem as you pointed out. What are problems are 1. determining exact framing at longer distances (the M framelines are sized for the closest distances, you get quite a bit more on film at 10m-infinity); and 2. using graduated neutral-density filters. Neither problems are insurmountable with a little experimentation and perhaps a bit of ingenuity. I've developed easy systems that work for each. If you check out Brian Bower's Leica M Book and Lens,Light and Landscape you will find another (more well- known) photographer who uses the M to advantage as a landscape camera. To the second part of your question, I think one reason you don't read about more photographers using the M for landscapes is that many new owners believe the hype for the M Leica being a street-shooting, available-darkness camera means it can't or shouldn't be expected to perform in any other arena. In otherwords, everyone with a Leica can see outside the frame but only a few think outside the box.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 06, 2002.

I'll agree that the graduated neutral density filter cannot be used effectively on a Leica M, but I know of no other filter that can't be used. Using a polarizer is no problem at all, as I use the two filter method. After years of using Nikon F3's & N-90S' its not difficult to choose an appropriate f-stop and/or an appropriate shutter speed without having to pre-visualize it. This comes from experience. The use of slow, fine grained film, cable release, tripod, etc... is of coarse being used. I cannot find a single reason to believe that a Nikon, Canon or any other 35mm system would be any better at these prescribed focal lengths. I do fully understand that 135mm is the longest focal length that can reasonably used with the M cameras, (mime is 90mm) but I am speaking spacifically of focal lengths of semi-wide to short telephoto length. I know 200mm etc.. is out of the question but then again MF & LF photographers aren't using those equivilent focal lengths either, yet no one believes they are at a photographic disadvantage because they don't have a do-all 21-400mm zoom lens or a dozen different primes with which to do landscape photography. still wondering....;-)

-- ron snyder (studio1401@aol.com), January 06, 2002.

Nice'ly put Jay. Btw, thanks for all your helpful advise.

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), January 06, 2002.

An SLR (and a bigger negative) have some advantages over a 35mm rangefinder for this type of photography. I don't remember there being many (or any?) Leica M users active in the "nature" section of photo.net. But the Leica M is a superb quality, relatively basic and compact 35mm camera system, and can of course works great for most kinds of photography, including landscapes(unless you need a 500mm lens or 1 to 1 macro). I often take my Minolta CLE or M3, 40 Rokkor, and 90 Elmarit on nature outings with the intent of bringing back some nice detailed images of the natural world-while still traveling light. Other times, I use a medium format camera on a tripod, especially if I'm hoping to get an image I can make a giant grainless print of. I know some people have expressed they just don't find landscape photography that interesting, but I certainly still enjoy it regardless of what camera I happen to have with me.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 06, 2002.

Strictly speaking, the upper limit for the M system using only Leica M equipment is the 800/6.3 Telyt-V, and with the Visoflex it is also possble to go well beyond 1:1 with a bellows and Photars. Without the Visoflex macro is out, but I routinely add the Komura 2x to my 135 APO-Telyt with results at middle apertures that beat any Japanese variable-aperture zoom at 300mm that I've tried, and equal the 300/4 Nikkor I owned until recently.

I use the circular graduated ND filters on the M6, and I adjust the horizontal level of the gradation by changing aperture. I made a set of test slides with each lens against a blank background, at various apertures, put them in a transparent slide storage page and used to refer to them to set the proper aperture depending on where I wanted the split to occur. After a while I got so I had it in memory.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 06, 2002.

Ron,

I asked the same question a few weeks ago, see:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0076Nf

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 07, 2002.

Andrew - I find landscape photography fascinating and I always try to photograph what I see around me, but somehow it never comes out as a worthwhile picture. I admire someone like Eggleston who can make the banal, no-second-look landscape into a fascinating picture. I simply can't, I wish I could.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 07, 2002.

