• 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...

Patrick Robert James said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is where you're analogy goes wrong simply because not all cameras and particularly lenses are equal in terms of the quality of the results produced using them. That quality is of course dependent on the user's skills and craft as well as the equipment.

It's not egotistical tomfoolery to be aware and acknowledge that Leica M lenses are designed to meet slightly different criteria to Canon or Nikon lenses, or that shooting a Leica M hand held is easier at lower speeds than an SLR., but of course the same can be said for other range finder cameras made in recent years by Cosina.

When it comes to lens quality Leica M and similar modern range finder lenses have the advantage of no mirror so can use more optimal designs, particularly for standard and wide angle lenses, we can see the same comparing a Hasselblad SWC lens with it's equivalent for the inter-changeable bodied Hasselblads.

It's really about realities rather than obsession or over hyped myths.

Ian
 
Ai Print said:
I have the 40mm FLE, 50mm FLE, 60mm CFi, 80mm CFe, 100mm CFi, 120mm CF, 180mm CFi, 350mm CF and the 1.4XE and my girlfriend married me, LOL!!
Click to expand...
I have the 250SA, what should my girlfriend say?
 
Actually- I thought the analogy with a carpenter and a hammer was good. My Brother is a mechanic, and is very particular about the tools that he will use. He knows what he likes, doesn't look at comparisons and discuss with other mechanics or go to online forums- he knows the Brand of Tools that he likes and just buys those. He spent a lot of money on tools.
 
It depends what you mean by quality. All lenses have qualities which lend an image a look or evoke an atmosphere. If by quality you mean resolution, the ability of a lens to render fine detail, then modern lenses win hands down. A 50 mp digital camera with a top prime lens will knock any 35mm image into a cocked hat.

What people generally mean by quality in a photographic context is sharpness and lack of optical distortion. In a film context it becomes trickier because people bring emotion to a technical component using evocative language, but not precise descriptive language. This is great for marketing, but less useful for someone wanting to know exactly what they'll get from a lens. Film users as a whole - with the possible exception of large format fans - are not about absolute resolution (or they would be chasing the latest technology), but about other things, mostly of an emotional nature.

An extreme example of this is a YouTube video of someone describing how brilliant their old Barnack lens is, when it's clearly fogged to hell. The "glow" is light reflecting and refracting between every glass surface, but the user seems convinced this is how Leica lenses are supposed to look. The Leica name represents a range of products, new and old, film and digital, screw and bayonet, licensed and in-house, pristine and knackered, not all of which represent the "magic" people invest them with. Even its iconic names have qualities which can be found, more or less, in non-Leica products.
 
blockend said:
Film users as a whole - with the possible exception of large format fans - are not about absolute resolution (or they would be chasing the latest technology), but about other things, mostly of an emotional nature.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by "absolute resolution". Large format users on the whole know that the resolution of their optics is actually much lower than the resolution of smaller format optics. The current reigning resolution champ is, IIRC, a Zeiss 50mm for 35mm format, that could resolve something over 140 lp/mm - more than the film it was recording on could resolve. Typical medium format lenses resolve in the 80-90 lp/mm range, and large format lenses are 50-60 lp/mm. Where large format wins is that although the lenses don't resolve as fine a detail, they more than make up for it with square inches of film. 140 lp/mm x35= 4200. 60 lp/mm x 126= 7560. And that's just the comparison for 35mm to 4x5. And bear in mind that the 35mm film doesn't even resolve the maximum the lens can resolve - it's closer to 100-110 lp/mm even with something as fine-grained as Velvia 50.
 

Invited back to what, a special little club meeting that if you are a good boy and don’t touch things you can sit and listen to tales of days gone by? I have been a full time professional advertising and editorial photographer for 30 years, many pros are friends with other ones over their entire careers and we in fact DO talk about gear, run issues by each other, talk about new techniques, etc.

It’s not all we talk about and we don’t sit around saying mine is bigger than yours but occasionally Leica does come up and even if not exclusively, a couple of us use it and the talk is always positive, never contentious like on this damn site.

The things you bring up, the way you present them, there is practically nothing inviting or inclusive about them. You act like you know a lot and then you make a fool of your self by saying things that show you oversimplify or use overly broad sweeping statements to apply to everyone.

