Leica R - what am I missing?

Sirius Glass · Oct 11, 2023

Craig said:
I find it interesting that you should say that, as the same was said about Leica M lenses in the 90's- "a Leica transparancy will stand out on a light table".

A good friend of mine bought a new M6 and 50 Summicron in the mid 1990's and I had just bought a Nikon F4 with the then current AF 50/ 1.8. So I gave the F4 to my friend along with a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 and asked him to use both cameras and lets compare. Then he did the same to me, and I shot a few rolls.

We each picked a selection of our slides from both cameras and the other person viewed our selection on the light table. Neither of us could tell which came from the Leica and which came from the Nikon.

Exactly as I expected. Even comparing the exact same composition with both cameras, one cannot tell the difference.

xkaes · Oct 11, 2023

Wait, Wait. Let me pull out my microscope.

Pioneer · Oct 11, 2023

Well I can't tell the difference but that doesn't mean there aren't some people who cannot. However that also doesn't mean that they always want the newer lenses.

I have a couple of Pentax lenses I am fond of using for portraits and my wife can tell which one I used by looking at my photographs...without a microscope.

A few years back I took some family portraits using the Pentax-M 85/2 which I thought were pretty good. Then last year I took some more portraits using the 77mm Limited. When she looked at the new shots she told me almost immediately that I should sell the old lens and use the new Limited one from now on. And she didn't have to put the old and new side by side.

She also knows when I'm shooting my Zeiss Ikon ZM with the Planar 50/2 or the old Summicron. She prefers the Summicron. She says that it has more "character." The Planar is "too perfect."

Whenever we go somewhere and she wants to bring a camera she takes my Pentax Q7. She says it is way easier to handle and the pictures are plenty good enough.

I don't argue. She usually takes better pictures.

JParker · Oct 12, 2023

Craig said:
A good friend of mine bought a new M6 and 50 Summicron in the mid 1990's and I had just bought a Nikon F4 with the then current AF 50/ 1.8. So I gave the F4 to my friend along with a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 and asked him to use both cameras and lets compare. Then he did the same to me, and I shot a few rolls.

We each picked a selection of our slides from both cameras and the other person viewed our selection on the light table. Neither of us could tell which came from the Leica and which came from the Nikon.

Interesting, as I did a similar comparison this summer: A friend of mine was so kind to give me his M6 with the 2/50 Summicron for some weeks to test it (and I gave him my M645 Pro in return). I was not only interesetd in the overall performance, but whether the whole rangefinder usage and experiencec is something for me.

I compared the results with my F100 with the 1.8/50 AF-D:
In the range of f5.6 to f11 there was indeed only a small difference, mainly in favour for the Summicron outside the center with better sharpness at the edges and corners.
But in the f2 to f4 range the difference has been very obvious, with very clear advantages of the Summicron in contrast, sharpness and resolution. Both in the centre and acros the whole image.
And the Nikkor is well known for its lower resolution and lack of contrast at f1.8 and f2. The Summicron does not have that problem.

I am not the only one with that results, as the well reputed lens test source Opticallimits (former PhotoZone) had the same results:

Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D (FX) - Review / Test Report

Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D Review (FX)

www.opticallimits.com

Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 - Review / Test Report

Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 review

www.opticallimits.com

brbo · Oct 12, 2023

JParker said:
I am not the only one with that results, as the well reputed lens test source Opticallimits (former PhotoZone) had the same results:

Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D (FX) - Review / Test Report

Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D Review (FX)

www.opticallimits.com

Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 - Review / Test Report

Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 review

www.opticallimits.com

These numbers?! The numbers where a plastic fantastic kit lens is better in the centre at f1.8 than 10x more expensive lens at f2 and absolutely destroys it at optimal aperture?

Before you jump, I know how to interpret these numbers and know Summicron is not as bad as a well reputed lens test source would lead you to believe.

Mark J · Oct 12, 2023

Different sensors ?

JParker · Oct 12, 2023

brbo said:
Before you jump, I know how to interpret these numbers and know Summicron is not as bad as a well reputed lens test source would lead you to believe.

I highly recommend to you to read and understand the test procedure of the Imatest test system used by Opticallimits.
Then you will understand that your comments above are wrong.

Of course the absolute numbers are different, because the test was done with different cameras and sensors. 18 MP sensor with Leica, 24 MP sensor with Nikon.
The measured data must be put into that context. Exactly that Opticallimits is doing by adding the written zones on the left of the chart (poor - fair - good - very good - excellent).
So you have to look where the bar in that bar chart is ending, in which zone. And you clearly see that the Summicron is surpassing the Nikkor in most cases, especially at the wider apertures and towards the borders.

And as explained, I have clearly seen these differences in the photos I have made.

Mark J · Oct 12, 2023

Yes, and also that's Leica-M, not an R .
To be fair, the 50/1.8 lenses they ( Canon/Nikon ) make are amongst the best out there. The Canon EF 50/1.8 as tested by LensRentals is one of the most tightly-toleranced and consistent lenses they ever tested.