Interesting thread! Whenever I can, I get out into some pretty rugged country in California (relief from a desk job and lots of sedentary airline travel) and have for two years taken my Hasselblad XPan with me to capture some of the incredible landscapes. I've done some tests with my Leica in the field and find the rangefinder and the lenses (with tripod, of course) to be first class tools and the results are not at all bad. Plus the camera is more compact and the rangefinder is - to my eyes, a lot brighter and also the lenses are a lot faster enabling very low-light shooting. Yes, the image originals on 35mm don't quite do what a medium format (or the XPan) would do but then again, since I travel so much for business, I'd find it pretty hard to haul a Rollei 6008 or a Hasselblad 501CM or similar set up.

The Leica also gives me a great deal of control over how I want to shoot the scene. Again, nothing like a good tripod and, if possible, a simple cable-release to minimize any camera-shake.

Phil

-- Phil Allsopp (pallsopp42@attbi.com), January 07, 2002.

The M is an absolutely brilliant landscape camera: light, compact, with first-class optics. DOF or metering are not a problem. I also recommend Brian Bower's Light, Lens and Landscape. He has also written books on both the Leica M and Leica R. English photographer Roger Hicks's books also feature many Leica landscape pictures.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), January 07, 2002.

Dave Killick:

I agree with your perspective on the Leica M series as a great landscape photography tool. I for one will be using this more for landscape work based on results so far.

I'll also look for that book - sounds very, very interesting

Phil

-- Phil Allsopp (pallsopp42@attbi.com), January 07, 2002.

M is a good landscape tool if that is the only tool you want to carry. Convenient on hikes for obvious weight/size reasons. But it is far from being the most adequate landscape tool, even for 35mm photography (which in turn is far from being the most adequate landscape format).

A few examples:

1) usage of very wide angles for near/far compositions is a widespread way of making landscapes interesting for the viewer. This is VERY difficult to do properly with a M (+12/15/21 lenses), as you have to frame through a separate viewfinder is approximative and that does not allow you to judge how near and far elements will relate to each other (parallax contingencies). Also, the wider the lens, the nearer you want to be to the near elements: minimum focusing distance constraints of the M and parallax constraints greatly limit your ability to do so properly.

2) Landscape is one of the applications where nitpicking on depth of field makes most sense (how much foreground to include, what background effects). The inability to preview DoF is a real handicap at shooting stage, where you have to decide when to use the tripod (shutter speed) and what film will allow you to capture all the elements you want to capture (and/or obliterate those elements you want to ignore).

3) Telephoto usage is common in landscape photography as well. No way is the M a convenient telephoto tool. Again if you do not own anything else or if you do not want to use anything else, there are ways around this (Visoflex, cropping at printing/scanning stage), but a SLR is the only adequate telephoto tool. BTW, it is complete nonsense to advocate the usage of a 2x converter on a 135mm M lens to produce carefully crafted landscape slides.

4) Same remark for macro obviously.

All this does not mean that it is insane to use the M for landscape. It only means that it is not the most adequate tool for the landscape enthusiast. As a regular hiker, my shoulder and back bless the M on every outing of course... But if was less of a wimp I would be carrying a Pentax 67 (or at least a R) !

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 07, 2002.

1. The accessory viewfinder for the ultrawides is no worse for composition than the built-in finder. One of the worst finders around is the Hasselblad SWC's and even that is used successfully for landscape photography. Of course nothing is as positive as a ground- glass, whether direct or reflex. But experience is a good teacher, if you keep notes and learn from what you're doing. There's a difference between 15 years experience and 1 year's experience repeated 14 more times, and that is you've got to make a concerted effort to learn from what you do.

2. Ascertaining DOF is not a problem, once again if you have experience and know how well you can/can;t trust the DOF scales. In fact anyone who has real landscape experience with a reflex (especially 35mm) and an ultrawide knows that it is extremely difficult to critically judge DOF in the finder, and it is best still to really know your lens and the DOF scales. THe limited close- focusing of the M lenses is also not generally a problem with an ultrawide. Anyone who has experience knows that at smaller apertures used in landscape photography the DOF extends much closer than the lens' marked minimum focusing distance. How close? Once again, experience tells.