This is just crazy talk man, where does it end with you???
 
blockend said:
Film users as a whole - with the possible exception of large format fans - are not about absolute resolution (or they would be chasing the latest technology), but about other things, mostly of an emotional nature.
Click to expand...

Rather a sweeping statement, I've been an LF shooter for over 40 years, and MF just a little longer, but cut my teeth with 35mm and was always trying to get the best out of my equipment, it's the craft that helps the creativity and allows you to be more expressive.

In the 1970's and 80's a lot of people were chasing after LF quality from 35mm cameras using films like Technical Pan, really they were chasing their own tails because the same film was available in LF sizes as well but the price was tonality and sharpness.

Different lenses have different characteristics and these are most noticeable with 35mm, I happen to prefer the redition of my 50mm Summicron to most Japanese SLR lenses, that's a personal choice I can see a difference and it's that quality I'm after with that lens and camera.

Ian
 


https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com/
 
WHY do people get emotive about film and NOT d......?
 
chip j said:
WHY do people get emotive about film and NOT d......?
Click to expand...
Wrong forum. No so on some « alternative technology » fora such as dp..... When I am bored (fortunately not so often) I love to see how every single thread turns into a global war past the second page.
 
darkosaric said:
Or go to some digital forum and explain that Adox CMS 20 has more resolution than any digital sensor .
Click to expand...

Very true.
A 16x20" optical print from 35mm or MF CMS20 is incomprehensible for most of these kids but how can you blame them - their 4K monitors and occasional shit-prints is all they know.
 
darkosaric said:
Or go to some digital forum and explain that Adox CMS 20 has more resolution than any digital sensor .
Click to expand...

Then tell them you will be lucky to get six stops out of it and its iso 20....
 
TheFlyingCamera said:
Where large format wins is that although the lenses don't resolve as fine a detail, they more than make up for it with square inches of film.
Click to expand...
Precisely, which is presumably why its users carry cameras that need a suitcase rather than ones that fit in their pocket. I don't understand why people fetishise a lens costing £4k when they could move up a format and find a camera that will match it's output size for size for a couple of hundred. Nobody's forcing anyone to shoot an early c20th cinema format that wastes a third of its space in redundant sprocket holes in their stills camera in 2017.
Ian Grant said:
Rather a sweeping statement, I've been an LF shooter for over 40 years, and MF just a little longer, but cut my teeth with 35mm and was always trying to get the best out of my equipment
Click to expand...
What does best mean? I like the look of films shot through my plastic lens P&S cameras, medium format film on triplets, and large format on a vintage Taylor Hobson, among others. That doesn't mean I don't use quality enlarging lenses and the best materials to make a fine print from those negatives. Unless you're shooting reconnaissance or scientific or astrophotography, I don't see any merit in absolute resolution when the point of the exercise is to elicit an emotional response from a 2-D image.
 
georg16nik said:
Very true.
A 16x20" optical print from 35mm or MF CMS20 is incomprehensible for most of these kids but how can you blame them - their 4K monitors and occasional shit-prints is all they know.
Click to expand...

Kids?
Only knowing 4K monitors and shit prints?
You can tell Winter is on the way because man-o-man do the blankets come out...

And I hate to tell you but shooting film in the digital age is not about resolution anymore, that ship has long since sailed for the most part.
I bet if I made a 30" darkroom print with my 105mm Rodagon G from CMS20 in 120 using my 100mm Hasselblad planar and then one from my D850 using a top lens in the same relevant focal length, the latter would reveal a lot more detail. In fact, I might even do that once my darkroom build is complete.

I love film far more than digital but in also having the latest digital equipment, I also know what that does in the real world. Might want to keep those blankets handy because it could become a cold reality to keep thinking like that, especially when assuming young people are clueless.
 
chip j said:
WHY do people get emotive about film and NOT d......?
Click to expand...

I am still not impressed with digital except for remote sensing from space or aircraft.
 
Ai Print said:
I love film far more than digital but in also having the latest digital equipment, I also know what that does in the real world.
Click to expand...
To torture an analogy, film is like an Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire compared to a digital's Toyota Avensis. The first requires continued attention and rewards its owner handsomely in a way few understand, but if I needed to drive 300 miles I'd take the Toyota every time.
 
So that I understand the analogy, what is the photography equivalent of driving 300 miles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register