Nikon vs. Leica

Also .... not printing your negs is missing out on about half the fun.

OK maybe more for some of us

not printing would be missing 3/4ths of the fun in my case

I love the people that tout the "Leica" look. Subject matter, maybe, but telling me that one negative looks more like it was shot with Leica glass than Nikon or CZ is hogwash. Use whatever you like that helps you get the pictures you want. If you want to spend $4000 on a set up to shoot only black and white, be my guest. I understand the desire for the "best", but sometimes it is a little too much to buy into the mystique.

Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you...

I'm afraid Andrew you're sounding terribly like my wife! BTW I *know* she's right .....but ...... well ...... it's a Guy thing.

Well, I have been using Leica for a while (old 3f and now an M6) with leica glass and voigtlander glass. I also have a Canon A1 which I pulled out recently to shoot interiors of a house. This got me thinking, is there any noticabile difference between the Leica glass and the Canon and Voigtlander. I did a test. Not very scientific, loaded some fp4 in the Leica and Canon and went and shot some stuff (same shot, different glass each time) then loaded some crappy Kodak gold 200 and did the same thing.

I can attest to the fact that here is a difference in the look of the prints. And what is interesting is that I was showing them to another photographer who looked at them and pointed to some of the shots and said "Leica?" and was correct each time. Is the Leica glass better? That's a matter of opinion and taste but I am sure that there is a difference.

I'm surprised that NO ONE answered that Leica M lenses are better than Nikkor SLR lenses, and then said WHY. Because it's true, and here's the "why" part:

Rangefinders don't have a reflex mirror. For a 35mm SLR, the mirror (to show full frame) needs to be (24mm*sqrt(2))mm across, MINIMUM. So that's 34mm of volume in which the lens elements cannot intrude or they'll get whacked by the mirror. So the lens flange (where the lens connects) needs to be at least that far from the film. A Rangefinder, with no mirror, can place the flange much much closer -- back-protruding lens elements can go almost right up to the shutter curtain (some moving lightmeters actually hit some extreme-wide lenses!)

Okay, so how do you make lenses for a camera with (Nikon) flange distance of 43.5 mm when the focal length may actually be less than that? By using retrofocus designs, additonal elements, thicker glass. The same applies to even color-correct normal lenses. The rangefinder, meanwhile, can use simpler lens formulas, fewer elements, and thus have higher contrast and MTFs.

When I got my Contax, I could see the difference immediately, right on the negs, compared to my Canon SLR. The RF negs are just plain snappier.

Leica SLR lenses have the same limitations as Nikon or Canon. But RF optics like those from Leica and Zeiss are indeed superior in the middle and short lengths. For long lenses, you should go SLR anyway. And flange issues disappear.

KB
(Currently in a hotel two blocks from Yodobashi Camera )

bjorke said:

..... For long lenses, you should go SLR anyway. And flange issues disappear.

KB
(Currently in a hotel two blocks from Yodobashi Camera )

Click to expand...

Why?

John McCallum said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Because the flange distance (that 43.5mm for Nikon) will be less than the focal length. Significantly so. Therefore, simple lens designs can be used, without retrofocus issues. And long lenses are more easily and accurately used with SLR viewing (even for Visoflex).

Sharpest retail lens on the block used to be the Contax-G 45mm rangefinder lens, narrowly edging-out the 50mm 'cron. The prize is now held by a tele L Canon lens. But no SLR normal/wide comes close to the Contax or Leica normal lenses, in terms of pure sharpness, flatess, contrast, etc. They have an innate physical advantage.

KB
(who ironically was just out shooting with his Contax G, after visiting the Nikon bis21 gallery earlier today )

Leica & Nikon

I've used both Leicas and Nikons as a professional photojournalist for 30 years.

When you put a Leica neg in the enlarger and look through the grain focuser you know you're looking at the product of Leica glass.

The thing I like best about the Leica is that it is so compact and quiet that it is always with me. I have an M6, 50, Summilux and 35mm Summilux with me pretty much 24/7.

You can't take a picture unless you have a camera.

With the Leica I am both prepared and unencumbered.

"When you put a Leica neg in the enlarger and look through the grain focuser you know you're looking at the product of Leica glass."

Why? What specifically is different?