3. The 135/3.4 APO and 135/4 T-E are such highly-corrected lenses that adding the Komura 2x and stopping down to around f/8-11 produces results of a very high order. Use the 2x on a 50/2 wide open and you're in for a disappointment. What I consider nonsense is carrying an SLR and a 300mm lens (along with the rest of the outfit)on a day hike into the mountains to take 3-4 shots. Mounted on a tripod, handholding an SLR 3x viewfinder magnifier up to the M6's eyepiece, the rangefinder patch fills the finder view and is almost an exact frame for the 270mm effective focal length. Again, experience has proven this out. As I said, if weight and bulk isn't an issue, I'll take the Blad. When weight is an issue I'll take the M6 + 135 + 2x over a Nikon n65 or Canon Rebel with a wobbly, plasticky $200 70- 300/5.6 zoomlens.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 07, 2002.

Fine-Art/Landscape is what I have done for the past 10 years. My tool of choice for critical field work was the 4x5 view camera plus 65, 90, 150, 300 and 450mm lenses. I find viewing through this system allows me to pre-visualise the image more easily than the 35 SLR did. There is something about the image being upside-down and reversed that makes it more intuitive to compose properly. Interestingly, I find the results of the RF's indirect viewing system similar -- for some reason composition just happens more intuitively. (And I agree with all of the previous posts that the SLR's DOF preview is essentially useless in the field -- experience being a much better tool.) A little over a year ago, I tried the M in an effort to find a 35 that was capable of truly superior imaging quality -- something I did not feel I was getting from my Nikon. Well, the M delivered it quite nicely, thank you. There is a luminosity in the 4x5 images that was never present in my 35 or 645 images -- that is until the Leica, where a special luminosty is present. In 35 parlance my 4x5 focal- lengths work out to roughly 20, 27, 45, 90 and 135mm -- all of which are easily duplicated with the M system. Yes, most any medium format system can probably do better -- although IMO, none of the 645's really offer enough of an advantage to justify their extra weight or expense, so one really needs to consider a 6x6 or 6x7 to capitalize on any improvements.

So now when I search out fine-art landscape images, I carry and use both systems. And I am using the 4x5 less and the Leica more for this type of work...

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 07, 2002.

I rarely take portraits so landscapes for the basis of my shots. I have read some pretty odd posts above saying m's are bad cause you need to acurately control depth of field, true BUT if you taking a landscape not a picture of a thing within a landscape focus is maily at infinity. I take pictures of 'landscapes' they are vast and large, I dont need telephotos i need wide angles to which M's make a modest lens in this range I must say. Ive never used a telephoto lens for landscapes.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), January 07, 2002.

Tsss, tsss. Next time, Mr Jay will convincingly argue that the "O" model and viewfinder are very adequate landscape photography tools, conveying to the "experienced" user the "almost exact framing" of a 50mm lens...

Two things make sense in his exotic contribution:

I agree the SWC viewfinder is also a pain in the butt. But come to think of it, that is the price you have to pay to access legendary Biogon performance (though the 40 Distagon is no slouch). Not true for Leicadom: for all practical landscaping purposes, the R system provides same legendary Leica quality as the M range, with SLR accuracy on top...

I agree that the integrated M viewfinder is also not quite right. But at least it is parallax corrected, and allows you, within certain limits, to check what might get accidentally cropped out in the near far compositions. The separate viewfinders are crude passive devices in comparison. It is IMPOSSIBLE with such tools to efficiently and precisely compose a sophisticated image that would include an object (flower, leave, face, statue, etc) at, say, 40 cm, with objects situated much further away. Gimme a 15mm or a 19mm elmarit-R, and I will compose such images with clinical precision...

I am afraid the rest is advocacy for guess work and approximative "almost exact framing". Not quite what dedicated landscapers usually like to contemplate...

Oh, BTW, a 2X converter on a 180mm R lens provides the exact framing of a 360mm lens... If you add the apo feature to both items, you get best of breed performance. No need for "almost exact" macgiverish gizmos to "almost exactly" achieve that. Same goes with similar products from all other current SLR suppliers.

Come to think of it, nothing, using his pattern of thought, should beat the Ricoh GR1 or the Minox 35 for landscape photography "à la Jay". I would agree that, for the hiker, the GR1 is a wonderful blessing (and so is the M). But for the landscape enthusiast......

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 07, 2002.

