• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What fuel Leica hatred...

BrianVS said:
...When I read someone posting "You are missing the Leica experience if you don't use a Leica lens on a Leica camera"- I pass them of as being ignorant...
Click to expand...

Agree, such folks are funny.
You will be hard pressed to pick a bad 50mm lens from just about anyone, ever since the 1950's.
However, Leica's 28mm to 50mm primes are a league of their own.

Wide-angle lenses are tough and Leica's lenses ~ 20mm sucks big time - M.Russinov and the Biogon flavored designs are still way ahead as Dr. Hubert Nasse, chief optical designer at Zeiss wrote in Camera Lens News 41 (2011).

The Distagon is close but no cigar, with only legit exception being the 28mm “Hollywood”, offered at the time as Zeiss 28/2 and Pentax 28/2 (K), basically the same lens, diff housing.
 
I think of the emotional investment I have in my camera gear, and while it's less a function of money invested, money is part of it. Now I imagine I had put in thousands of dollars, like the equivalent of a good used car into it. It was hard enough to realize that my full frame digital was not providing any good images when the micro 4/3 camera I bought used last year has provided dozens, and the more expensive camera was effectively a waste of money because of it. And while the more expensive camera is quite good, it is too expensive to use freely, too big and intimidating to cart around everywhere, to valuable to leave in the console in the car. So it rarely gets used. My <$100 used micro 4/3 camera has a feature no Leica will ever have. I can drop it, run over it with a car, use it up so completely it burns out, and go buy another one, and only be a little upset. It's not rare, special, or exceptional tool in any way.
 
It's posts like this that make people take Leica fans less than seriously. Firstly, some of the cheapest cameras have Waterhouse stops that offer perfectly round out of focus details. Secondly, the number of blades a lens has tells us nothing about its overall optical qualities. Thirdly, one of the best reasons to buy a rangefinder camera is street photography where a lens is typically stopped down to f8 and beyond. Fourthly, one of the less good reasons to buy a rangefinder is wide aperture lenses whose characteristics and focal points are not shown through a rangefinder, but are through an SLR. Fifthly, the appearance of out of focus details has nothing to do with a wider appreciation of "visual aesthetics". Sixthly (!), I have yet to see magic by lifting up any negative, including ones produced by my Leica! Making a fine print from any negative is damned hard work, and it's qualities are a reflection of exposure, development, lighting and composition, with the brand of lens it was shot on a distant last. It's impossible to tell what make of 35mm camera or lens a photograph is shot on from looking at a print. At best you might guess the type, double gauss, 3-element, biogon, meniscus, etc, and then only in certain images.
 
And again I ask, who the hell do you think you are to tell someone else they are not seeing a difference?

You can say all day that you don’t see a difference but if not with my own two eyes, I would take the word of Nat Geo picture editors like Chris Johns, Susan Smith, Kent Kobersteen and Time magazine’s Mary Ann Golon over yours any day.

In 2006 I was really struck by the difference I saw on slide film when I first tried Leica M glass. And as I have said in the past, I was even annoyed at first because I knew it was going to be darn expensive building a good kit.

Can you please stop telling people *they* are not seeing a difference or at least frame your replies to not tell another person what they see with their own two eyes is not there and then labeling them a “Leica Fan” as if it is some derogatory term???

 
Last edited:
I can sometimes see a difference, when prints are placed side by side. Enough to identify the lens? maybe, in some (very few) cases. Leitz lenses are designed to different criteria than say NiCaNolta lenses. I can see a difference between my 5cm Sonnar and a 5cm Tessar, both mid- late 30s on the same camera, at large apertures I can tell them apart pretty reliably. I find it nearly impossible to distinguish between a Summicron-R and a 50mm Nikkor HC, the Nikkor might be slightly warmer, and maybe has a touch of veiling flare at f:2 but as far as identifying prints at a glance forget it, unless they are pictures of brick walls where the Nikkor shows very slight barrel distortion. On large format B&W prints I can spot a Dagor just about every time, but then I made the prints so that's cheating. My '46 Summitar is very very sharp in the middle zone, a bit less so in the corners and that can be picked out on some slides and prints. I can cite other examples, but it's rather pointless. They all do a superlative job when I do my part.
 
