What matters more? Gear or skill?

I raise this question because there is no shortage of people from both camps on YouTube.

The odd thing is that the overwhelming majority of my channel views come from my gear review videos. Not from skill building type videos where we talk about things that you can use with the gear to get better photos.

The underlying theme with people using youtube seems to be “the right gear will make me the photographer I hope for”. I’m sorry if that stings a little as I am just calling it like I see it.

I am not 100% certain about this determination though as I have no way of proving this assumption. It may be that my skill building videos are just way worse than my gear reviews videos. That could be a fair point to be honest as it is common knowledge that I am not very good at video.

My observation though is overwhelming leaning in this direction. The reason for this is that other youtubers also make this observation as well. You hear them talk about how the gear doesn’t make the photographer over and over. Why is that?

I think it is because people dont place as much value on skill learning as they do on tangible items like cameras and lenses. Have you tried to sell your skill to someone in tough times? How about some item you had that was tangible… like say your camera? Deep down I think people place value on tangible items because they know they can cash in on them later, but once they pay for and attend a workshop, that money is gone forever in their eyes. Even though they came away with an amazing experience and new skills, we in the western culture have been trained to place value on the tangible. How many times did I hear as a kid about not “blowing” my money on cheap trinkets or things like going to the fair and playing the games? It was all to common in my little corner of the planet.

Lots of people don’t have much disposable income to spend on things like workshops, or so they believe. I see it more in the realm of Leica more so than other brands because I will see a lens come up for sale that is literally like brand new but they HAVE used it some. They just want to retain as much resale value as possible so they are very careful with it so as to not scratch it up from use. It will basically be new even though it had been used to capture images in the past. This is telling in that they never planned to keep the equipment and placed more importance on resale value than using the gear. Otherwise there would be signs of use on the gear and a lot more photos in the catalog. Now, I know that is a little bit hyperbole as well, but you get the point.

The point is that it seems like for YouTube viewers, the gear matters more. I can’t figure it out either, why not go shoot street in London for a weekend? How cool would that be? It is reachable, just use the same lens you have been using and spend the “new lens money” on the trip instead. Precious few of us will do that though…And that is sad.

Just some food for thought, not really being critical…much…just thought it was interesting to see that and wanted to share my thoughts on it.

Is Leica right for you?

Since moving to the Leica camera system I have learned that the brand is super polarizing in the photography community and the odd part is there is no one other competing brand, except maybe Fujifilm and Ricoh in some genres.

You see there is the Nikon vs. Canon rivalry which everyone knows about. People either love Leica or hate them and there seems to be no middle ground. What I hear the most has to do with the extreme price of Leica cameras and what I usually hear second is how (insert their favorite brand here) had a list of features that Leica lacks. By far these are the two main complaints I hear with there being a few odd things otherwise.

Let’s take a look at some speculation on this topic and see if we can get a better understanding. Now, this next part is pure speculation on my part with only a little actual research behind it. But I did make a simple questionnaire for a few people to see what they thought.

Here is my question list:

1. Why dont/do you currently own any Leica gear? (Cameras and lenses)

2. What is your opinion of Leica in general?

3. Why do you have that opinion?

Armed with these questions let’s see what we get. I got the following answers…

————————————————————————————-

Why don't you own any Leica gear?

1. Between the price point and lack of a body geared towards sports there wasn't a setup that fit into my shooting needs.

What is your opinion of Leica Gear?

2. From my limited experience the camera I used felt well built and the quality I have seen produced by Leica cameras and glass is as good as other brands but seem more geared towards fine art, street or portriat style photography.

Why do you have that opinion?

3. Most photos produced where Leica has been identifed as the camera in my opinion have fit into the fine art, street or portrait categories.

————————————————————————————-

Why don't you own any Leica gear?

1. I have thought about buying a Leica as a street camera or personal camera, but the cost, even used, is a bit prohibitive for me.

What is your opinion of Leica Gear?

2. In general, I have a very favorable opinion about Leica. They are well-built, feel good when holding them, and take most excellent images. I am especially enamored with the M10 that only shoots monochrome. That is my dream, money is no object camera. And I love the look of those square frames lenses. They are quite aesthetically pleasing.

Why do you have that opinion?

3. I have this opinion partly from trying one out previously, but mostly from watching them used on YouTube. They are/were the camera of choice for some of the most famous photographers in the world.

————————————————————————————-

1.Why don't you own any Leica gear?

I would love to own some Leica gear. It’s a little on the expensive side, but I think they truly are pieces of quality kit. Lenses I think are pretty top notch. Also quality of lens construction seems to be pretty great.

2.What is your opinion of Leica Gear?

