ok i know, but i like to see what the people on different forms think, yes it won't make a huge difference to 99.9percent of people, but is there nothing more to a camera lens combination than iso/megapixels/aperture. or is there a Leica look, zeiss pop, full frame/medium format look, yada yada yada. of of course I'm not looking for yes no answer, I'm just curious what you think, and why people get so up tight about it.
Im just curious how no Leica fan who has 30 40 grand worth of lenses, has proven scientifically if they are better or not, some lenses do have a particular look, but ask ten people about a photo, and 5 will start going on about Leica's ridiculous prices, and half will preach the ''Leica look'' surly its not all that mythical. but it looks like thats the way its going to stay. :munch:
Nearly a half century ago, I cut my teeth on an Argus C3. Had everything standardized--Pan-X film, Microdol Developer, so on and so forth. In most cases, I did not even need to break out a light meter to achieve a perfectly exposed negative. Stunning images, and many for the most part indisguishible from those made with a Leica.
This caused me very early on to understand that the "magic" flows from the hands of the photographer--not from the equipment. Consider that statement carefully!
That having been said, there are some lenses that produce a unique fingerprint that cannot be created otherwise. The Leica Noctilux M 50mm f/1.0 is one of those lenses.