darkosaric said:
I am not able to hear difference between vinyl LP and CD/mp3 - I don't hear this "warmness" of LP's, but they are some folks that can hear that.
Click to expand...
I certainly can. LPs don't sound "warm" they sound more nuanced. Good CDs sound superb and a bit "sterile". Mp3s just annoy me, they don't sound good at all. I use a modified Dynaco tube preamp, Moscode tube/FET output power amp, Canton speakers with a home made subwoofer, 56 year old ears.
 
There is no question that a lot of users of Leica equipment are overly fanatical about the brand. They are often not very good photographers and try to find the right job for the tool instead of the other way around.

But you know what? Just take a look around a few other forums and you will see the same can and does apply to users of Nikon, Canon and Sony equipment too.

We can all have differing opinions of said gear and healthy debate is fine. But when a select few go beyond that and tell other people that they do not see a difference or try to constantly debase a person’s reason for using a specific tool, price be dammed....well then I think that they might be displaying a personal problem that actually has not a damn thing to do with photography equipment.
 
E. von Hoegh said:
56 year old ears.
Click to expand...
That is the problem evh... if your ears were t so old you wouldn’t
Hear the difference between mp3s and cds and the wam full tone of an
Lp is like a figment of your imagination. It’s like saying Leica glass makes sunshine or grain and film and paper defects and all that analog-ee stuff is
Supposed to. BE there if it was all supposed to be there the technology wouldn’t have improved ( except for Leica and Leitz cause they can’t be improved . ). Besides I don’t like lens shnshine I like overcast days
 

Hold the phone there. Do you print optically in DR or you sing with the scanner birdies?


micro 4/3 camera?
Are you for real?

Yeah, I see APUG is no more and film is not the main forte on PHOTRIO.
I could hardly care about full frame vs half frame vs micro whatever.

Step back and think thru the whole Leica thing.
If you are not shooting film and you have little or no darkroom experience and You haven't printed a decent print in your life, then you are most likely missing whole lot of magic and lots of what being talked about here is way over your head.

Your perspective is miles away from the informed decisions that generations of legendary photographers made throughout the span of 100 years.
Bashing Leica in such manner is like saying rich folks are stupid or that a classic Ferrari is crap, cause not whole lot of folks drive them around.

Now lets hear the next fellow poster mention his iPhone.
I will have lots of jokes to tell at my Halloween party tonight...
 
Using film and scanning it is like having a leash but no dog.
Film needs to be printed optically, by the same person who made the negative. Far too much is lost in scanning, which I've come to realise is very nearly an art in itself.
 
regardless of lenses, Leica mount is utterly brutal system for reportage / street work that has never been surpassed if you want interchangeable lenses and full manual control.
 
I know, I know, I'm an anachronism. I prefer John Bonham to a drum machine and Merilee Rush to anything involving an autotuner.
 
The OP was about the Thambar and it's price. I would have thought the subsequent posts might be about the Thambar. But no.
The title of the OP is "What fuel Leica hatred" ; not actually a sentence. But this has generated an abundance of posts. Interestingly, many understand clearly the "dog whistle " call for the expected conversation and respond accordingly.
It's enlightening that a title that technically doesn't actually say anything can be so clear.
Has anybody any experience with the old Thambar. (which I understand sells for nearly the same as the new)?
 
That sums it up. I'm sure if I put some nicely printed shots taken on my Jupiter 12 Biogon copy next to any old camera, someone would wax lyrical about the virtue of classic lenses and how the print shows its qualities shine through. Can I tell the difference between it and something costing 50 times the amount? Perhaps in some situations, but basically it looks unlike Japanese 35mm lenses from the 1970s onwards, and that alone is sufficient to induce Stendhal syndrome in some people. My 7Artisans 25mm Chinese made lens (new for 50 quid) produces images that look very like a Barnack, if both were put on a digital camera. Sharp in the middle with uncorrected astigmatism round the edge at wide apertures, and a kind of pearly roundness throughout. The point is none of those characteristics are exclusive to very expensive lenses, or ones made by Leitz. The Rodenstock triplet on my Zeiss Ikon Nettar has them in spades.