Well, Jacques, it evidently works for him. This is supposed to be a friendly exchange of experience and opinions, where's the problem?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 08, 2002.

It is a given the rangefinder isn't going to give you the framing accuracy of an SLR but what is wrong with framing a little wide and cropping to fit? Or this is this a no no as well?

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 08, 2002.

Ray,

I also use the M for landscape images, when I feel wimpy, for the reasons explained in my 1st post (weight, volume, etc). I am simply stating that the M is not the most adequate tool for serious landscape photography (reasons explained in 2 posts), neither is 24x36mm the most adequate format.

There is nothing wrong with approximative guessing "à la Jay" and darkroom cropping, if that is how you enjoy your landscape photography. Nothing wrong with snapping around with an APS Ixus in panorama mode either, I guess.

But landscape photography is a discipline that traditionally strives at extremely precise framing and highest possible quality, with utmost attention given to light, exposure, printing, etc. It is probably the application that is best served by high quality A2/A1 size enlargements...

Such a discipline, understood in that traditional sense, is not well served by the M.

Rob,

We all have our allergies and our windmills, and I've witnessed here the collective execution of non-conformist posters, so I do not agree that we are a "cuddly" community. Let's say that I have knee jerk reactions with posts from one individual here who is widely respected and liked by the rest of the community. I am not going through the reasons of my allergy again (been crucified for that), so call it my problem if you will.

-- Jacques (jacuqesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

I find myself in partial agreement with Jacques: the M6 is not the "most adequate tool" for landscapes -- but it is, in many circumstances, perfectly adequate. The 35 mm format is not the most adequate format for landscapes -- but many powerfully evocative landscapes have been made in this format. Surely we will all agree that it is the end result that matters, not how the picture was made. The British photographer Eddie Ephraums uses 35 mm manual focus Nikon gear and 400 speed film to produce 16 X 20 black and white exhibition prints. Certainly these prints do not exhibit the smooth tonality and high degree of sharpness that is the hallmark of large format photography. But I think you would have to parse the language pretty fine to insist that these are not traditional landscape pictures. They are certainly compelling images, however you label them.

I use both a 4 X 5 view camera and an M6 for my own landscape work. While composing on a gridded ground glass under a darkcloth is a very different experience than composing in the M6's rangefinder rectangle, I have found that, in practice, the former is less precise and the latter less imprecise than Jacques's comments would suggest. For one thing, my ground glass shows me slightly more at the edges of the image than will actually appear on the film, so I have had to learn to compose in from the edges slightly. For another, I rarely want the image I visualize to have exactly the aspect ratio of the 4 X 5 film. I find that I almost always crop a little in the darkroom. I think most black and white landscape photographers do this. As far as the M6 is concerned, I find that the more I use it, the more precisely I am able to approximate where the edge of the image will fall. While near-far compositions are easier on the ground glass, as Jacques says, I can only say that I have been able to get on film with the M6 the relationships I visualized when I took the picture. In any case, near-far landscapes of the big-flower-small-mountain variety have been done so much and so successfully (look at the work of David Muench) that they have now become somewhat cliched, and I try and avoid them. So the relative difficulty of doing this kind of work with the M6 doesn't much concern me.

As for the question of "highest possible quality": the picture I take in any kind of wind with my view camera will be less sharp than the same picture taken with my M6. The picture I make with my M6 of a fleeting condition of light or arrangement of clouds is a much better image than the five-minutes-too-late picture I would have made with my view camera. True, if I wish my print from the M6 to have the lovely gradation of tones that I prize in large format photography I must limit my enlargement size to about 8 X 10 -- but many large format photographers don't print their images larger than that anyway.

A final thought: in the end, a photographer will do his best work, in landscape or any other genre, with the tool he feels best connected with. If you love to work with the M6, as I do, you will find a way to make it work for you. An M6 in the field, imperfect though it may be, will take much better pictures than a big, cumbersome, do-everything SLR outfit in the closet.

David

P.S. Jacques, your reference to "serious landscape photography" puts me in mind of Oscar Wilde's comment about Henry James: "He writes fiction as if it were a painful duty."

-- David Mark (dbmark@ix.netcom.com), January 08, 2002.