Confused yet? Asking what the heck do shower faucets have to do with rangerfinder cameras? Read on, dear reader!
This morning, attempting to take a shower in my hotel room, I couldn’t get the water to turn on. I was faced with the fittings you see above. I figured the big control knob with the faucet style handle turned the water on and off. Nope. Didn’t work. Tried the smaller knob, which I had figured was a control to divert water to the four smaller shower heads. Still no water. Got out of the shower and called the front desk to let them know. The very polite young lady at the desk told me that there was no problem with the water – i had to pull the big knob out to turn on the water. Getting back into the shower I tried it and sure enough, everything worked. For a minute there I felt like an idiot. Then, being in the software industry for most of my career, I began to ponder the cognitive dissonance that can be caused by user-interfaces (UIs) – the knob has a faucet like arm that screams rotation to me. No clues anywhere that the knob had to be pulled out to turn things on. Not being used to this type of fixture, I didn’t attempt to yank on the knob to pull it out. Partially because something like that once got me into trouble with a plane full of people and very nearly with the FAA, but I digress – that’s a different story. This sort of user-interface problem we see all the time with poorly designed software – you’re used to a specific way that something works and them someone goes and changes how it behaves, often causing frustration. This chain of thought led me next to the Rangefinder style camera – usually very simple with the most basic controls that allow one to change shutter-speed, aperture, and with digitals, the sensor sensitivity or ISO and a very basic menu system. That and the shutter release. That’s it. No complex array of controls – buttons, knobs, selectors, menus etc. To many photography enthusiasts this represents a purity of purpose, a design that drives focus on the bare essentials. An ethos that speaks to the camera getting out of the photographer’s way, giving her total control, arguably in the simplest and most elegant of control interfaces. A minimalism of design that is incredibly elegant. A design philosophy that aligns with the dictum to “make things simple but no simpler”.
If one frequents any of the internet photography fora, one comes across many threads that have people arguing with religious zeal for and against rangefinders. If the rangefinder in question is a Leica, the debate tends to be even more intense and often acrimonious, no doubt prompted by the opinions of many that Leica cameras are overpriced and under-deliver. There are many that simply don’t understand why anyone would choose to buy a very expensive Leica when a Nikon/Canon/Pentax/what-have-you with all sorts of advanced technology can be had for much, much less. To me the answer is very simple – the appropriate tool for the appropriate application. The problem with many of these heated discussions is that people take positions on either side of the issue, without setting a context on the intended use of the tool – the camera. If one if making fine furniture in low volume, one may well choose to use a hand chisel to carve out the mortise for a mortise-and-tenon joint. This would require the craftsman carpenter to examine the wood grain very carefully, understand the flow of the grain and, in a sense, become one with the piece of wood before applying a mallet to the chisel. Failure to do so could well result in split wooden that would need to be thrown away. I daresay once the carpenter chisels out the mortise, there is a sense of accomplishment at a job well done. Why? Because it requires skill. It ain’t easy. Now, it is easier to cut the same mortise with a appropriate bit and a router. But that requires skill too, albeit a different skill. For an artisan making handmade furniture, the choice may well be to pick the hand-chisel over the electric router. For the craftsman that has to turn out high volume, for example, the hand-chisel is not an option. In other words, let’s pick the appropriate tool for the appropriate application. If I want to shoot high magnification macro images, I’m not going to pick a rangefinder. I’ll pick a SLR camera. It simply isn’t practical to do macro images with a rangefinder. It can be done, but it’s not elegant. In the same way, If I plan to shoot in the street, the rangefinder is the appropriate tool for me. Can I shoot in the street with an SLR? Sure! But it get’s in the way of the photographer and is less elegant than a rangefinder. The modern SLR, with all the “features” it has, tends to take away from the absolutely control over the camera that the rangefinder forces you to assume. Can one shoot an SLR in totally manual mode? Absolutely! But is wasn’t designed to be used that way primary, especially if it’s a modern DSLR. Many a newcomer to photography that jumps in with DSLR does himself a disservice because modern DSLRs can easily take one into a “machine-gun” mode of shooting where one tends to shoot a lot of images, letting the camera make some or all of the critical decisions, and the whole thing is a bit of hit-and-miss effort. Manual everything, in contrast, forces one to consider everything and set the camera manually to the desired exposure, for example. This need to think before shooting is likely to make one a better photographer. Again, can one do this with a modern SLR? Indeed! But it wasn’t designed to be used that way.
There are many other reasons why rangefinders can be better in specific applications like street photography and it’s not my intent to go into all of those here. Suffice it to say the the user-interface often forces process, a way of working that lends itself well to a specific context. A poorly designed UI or one designed for a different purpose can cause cognitive dissonance.
Ironically, the manufacturer of the shower control I had trouble with is MOEN, a respected german company. Like Leica. :)
I’ve used those types of fixtures before… I imagine the hotels who have them are used to getting calls from confused guests!
I like the image, by the way… the simplicity of it.
As for rangefinders, and specifically the Leica rangefinder, I find that the biggest critics have never set their hands on one, whereas most rangefinder users have used (or continue to use) a DSLR – they better understand the “appropriate tool for the appropriate application” concept you write about above . Most of the critics just can’t get past the tech spec sheet (and the price)… it’s a non-starter for them. What I don’t understand is their intolerance to someone else’s choice. It actually speaks volumes.
Thanks, dear Peter! Totally agree with you.
At the risk of sounding like someone that plays a shrink on TV (I neither have TV nor am I a shrink :)) the intolerance is perhaps a self-esteem issue?
I followed the link the Leica forum and here I am.
First, let me congratulate you on this web site, Raaj. I like its clean and airy format, a good choice from what Studio Press has to offer.
Your writing style has an easy pace and is entertaining. I look forward to future posts.
We have all experienced a similar issue to the one you faced in the shower. I sometimes think it is a conspiracy on the part of Americans to make me look stupid. Or was I stupid to begin with ?
On the subject of rangefinders, you have a written a few sweeping generalizations, such as SLRs were not designed for manual use. My 25 years with a Minolta XD7, XD11 in the US, contradicts that assertion. I still shoot extensively with a manual Zeiss lens on my Canon 40D. I will agree that manual focusing is a lot harder than it was on the Minolta.
It is for that reason that I am intrigued by the GXR and the A12 M-mount and the utilization of focus peaking. It seems that I would get the best of both worlds — manual lenses and digital photography.
I do believe that a rangefinder camera does provide a totally different photographic experience and I certainly do not dismiss your passion, and that of others, for the Leica M9. I am afraid it is the $7,000 price tag that leaves me cold. The Leica M9, to me, simply does not represent value for money.
Leica prides itself on being perceived as the Maybach of cameras and yet in certain areas it is worse than a Kia — a 230,000 dot LCD and no sensor cleaning for instance. If the Leica M9 offered the same excellence, build quality and reliability as Leica lenses, my argument would be demolished at a stroke. If it was 2001, my argument would be similarly redundant. I just hope that by clinging to former glory, Leica as a camera manufacturer does not suffer the same fate as Kodak.
The times they are a changin’.
Calvin, thank you for your kind comments! I think we’re more in agreement than not – my comments about SLRS not being designed for full manual use pertain to moden DSLRs only. You’re right – there are many wonderful SLRs, especially film cameras, that are a joy to use manually. I still have my Nikon FG20 & an old FM, as well as a Penta ME that was my first camera. I also agree with you about the level of sophistication of the Leica digital M’s, especially when it comes to electronics and firmware. There is a lot that Leica can do to improve the reliability and user-experience without sacrificing the overall M “feel”, if you will. And you’re read my scathing posts on the whole card failure issue that my M9 has certainly exhibited from time to time – there is absolutely no excuse for Solms to hide behind for that sort of lack of reliability. Despite that, the digital Ms have a way of grabbing onto one’s soul – it’s a strange phenomenon for sure. But, perhaps it’s more a RF thing than an attribute of the Leicas – I feel the same way about the Hexar RF.
To you’re point about times changing, amen!
I hope Leica does the same or else they’ll find themselves an anachronism, rapidly receding in the rearview mirror of history.
I have once dilly dallied in a camera shop in Hong Kong about buying a “used” M9 body. It is sometime in 2010 and I was on a business trip to this city. The selling price for the USED condition when converted to $ was something like $7,000! I think a NEW one was priced at $7000 in the US! Seller said that it was due to added customs duties when it was imported to Hong Kong so the selling price in Hong Kong was higher than the US.
Anyway I started to examine the body to see what the fuss was all about. Seller had a f1.4 lens available for testing. After 30minutes of playing with it and downloading the sample images into my laptop I made the excuse that I would check the images at my hotel and maybe comeback if I intend to buy it. Seller said that I had better be quick because apparently a lot of Chinese yuppies were grabbing anything with the red dot.
I never came back to that store.
The images were good when examined BUT and here is the big BUT, 90% of that quality is from the Leica lens.
The body for me was just a sensor box. Not much electronics in there. Body was some kind of light alloy and you can really feel the build quality but it was not a sell point.
For that amount of money I could get a cheap sensor box like a Nex, MFT, EOS and stick a Leica lens on it and you get a MODERN sensor box with a high quality lens.
All for maybe 1/5th the price/
Hi Benjamin,
Thanks for visiting and posting a comment about your experiences. You make two poins that I do not disagree with at all – one, your comment about Leica glass is dead-on. The magic in the Leica lenses is definitely not something one can lightly dismiss. Though I’ll point out that there are many lenses that are non-Leica that are equally good. In the M-mount world, there are so many Zeiss and CV lenses that are every bit as good as Leica glass. The CV 35mm f/1.2 is one lens that I think is superb. Two, your point about value for money, I won’t debate. If someone made a RF in a similar form-factor that was a full-frame sensor, I’d definitely be interested. In fact, I’m desperately hoping that Ricoh makes a full-frame version of the GXR! As Calvin posted above, the GXR + M-mount “module” is absolutely terrific in terms of ergonomics, image quality and reliability. In fact, over the next few weeks I am planning to shoot with the GXR and the CV 28mm f/1.9. That gives me an effective FOV of ~42mm, and while I’d prefer an FOV around 35mm, it’s an interesting FOV.
Cheers,
-raaj
i would like a dollar for every hotel room where I couldn’t work out the shower Raaj. How many cold or hot showers I have tolerated because its proved too hard to work out
Calvinajax last paragraph is interesting. I am sick of cloning out dust spots from dust on the sensor and I am disappointed to get a magenta fringe when I use my 18mm Distagon. Very happy with the M9′s build quality though and I have had no problem with cards. The M9 isn’t perfect for every situation but perfect when travelling or for street photography. I wouldn’t sell my D3x but use it less & less these days. Good site Raaj. Rangefinders aren’t for everyone but I will always have my Leica outfit. Cheers, Neil
Neil,
I too wish I had a dollar for every time the bathroom fittings befuddle me!
I’m with you on the Nikons – mine are more-or-less collecting dust but I haven’t been able to clear them out. I also love to shoot macro, which the Leicas are totally unusable for.
Cheers,
-raaj
I’m glad I discovered this blog.
I prefer not to dwell on camera limitations and work on my own (short comings) as a photographer. Although I use a couple of Pen cameras, I recently started hanging around the Leica Talk forum where people discuss photos rather than the size of their lenses.
In the end what really matters is that one should buy/use whatever makes one happy.
I would love to read about your airplane incident:)
Chef,
Thanks for your kind words. I share beliefs similar to yours. Sent you an email.
Cheers!
-raaj
Hello Raaj,
firstly, congratulation for your new Blog !!! And i wish You a long and lovely life with it Dear Friend…
Hugues.
Dear Hugues,
Thank you for your kind wishes and for visiting. You are always kind.
Cheers!