Leica M2 vs M4 vs M6 Any Real Difference in Optical Results?

[GregY]

I'm not sure how Rodinal, Ev1 digital, or airport CT scanners are any part of an answer to the question"
"Leica M2 vs M4 vs M6 Any Real Difference in Optical Results?"

 

[Pieter12]

I'm not sure how Rodinal, Ev1 digital, or airport CT scanners are any part of an answer to the question"
"Leica M2 vs M4 vs M6 Any Real Difference in Optical Results?"

Just how threads go off the rails. I'm sure what you had for breakfast affects any difference in optical quality between the Ms.

 

[skahde]

The answer to the original question was a simple no, case closed. But as we were here...

 

[GregY]

The answer to the original question was a simple no, case closed. But as we were here...

Skahde, true enough, & it dawns on me that "no" works as an answer for all the others as well.....
( Rodinal, Ev1 digital, or airport CT scanners)

 

[Don_ih]

The entire imaging path is critical.

Whatever the image path was results in the image - and that's all a result of decision or necessity on the part of the photographer. Lots of great photos have been taken using junk cameras, second-rate film, and questionable developing technique. Just like more lousy photos than anyone could possibly count have been taken with excellent equipment, materials, and technique. Photography depends on what you do, but it doesn't exist without what you see.

 

[baachitraka]

- focusing accuracy (depends on rangefinder adjustment)
- pressure plate
- lighting (except for studio lights)
- feel of the camera in the hand (some weigh more and some less)
- vibration

But then its hard to see these effects, if you stop down and allow to have a large dof.

 

[RezaLoghme]

But then its hard to see these effects, if you stop down and allow to have a large dof.

The same could be said about lens coatings and yet people pay $$$$ for APO lenses.

 

[Chan Tran]

There may be differences like exposure. Even if the cameras are set the same the shutters don't give the same timing and it varies between samples not really models. Also rangefinder accuracy one may be more accurate than the others.

 

[Hassasin]

There certainly is a difference … shooting test charts and examining results under high power microscope

 

[baachitraka]

The same could be said about lens coatings and yet people pay $$$$ for APO lenses.

with a good tripod, you will certainly see the difference between the good and cheap lenses.

Handheld, hmm...

 

[RezaLoghme]

How big is da differnce between Leica lens and 7Artisans

 

[skahde]

How big is da differnce between Leica lens and 7Artisans

Lenses may be equally sharp but still differ in what kind of look and "character" they add to a picture. Compare a Sonnar-Type 1.4/50 to a Planar/Double-Gauss one and to a recent Aspherical lens. Or an old 2/50 Summicron collapsible to Zeiss Planar 2/50 ZM. All are as sharp as one can aks for at least stopped down a bit but still the pictures look strikingly different and even the pricepoint is more or less the same used. It is like comparing wine from the same grape and year but different wineries: They all taste different and not everyone prefers the same or they go perfectly with one dish but not another.

 

[RezaLoghme]

look and "character"? explain, do you have A/B comparism of some Noctilux and a "hommage"lens

 

[chuckroast]

look and "character"? explain, do you have A/B comparism of some Noctilux and a "hommage"lens

The terms are imprecise but reflect a real difference.

Classic Leica lenses like the 50mm f/3.5 collapsible Elmar uncoated and the mid-1950s 50mm f/2 collapsible Summicron, have a much different look to them than, say, the more modern 50mm f/2 V3 Summicron or even the 50mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar.

All of these lenses (I have owned/used every one) are just somewhat different. They are all "sharp" but they differ in inherent overall contrast, microcontrast, how they flare in the face of specular highlights, and what their bokeh looks like at large apertures, as just a few examples. For example, the V3 Summicron handles specular highlights very calmly, the uncoated Elmar blooms light and glows around them. Similarly, the V3 Summicron has better local contrast than the Color-Skopar, though that difference is less pronounced.

The condition and lens-to-lens variability can also play a role. Older Color-Skopars are notorious for having internal haze that cannot be cleaned out (which is why I chose mine very carefully). This will reduce apparent overall contrast in proportion to the severity of the haze.

And it's not just Lecia. Compare Nikon AIS 35mm f/1.4, and f/2.8 variants and they look subtlely different. My f/1.4 has noticeably better microcontrast than my f/2.8 did. And these lenses are yet again different to the Leica 35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron.

None of these are enormous differences except perhaps under the most challenging shooting situations. All the lenses mentioned above are very sharp, very well executed pieces of glass. They're just ... different. Hence the term "character". It might be hard to nail down, but it's real.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thanks for explaining. Care to post 2 pics for underlining your point? Difficult for me to imagine, say between different Summicron versions, or summicon vs lux.

 

[Hassasin]

Thanks for explaining. Care to post 2 pics for underlining your point? Difficult for me to imagine, say between different Summicron versions, or summicon vs lux.

I'm from the camp of not paying attention to "character", I want a lens to get me what I see and as on film I do B&W exclusively, I need to get the lights, shapes, & shadows to play right. If there was a character as a product of a lens used, I look away.

But I don't judge those who see a difference. The problem, if I have one, is that often times these comments come up comparing lenses of entirely different optical design and made in entirely different eras. In such cases, it's plain physics to have a difference.

 

[Pieter12]

I'm from the camp of not paying attention to "character", I want a lens to get me what I see and as on film I do B&W exclusively, I need to get the lights, shapes, & shadows to play right. If there was a character as a product of a lens used, I look away.

But I don't judge those who see a difference. The problem, if I have one, is that often times these comments come up comparing lenses of entirely different optical design and made in entirely different eras. In such cases, it's plain physics to have a difference.

Isn't "character" why people shoot film in the first place? Also, I didn't realize you saw in black and white...I can pretty much visualize, but that is an interpretation.

 

[Hassasin]

Isn't "character" why people shoot film in the first place? Also, I didn't realize you saw in black and white...I can pretty much visualize, but that is an interpretation.

it's always an interpretation

 

[chuckroast]

The terms are imprecise but reflect a real difference.

Classic Leica lenses like the 50mm f/3.5 collapsible Elmar uncoated and the mid-1950s 50mm f/2 collapsible Summicron, have a much different look to them than, say, the more modern 50mm f/2 V3 Summicron or even the 50mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar.

All of these lenses (I have owned/used every one) are just somewhat different. They are all "sharp" but they differ in inherent overall contrast, microcontrast, how they flare in the face of specular highlights, and what their bokeh looks like at large apertures, as just a few examples. For example, the V3 Summicron handles specular highlights very calmly, the uncoated Elmar blooms light and glows around them. Similarly, the V3 Summicron has better local contrast than the Color-Skopar, though that difference is less pronounced.

The condition and lens-to-lens variability can also play a role. Older Color-Skopars are notorious for having internal haze that cannot be cleaned out (which is why I chose mine very carefully). This will reduce apparent overall contrast in proportion to the severity of the haze.

And it's not just Lecia. Compare Nikon AIS 35mm f/1.4, and f/2.8 variants and they look subtlely different. My f/1.4 has noticeably better microcontrast than my f/2.8 did. And these lenses are yet again different to the Leica 35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron.

None of these are enormous differences except perhaps under the most challenging shooting situations. All the lenses mentioned above are very sharp, very well executed pieces of glass. They're just ... different. Hence the term "character". It might be hard to nail down, but it's real.

Thanks for explaining. Care to post 2 pics for underlining your point? Difficult for me to imagine, say between different Summicron versions, or summicon vs lux.

This is really tough to do on a screen because an LCD mostly doesn't reproduce things that faithfully even if we did have exactly the same monitors and they were precisely calibrated to each other.

Also, to do this in a scientific way, you'd need to select the same film, subject, lighting conditions, and development printed to the same contrast in the final silver print to get to true A/B comparison.

The best I can do is provide some samples - shot on different films with different lenses - to see if some small sense of how this might show up. I fear this will be woefully inadequate to demonstrate the topic at hand, but we'll give it a try.

These are scans of silver prints. All but the last were developed in PCAT. The final negative was done in D-23 1+9+0.5g/l lye:


50mm f/2 Summicron V3/TMX:

50mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar/Fomapan 200:

50mm f/2 collapsible Summicron/Double X:

50mm f/3.5 uncoated collapsible Elmar/Double X:

 

[chuckroast]

I'm from the camp of not paying attention to "character", I want a lens to get me what I see and as on film I do B&W exclusively, I need to get the lights, shapes, & shadows to play right. If there was a character as a product of a lens used, I look away.

But I don't judge those who see a difference. The problem, if I have one, is that often times these comments come up comparing lenses of entirely different optical design and made in entirely different eras. In such cases, it's plain physics to have a difference.

Well ... exactly. Different designs and eras had different "looks". That's kind of the point. Some people love that legacy Leica low contrast look. I only like it in sparing amounts

IOW, lenses to have different "character".

(That why some people have waaaay too many different 50mm lenses for their 35mm shooting, but I, of course, only have one less than I want ...)