The point as ever, is whether the kind of pictures someone takes are compelling to look at, not whether the bokeh balls have an edge to them, whether the micro contrast "pops" (give me strength), or whether the lens shows a hint of vignetting, pin cushioning, barrel distortion, flare or scores one 1 out of 10 on a test chart.
 
Last edited:

oh yeah, I'm very serious. I'd suggest one keep an open mind about what is possible. I'd like you to scale back your condescending attitude. I've been on this forum long enough to know how things go. Lose the sharpness battle, switch to talking about bokeh. Lose the contrast battle, start talking about the subtle glow. Lose the resolution battle, start talking about the subtle je ne sais quoi that film possesses. Lose the noise battle, start talking about how you really like grain after all, even after a billion threads asking how to reduce grain. Lose the low light battle, switch to talking about using a tripod, and how you really, really like grain and ISO 3200 is totally possible with today's film stocks.

Who cares about your appeal to authority? Generations of photographers didn't use cameras which didn't exist. Got it. There's so much work today of such technical excellence that it would make the old timers blush. Even the most pedestrian photographer can crank out stuff that would make a darkroom worker sweat a generation ago. All that is really missing in their work is being in the right place at the right time, and having a press agency pushing their work to the public. I've used film. The value equation for me was the opportunity cost of learning to do film and printing well, or getting out and taking photos. I decided that I loved photography more. So that's what I'm doing.

You know, if I could afford a Ferrari, I wouldn't buy one. From what I hear they're very expensive to maintain and get poor gas mileage. They probably spend most of their time in the garage or shop. Is this the time where it's appropriate to mention "Veblen good"?

I love the moments where I take time to appreciate finely made things. When I take a camera, and use it, and it feels well made with everything in the right place, and the actions and behavior fell elegant and sophisticated. I get that. I like the idea of being able to savor -- whatever it is, wine, food, music. There is also the flip side, where one takes an unsophisticated, crude tool, and fashions something beautiful with it. Don't be fooled that beautiful tools are necessary or sufficient. Savor your glass hammer. I'll keep pounding away at photography.

PS. Since you seem to be clutching pearls over micro 4/3, I will let you know that I intend to buy used Pentax Q when the prices come down. Then I can start using my stash of 8mm cine lenses. That's going to be a lot of fun.
 

I was going to mention that after about f:5.6 my J-12 looks a lot like my Nikkor-O 35/2 but I didn't think anyone would believe it.
 
darkosaric said:
I am not able to hear difference between vinyl LP and CD/mp3 - I don't hear this "warmness" of LP's, but they are some folks that can hear that.
Click to expand...

I know the whole LP thing sounding warmer sounds like a snake oil pitch. I'm in my 40's- I've had records, gone to tape, moved to cd's, and then over to mp3's. I just bought a record player because I'm nostalgic for everything I had in my youth. I find that I can hear a difference between mp3 and vinyl, vinyl sounding clearer than mp3 but not "warmer". I'm not even sure what "warmer" means. I also find I can hear a difference between vinyl/mp3 and cd's- cd's seem "sharper" with a lot more high end treble. I'm not sure any sound particularly better than the other though, just different. I think how the album is engineered affects sound quality more than the medium it's recorded on. What I can tell you is an LP's dust jacket with the included posters, lyrics, larger artwork beats the hell out of the icon you get with an mp3 or the tiny little dust jacket of a cd.
 

I think there is an "s" missing from "fuel"; a very understandable error from a native German speaker; putting the "s" on makes it a sentence.
As for using a thambar, no; I'm allergic to soft focus lenses of any sort, vintage or modern.
 