Leica/Nikon

Mind you, we're not talking about a world of difference. Nikon glass is stellar, but the Leitz lenses seem to have a crispness and luminosity that is unique. I see that crispness most clearly manifested along the defining edges of objects. Additionally, nothing renders the out of focus areas quite as beautifully as Leitz glass.

Again, we're not talking about a world of difference or an epiphanous experience, but there is a unique quality of rendering.

It seems that you are talking about differences in "Bokeh" (the rendering of out-of-focus areas of the image).

That, IMO is the basic difference - and there are differences between different E. Leitz lens types as well as differences between Leitz and Nikon.

Nikon & Leica

It's not solely about bokeh...

It's the transitions from gray to gray to gray, It's the crispness around the edges of things (thought that is in part due to choice of developer).

I don't want to infer that Leica glass is better than Nikon glass, but it is different. Either you wil appreciate and enjoy that difference or not.

I own both brands of cameras and shoot with both as the job dictates. I also own a couple of Nikon wide angles (90mm & 65mm) for my 4x5 and they are outstanding. I also have a 47mm, 75mm and 120mm Schneider Super Angulons. Again, different from the Nikons. Not better or worse, just different.

Yep, I agree. It is sorta like the difference between an Azo contact print developed in Ansco 130 and one developed in Michael Smith's Amidol.

luminosity

isn't that just a fancy word for that Leica "glow" HAHA

Bjorke's earlier reply led me to another way of thought on the differences that doesn't even concern the glass. As far as SLRs and rangefinders, how much do you think the mirror vibration comes into play? Also, the play on the shutter release; I've heard Leicas have a better feel. I mean if you're pressing harder wouldn't you shake the camera a little more?

Ara:
Most articles I've seen suggest that mirror slap is most noticable a 1/8-1/15th sec. & recommend using mirror lockup at these speeds.
Also the Leica has a much faster response to shutter release than SLR's because you're actually releasing the shutter. In SLR's, you release the mirror which then releases the shutter.

I find the biggest difference between using an SLR or TLR and a rangefinder is the way I see things through the viewfinder. The image on the ground glass, surrounded by darkness, altered, separated from reality, leads me in a different direction to that I get seeing through a direct viewfinder, plain and clear, more directly connected to everything going on around me - I often keep both eyes open.

That's come out as sounding pretentious - I have failed to put an abstract concept that I see clearly into words of similar clarity.

Well, there you go.
Helen

..that is, of course, unless like Eggleston (et al) you are using a Contax G with a telescoping finder

KB
(who still likes the Canon GIII, if it weren't so fragile)
(Yodobashi Camera was having a day-long seminar on GIII fixing a week or two back...)

bjorke said:

...

KB
(Currently in a hotel two blocks from Yodobashi Camera )

Click to expand...

Wife and I were in Shinjuku during Oct. 2000 and Nov. 2001. Stayed at the "Keio Plaza Hotel", just a few minutes walk to Yodobashi Camera. That store is a must visit when we are in Tokyo. May only buy a few odd items that are difficult to locate here in the U.S.A. but any major purchases such as cameras, or lenses are done here as the prices are lower.
Howard Tanger

Sean said:

I used a nikon 8008s with 3 lenses for about 5 years. I then upgraded to a Leica M6 with 28mm elmarit-M. When I got my first roll of slides back from the Leica I was beyond floored. I'm not sure how people can say the optics are the same. My nikon slides in comparison to the Leica slides were absolutely flat and dreary. The leica images look 3D as if they are jumping out of the emulsion. Amazing clarity and contrast. I no longer have the M6 because I've gone up to 645 and 8x10, but if I were going with a serious 35mm setup it would be hard to use anything other than a Leica after owning one. The Leica's are pricey though, the main drawback..

Click to expand...

I agree with you 10%, Sean. During my camera club's slide competitions, the awesome 3D effect and brilliance my Leica M lenses (and Leica R8 lenses) create is far superior to the other members' Nikon and Canon lenses' output! I'll never change from Leica to any other manufacturer.

Howard R. Tanger said:

Stayed at the "Keio Plaza Hotel"

Click to expand...

Ha, same hotel. I go about once a year. Next time the Hyatt around the corner, though

Yeah, Yodobashi etc are not cheap compared to, say, B&H -- but some used deals can sometimes be found, and the selection is unbeatable. Plus you can always say: "gee, it was only 34,000Y at MAP..."



(please forgive digi pic)