Film-Niko · Oct 12, 2023

JParker said:
I highly recommend to you to read and understand the test procedure of the Imatest test system used by Opticallimits.
Then you will understand that your comments above are wrong.

Of course the absolute numbers are different, because the test was done with different cameras and sensors. 18 MP sensor with Leica, 24 MP sensor with Nikon.
The measured data must be put into that context. Exactly that Opticallimits is doing by adding the written zones on the left of the chart (poor - fair - good - very good - excellent).
So you have to look where the bar in that bar chart is ending, in which zone. And you clearly see that the Summicron is surpassing the Nikkor in most cases, especially at the wider apertures and towards the borders.

And as explained, I have clearly seen these differences in the photos I have made.

Exactly.
The relation of the sensor or film to the lens is very important for the lens evaluation.

You see the same if you test with film:
For example a lens which get 75 lp/mm with FP4+ is a very good lens.
But a lens which gets 90 lp/mm with Delta 100 is a much worse lens, because with a very good lens you achieve 120+ lp/mm with Delta 100.

brbo · Oct 12, 2023

JParker said:
I highly recommend to you to read and understand the test procedure of the Imatest test system used by Opticallimits.

And I highly recommend that you don't pretend I didn't write this sentence:

brbo said:
Before you jump, I know how to interpret these numbers and know Summicron is not as bad as a well reputed lens test source would lead you to believe.

But it's good that finally somebody noticed that comparing tests of lens on different sensors is pointless (people here are posting lens tests on digital sensors when we have film in our cameras!). How pointless is that? There are undeniable advancements in lenses on digital sensors, but how much of that do we see in our prints? I would really like to say that I see "huge" improvements. But I sadly can't show that on my prints. I'm still hoping that maybe somebody here will finally post examples of huge differences one can observe in prints made with the latest lenses.

Btw, linear resolution of D3x is 16% higher than that of Leica M9. Nikkor 50/1.8D max. center resolution on D3x is 21% higher than Summicron's on M9, max. corner resolution is 18% higher, at f2.8 centre is 20% better and corner is 2% worse. All in all, it's pretty close with evidently better uniformity for Summicron at wider apertures (undoubtably also helped by M9's offset sensor microlenses).

Film-Niko · Oct 12, 2023

Mark J said:
Yes, and also that's Leica-M, not an R .
To be fair, the 50/1.8 lenses they ( Canon/Nikon ) make are amongst the best out there. The Canon EF 50/1.8 as tested by LensRentals is one of the most tightly-toleranced and consistent lenses they ever tested.

The AF-D Nikkor 1.8/50 and Canon EF 1.8/50 are - due to my experience with them - very good lenses in relation to their price.
Stopped down to f5.6 and f8 they are excellent in the middle of the frame. But a bit weaker towards the corners.
At open aperture they have indeed visibly low contrast and less resolution and sharpness. And weaker corner performance. With stopping down the performance improves gradually.
And from my experience the newer lens designs from Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss meanwhile all perform much better overall. Friends who are using the latest Pentax lenses report the same for their lens comparisons old vs. new.

Film-Niko · Oct 12, 2023

brbo said:
But it's good that finally somebody noticed that comparing tests of lens on different sensors is pointless (people here are posting lens tests on digital sensors when we have film in our cameras!). How pointless is that?

Neither are lens tests on different sensors pointless (you just have to know the resolution capabilities of your sensor), nor are lens tests on digital cameras irrelevant for us film users.
Henning has posted results here on a 12 megapixel sensor. With very clearly visible differences. And he has explained that the differences are even much higher on film because of the higher film resolution.
And he is completely correct on that!! I can absolutely confirm that by my own tests over the years.

brbo said:
There are undeniable advancements in lenses on digital sensors,

No, there are advancements in lenses. Period. The medium behind the sensor is benefitting from the improvements, independent from what medium that is.

brbo said:
but how much of that do we see in our prints?

I see a lot of it in my prints. And in projection, the 'king's class' of film and enlargement.
That is why I am using the improved lenses. Have never regretted making that step further.

Mark J · Oct 12, 2023

To be fair the whole point about MTF graphs and MTF tests for lenses is to take out the variables of film or sensors.
It's too bad we don't have enough MTF tests of 1970's lenses to do comparisons.

brbo · Oct 12, 2023

Film-Niko said:
Neither are lens tests on different sensors pointless (you just have to know the resolution capabilities of your sensor),

Not true.

Film-Niko said:
No, there are advancements in lenses. Period. The medium behind the sensor is benefitting from the improvements, independent from what medium that is.

Wrong again. A whole lot of advancement in lenses (and sensors, too) were needed just to overcome the corner smearing on digital sensors that was never a problem on film. Saying that capturing medium makes no difference is just ignorance on the matter. Period. But don't take my word, just ask Leica how wrong you are.

Film-Niko said:
I see a lot of it in my prints.

So you say.