E. von Hoegh said:
I was going to mention that after about f:5.6 my J-12 looks a lot like my Nikkor-O 35/2 but I didn't think anyone would believe it.
Click to expand...
You won't be surprised to find I'm also a fan of pre-AI Nikkors generally, and I certainly believe you!
 
Again, there is no hatred, only disdain. The term hate was coined by those Leicaphiles who felt offended, both to demonize those who called them out, and to portray themselves as victims. The disdain is directed at fanboys and dilettantes and not at serious photographers who quietly go about their business. Serious photographers who quietly go about their business often substitute black dots for red ones, or tape over the logos and model numbers altogether to distance themselves from the fanboys, whom they find equally obnoxious.
 
Last edited:

I don't disagree with a lot of this. I just wish people would frame their statements in a way as to not fan flames. A start would be to carefully think about how an opinion can come off like a broad sweeping generalization without the proper wording.

I certainly have my issues with true Leica fanboys as well. All one has to do is go visit the Leica User Forum and see just how many people talk about other fantastic gear like it is crap. And then you look at their work and wow....it's stillborn.
 
E. von Hoegh said:
I was going to mention that after about f:5.6 my J-12 looks a lot like my Nikkor-O 35/2 but I didn't think anyone would believe it.
Click to expand...
MY Jupiter-12 is from 1952 and has Zeiss serial numbers on it...It's really sharp, after adding a 0.3mm Shim to the optics! Explains why the glass was in such good shape, no one used it. BUT- renders very differently from my 35/2 Nikkor-O, factory Ai'd. But today's choice for a lens was a Jupiter-3 made from parts lenses. 1952 Zeiss Glass from one with a bad barrel, put into a 1950 barrel, and a mount made from left-overs from 3 different parts lenses.

For the original discussion, looking at the undercorrected images of the $6500 Thambar, my first thought: I could take an 85mm lens, gut the optics, and replace them with SurplusShack optics to give much the same look. I have a Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 in Nikon S-Mount that was missing the rear element, bought it for $40. "Guessed" the focal length of the rear element, bought a lens from Surplusshack and put it in. Turns out the retaining ring of a J-3 is the same as that used by Nikon. The Nikkor is under-corrected for spherical aberration, BUT I'd have to replace a few more optics to get something as soft as the Thambar. Come to think of it- I have a J-9 barrel and an LTM focus mount. Might be a good project for the Winter.
 
Last edited:


Have to agree.

I guess I saw images first hand made with a Leica while at University around 1972/3, a technician from one of the departments gave a lecture at the Photo Society, he showed us superb work, didn't push the brand but stated simply this is what I used an M2 from memory.

Since then I've used a lot of different camera professionally and for personal work and was happiest with Pentax lenses but saw outstanding work by the late Peter Goldfield (who'd assisted Minor White) and Paul Hill, and decided to try a Leica for my own work. I loved my M3 it was a user camera (bought on that basis - mechanically excellent with scuffs and very minor dings) but the results really were worth it, its in semi retirement only because I rarely shoot 35mm these days.

A Camera is a tool only bad workmen blame their tools.

Ian
 
Last edited:
There are practically no professionals that use Leica today. In fact it has been many many years since there were a lot of Leicas in use by professionals. These days the vast majority of pros use either Nikon or Canon because pros think of cameras like carpenters think of hammers. Carpenters don't sit around yammering on about their hammers. You will almost never hear a discussion amongst pro photographers about the difference between cameras. No one cares. If you blurted out "I use a Leica therefore my pictures are better" you might not get invited back. I once heard someone ask Nachtwey what kind of film he used. Nachtwey, in his stoic manner, imparted upon the loathsome creature that it didn't matter. I can just imagine some dolt asking Nachtwey why he doesn't use a Leica, 'cause ya know, there are these guys on the internet who say Leicas are better... That is about all you need to say about it.

I am not a Leica hater. I am not a Leica lover. I do like Leicas. They are fun to use and they do the job. Other cameras do as well. Just a bunch of hammers as far as I'm concerned. All the rest is just egotistical tomfoolery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register