I think that Leica is focused towards a certain type of photographer. One that wants no compromises, while being methodical and authentic at the same time. They produce a different shooting experience for a more niche audience. But for those who enjoy Leica, they know exactly what they want from a camera. And Leica seems to know what their shooters want as well.

3. Why do you have that opinion?

I met a friend through a friend who was obscenely wealthy and he only shot on Leica. That, and general impressions based off of YouTube and other avenues where stereotypes are routinely expressed. I’m certainly open to change if and when I shoot on one!

————————————————————————————-

1.Why don't you own any Leica gear?

Leica doesn't make a single camera that interests me.

2. What is your opinion of Leica Gear?

I respect the brand and the company. I think they make really great lenses. Their bodies, while well made don't have the features that I look for in a camera body. I like their simplistic beauty. That's just not what I'm looking for. I think they are probably great street photography cameras but not too good for sports and wildlife. On the other hand, there are other brands that make great sports and wildlife cameras. The difference is, these great sports and wildlife cameras can also handle street, portraits and basically any kind of photography with no worries. So I need a camera that can do everything as opposed to a camera that can only do a few things.

3. Why do you have that opinion?

You don't see a lot of Leica shooters on the sidelines of a sporting event or at the wildlife refuge. There is a reason for that.

————————————————————————————-

1.Why do you currently own Leica gear?

What drew me to Leica is it’s history and mystique.  Leica is the originator of the 35mm camera, and a great deal of great photographers have used Leica. I wanted a piece of that mystique, not that it would make me a better photographer but it was very enticing.  I started with the Leica Q, probably the most affordable full-sensor Leica and I was hooked the color science of that camera is godly, better than any other Leica camera I have owned.  Then the Q2 Monochrome,  I have always wanted a monochrome camera, so why not.  Followed by the Q2 because I wanted more megapixels for cropping,  The color science on the Q2 is not in my opinion as good as the Q but it improves on the Q in many other ways.  Then finally the M10p,  I don’t any Leica glass except for the lenses mounted on the Qs which are all 28mm. I have always said I can afford the camera but not the lenses.

PS.  The real reason is David Saylors,  I had beaten the bug to get a Leica, then I met David and ended up with a Leica Q

2. What is your opinion of Leica in general?

My first thought is a prestige brand for the affluent.  In reality, it is much more than that. I see them as an extremely high-quality brand manufactured in Germany for the most part,  you have to pay for that labor and Leica is not a high-volume brand.  They need to charge that kind of money to stay in business.

I am lucky enough to have a Leica store near me and I have learned how much they do to promote up-and-coming photographers, free gallery openings, and photo walks and that is at the local level.  World wide they have awards to promote photographers no matter what brand they use. They look at photography as an art form and help to cultivate new photographers.

3. Why do you have that opinion?

On the built quality of Leica, all you have to do is pick one up.  They are solid and rugged. I could use my M10P to protect myself and still use it to take a photo of the attacker. You can still buy old M2 and earlier that still work perfectly well and they will service them.

Regarding fostering photographs look at the Leica Oskar Barnack Award or the countless events available on Eventbrite for free.

————————————————————————————-

As you can see, the price is what gets most people right away. To be fair to both the consumer and the manufacturer let’s take an honest look at what makes these cameras cost so much. I have been given a unique perspective to see both sides of the transaction event so to speak. For Leica I understand what they have done over the century of their operation as a camera manufacturer.

They were “first movers” in that they invented using 35mm movie projector film in a still frame camera. This gives them a market advantage of sorts… or it did… that is until Nikon released the SLR in 1959. The SLR changed the game, no longer did you worry about your camera getting out of calibration and the photos being out of focus as you are actually looking straight through the taking lens directly for your composition. A large portion of the world that was using Leicas at this point wanted this new technology and went over to Nikon and Canon (who saw the light and jumped into the SLR game as well as many others). Leica stuck to their roots though and this almost proved fatal by the 1970s.

They tried making an SLR in conjunction with Minolta but it was too little too late and the R series never did really take off even though they made them for over 20 years. Leica on the other hand, always stayed focused on the M system. They also spent a lot of time cultivating their target audience as well. But since their company could not employ large scale manufacturing and the mechanical complexity of the M system makes them costly with skilled labor to manufacture, they could never compete in the world of high volume, mass production like the big players. How do you sell something that by its very nature has to have a high retail price due to high fixed costs in manufacturing? Market to the wealthy is how… The mantra of “exclusivity has its price” is true and if you make low volume but yet high quality products you can market to a niche group like the wealthy. There is a reason people joking say Leica is the brand of dentists and lawyers. Because Leica realized they could not compete with Nikon and Canon on low price/features, they had to figure out where they fit in the photography space. This turned out to be in reportage and street photography mainly. This and the aforementioned exclusivity adds up to a potent mixture for a brand that is for the affluent.

The reasons for the cameras price is multifaceted and I am straight speculating here too. I am pretty sure that I am right though as I have worked in the field of manufacturing and selling of products. You see, first the cameras they make are basically like fine mechanical watches, in that they are hand assembled and tuned individually. All this meticulous labor runs the score WAY up. Especially when you consider that it takes a skilled craftsman to build one of these and not just someone off the street trailed to do an assembly line job. Henry Ford figured out that low skill labor can complete complex tasks if there is enough people to break down the job into small enough tasks. Problem with Leica is that they don’t have the business model or the sales volume to be able to setup this sort of operation, so they instead lean into the individual craftsman concept even harder.

Today though, you are starting to see a lot more people shooting on Leica cameras and it is because the world has improved (whether we like it or not, the industrialized “1st world countries” are, over all, wealthier than they have ever been). People have learned that they have enough disposable income to be able to get that M6 with the 35mm Summicrion now, and the do! I am starting to see more and more youtubers using Leica cameras…shoot, even good ole Pete has a Q2 now!

Now does this mean that people need to add one to their arsenal to be cool? No. Absoloutly not, they should use whatever makes them happy and gives them the results that they want. If this means shooting a Leica M11 with a 12,000$ Summilux lens, then you do you. If it means shooting on a Sony RX100, then that is the camera for you.

In the end Leica will never be a cheap camera system, nor will it ever have the bleeding edge features like Sony or Canon, but it will continue to serve a dedicated niche market that they have carefully cultivated over decades. For me, that fact alone makes them an awesome company. They are out there doing there own thing and really dont care about the rest of the market.

Astrhori 18mm F8 Tilt Shift Lens Review

Camera gear is a interesting thing. ESPECIALLY for photographers as they love collecting it for some reason or another. I have reviewed quite a few lenses over the years on this channel, but never a tilt-shift version of anything. This is because these lenses are very specialized and usually very expensive too. Not having a focal length that I normally use is also another reason I have not bought one before.

Well, Phil Thach was contacted by Pergear about a lens they we’re launching and he recommended me to them. Thank you Phil, I appreciate the contact.

So after some emails, they sent me the sample lens for review. This particular unit did not come in a box but rather just a heavy ziplock bag. I am pretty sure the actual retail variant will be in a really nice box, so don’t worry about that. The lens is really neat for what is happening with it. You see, this little guy has a couple of cool features that most other lenses in the range do not have and it lacks on feature that almost all of the others does have.

The lens has the shift feature from “tilt/shift” lenses without the tilt function. It also has a rotation feature that allows the user to index the shift feature in 45 degree increments. So if you need it to correct vertically, you can do that. It will only shift in one axis at a time as well. This isn’t a real problem though as the intended use case for this lens is correcting converging lines on architecture and such. So you set the shift axis to match you framing and there you have it.

It will shift 6mm in each direction from center and this is more than enough for almost all scenarios. It does vignette the corners on full frame at the extreme ends of this range but carerful application of photo editing software should be able to fix this.

While using this lens, I have learned a few things about it though that I would like to share with you if you are consider getting one of these lenses for architectural photography. Honestly, I cant recommend it. If you plan to be a serious architectural photographer, it is worth the money if you want to dabble in this type of photography, just to see if you are interested because it is a cheaper alternative than a full on tilt/shift lens from any of the major manufacturers. But it lacks certain features that those lenses possess and that makes it more difficult to work with. Also, the build quality is lower than the Nikon and Canon alternatives and makes this lens less desirable in that manner as well. Another problem is that it is a fixed f-stop lens and it is 18 mm only. Traditionally, tilt shift lenses can be had in multiple focal lengths other than 18mm and variable F stops, this one has neither of those functionalities. It is a neat little pancake lens that is easy to use as a street photography lens on a crop sensor camera though, so when I put it on my Leica CL it worked wonderfully for just point shooting.

The F8 aperture and the 18 mm focal length gives you very deep depths of field that makes most everything in focus in your photos. So simple that it only required you to do little more than point the camera at the subject and fire the shutter. This is very beneficial for street photography purposes. A problem kept arising though, when I was shooting street photography with it using my Leica CL was that if I bump the lens, it would shift it or just letting it ride on a camera strap around my neck would be enough inertial force to shift the lens off axis. This is a problem as you could guess. So I really do not recommend this lens unless you were into novelty lenses or you were wanting to dabble in architectural photography with a little correcting shift lens, otherwise I would honestly say do not buy this lens and spend your money on something else.