Mark J · Oct 12, 2023

brbo said:
Wrong again. A whole lot of advancement in lenses (and sensors, too) were needed just to overcome the corner smearing on digital sensors that was never a problem on film. Saying that capturing medium makes no difference is just ignorance on the matter. Period. But don't take my word, just ask Leica how wrong you are.

Ooh, vicious !
A lot of attempted points-scoring going on here.
Ps. The 'advancement' required for dealing with a sensor window in the light path is about 2 cycles on a computer optimisation, or less than 1 second .

The sensor window issues are a much bigger problem for 'M' lenses than reflex lenses, on account of the much shorter exit pupil distance to the image plane.

brbo · Oct 12, 2023

Mark J said:
Ooh, vicious !

You'll see vicious when Niko and Henning gang up on me a little later, as so many times before... They have a knack for saying, repeatedly, how completely wrong somebody is, so I try to keep up with them

Mark J said:
The sensor window issues are a much bigger problem for 'M' lenses than reflex lenses, on account of the much shorter exit pupil distance to the image plane.

Yes, most of my cameras are rangefinders. There was a certain Summicron-M mentioned here and I replied to that post. But that is also beside the point that I was trying to make in my "vicious" post and I still believe to be true - capturing medium isn't irrelevant and pixel count in a sensor isn't the only thing that will determine how well a lens can perform.

xkaes · Oct 12, 2023

If you say someone is wrong enough times -- and loud enough -- some people will believe it.

Mark J · Oct 12, 2023

OK, good man.
I'll have a think about your extra comments. I didn't do photo lens design in the post-film era, but I have done plenty for CCD sensors.

Pioneer · Oct 12, 2023

These same discussions (arguments??) were going on during the Zeiss and Leica wars and, for all I know, long before that. Meanwhile people were taking their old cameras and old lenses and making some pretty impressive images all the same. I am pretty sure they still are.

But darn it sure is fun all the same!

Mark J · Oct 12, 2023

Mark J said:
OK, good man.

Cross-post - clarification, comment to brbo.

Pioneer - I don't know when the Leica/Zeiss wars took place. Maybe with the users ? It was closer than you know in the late-90's.
You're a large-format guy as I am, you now that the easiest way to avoid arguments about quality is to go up in format-size !

Pioneer · Oct 12, 2023

Mark J said:
Cross-post - clarification, comment to brbo.

Pioneer - I don't know when the Leica/Zeiss wars took place. Maybe with the users ? It was closer than you know in the late-90's.
You're a large-format guy as I am, you now that the easiest way to avoid arguments about quality is to go up in format-size !

Ain't that a fact. I love 8x10 contact prints. There really is something truly special about a photo when you are more worried about the paper you intend to print on than the lens that you used to make the negative.

xkaes · Oct 12, 2023

Mark J said:
You're a large-format guy as I am, you now that the easiest way to avoid arguments about quality is to go up in format-size !

I wish that were the case. In the large format arena, the Schneider/Rodenstock vs Fujinon/Nikon tag-team war still rages on -- even though they've all stopped making those lenses.

JParker · Oct 13, 2023

xkaes said:
If you say someone is wrong enough times -- and loud enough -- some people will believe it.

In this thread there are mainly two groups currently arguing: One group which owns and use both the old type and the new type lenses, reporting about their test results and experiences. And giving links to numerous other test resources. And one has posted pictures giving very clear proof as well.
And the other group, which only owns and uses the old type lenses, which says they know better, and those who are using the new lenses are wrong. No test results, pictures, or links to sources given. And this group is also implying that the millions of photographers who have switched in the last 20-30 years to the newer type lenses are also wrong.
Go figure.......

Hassasin · Oct 13, 2023

JParker said:
In this thread there are mainly two groups currently arguing: One group which owns and use both the old type and the new type lenses, reporting about their test results and experiences. And giving links to numerous other test resources. And one has posted pictures giving very clear proof as well.
And the other group, which only owns and uses the old type lenses, which says they know better, and those who are using the new lenses are wrong. No test results, pictures, or links to sources given. And this group is also implying that the millions of photographers who have switched in the last 20-30 years to the newer type lenses are also wrong.
Go figure.......

If I may, NO.

One group that knows lens (design, minute peculiarities in rendering etc) does not make image work in absolute majority of cases, and the other group that is more concerned with charts, tests, and having lunch at a lab at every opportunity, while believing it will all make a difference in produced image.

There are millions of images from the beginning of photography that stand as objective proof the first group is onto something, and fractional amount of images that might give the second group something to stand on.

But as some like to say, if test chart makes your eye better, go with it by all means, nothing wrong with using any means to feel better.

Hassasin · Oct 13, 2023

Let's not forget how this drifted (not surprisingly) from Leica R to tubes, microscopes, and test contests.

What OP is missing with Leica R is strange shutter release lag, super solid feel of all of these bodies, cute looks (with exception of frog eyed silver versions), and relative compactness (R8/9 aside). Lenses are all chunks of metal that help stand in the wind, give that tactile feel of a gentle strong man, and produce images as good as in the eyes of the beholder.

Leica R - what am I missing?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency