Why Leica, my view with new technical research

[removed account4]

Leica is not a silver bullet, but as for the lenses, the writing has been on the wall for decades.

hey D

i know exactly what you talk about...
people like what they like. they attribute wonderful photographs, beautiful lighting,
clear rendition, grey tone separation, colors and all sorts of other things to lenses and cameras,
phases of the moon, mercury being DIRECT and all sorts of stuff ... that is why some cameras and lenses
have "cult" status ( and you should never do anything important when mercury is RETROGRADE )
i would be lying if i didn't say i have made beautiful photographs with a leica and its lenses;
but to me at least it is more than the lenses that have made these photographs
it is the continuation of using the camera which was gifted to me from someone who used it before me,
so it is THAT magic ...as well as the nice glass, the nice feel of the camera; AND the moment.
it's been spoken about here on apug, the magic of a camera, even a junk camera
because it has the vibe of the users before. its like riding the kharma train, or pushing the good cause along and how it "feels good".
pentaxuser is right on, the OP has made all sorts of declarations about german cameras and glass,
how other lenses, cameras &c are "inferior" almost like a eugenics experiment from years gone by ...
all i can say to that, superior yadda yadda yadda is ... WHATEVER, i'm not drinking that KOOL-AID. a lens and camera is only as "superior" as the person using it.
if the person using it makes lackluster photographs without the leica, i am putting my money on the fact that even with a leica the photographs will be lackluster.
its like driving a YUGO car terribly ... driving a porsche won't make someone a better driver, or if someone can't compose or make an OK photograph
with a pentax k1000 ( or any inexpensive 35mm camera ) buying a ebony 20x24 with a 3,000$ schneider lens, isnt' going to magically make the person take better photographs.
some of the most beautiful photographs ever made ( and will ever be made ) will be made with inferior glass on an inferior camera ( even a cellphone )
by an amateur ... someone with soul, photographing a moment he or she caught that meant something.
in the end any camera and its lens/lenses can only make beautiful photographs (if they are used); superiorty is a myth.
everyone and their uncle can argue about the way the skin drapes over the skeletal features like some imported fabric or a 16th century dutch master's painting.
the photograph uploaded to prove the "draping" point was IMHO kind of grotesque, the 2 men didn't look full of life, but frightening maybe it was a bad-scan?
in the end ... any glass is superior if it is used to make photographs.

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to work part time at a Venture store (similar to Target) in the camera department when I was young. My manager mistook a display Minolta as being broken and marked it down to $25. He was going to zero it out and I told him that I'd buy it. The 50mm lens alone was worth $25. It turned out as I suspected that it just needed new batteries. I shot a roll through it to make sure it worked and lined up a buyer (coworker) within a few days. When the buyer saw my images he wouldn't believe that they were from a Minolta lens and not one of my Zeiss lenses from my Contax. I assured him that I would return his money if he wasn't happy with the camera. He ended up thrilled with it.

Lenses don't take photographs. Photographers take photographs.

 

[nolanr66]

I use Nikon gear. It seems real nice to me. I do not want glow in the pictures unless the subject was actually glowing somehow. I met a girl the other day that said Jesus glowed so if I ever see him around I will grab a shot before the cops grab him. Anyway kidding aside I have never seen a Leica photo so I would not know what part of it glows like a light bulb. Actually outside of my own prints I may not have actually seen a print in years. I guess I am more of a shadow type guy so I am on the other end of the spectrum from glowing photos.

 

[Jim Jones]

About 45 years ago I did a quick, but critical, comparison for sharpness of three dozen lenses for 35mm cameras. Four were in a class above all others. Only one of those was made by Leica, a LTM 50 mm f/2.8 Elmar. The others were by Nikon: Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 , GN Nikkor f/2.8 45mm, and EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8. 50mm Summicrons and Nikkors were similar in sharpness. A Nikkor-UD 20mm f/4 formed one of the sharpest images in the center of the field, and one of the worst in the corners.

 

[chip j]

Why all this talk? Modern leica lenses aren't even made for film.

 

[Alan Gales]

About 45 years ago I did a quick, but critical, comparison for sharpness of three dozen lenses for 35mm cameras. Four were in a class above all others. Only one of those was made by Leica, a LTM 50 mm f/2.8 Elmar. The others were by Nikon: Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 , GN Nikkor f/2.8 45mm, and EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8. 50mm Summicrons and Nikkors were similar in sharpness. A Nikkor-UD 20mm f/4 formed one of the sharpest images in the center of the field, and one of the worst in the corners.

Back in the day I was told that Japanese lenses were sharper in the center than German lenses but German lenses were sharper out to the edges. I don't know if this was true or not.

I just know that I've seen great photographs shot with most every brand.

 

[Ai Print]

Why all this talk? Modern leica lenses aren't even made for film.

There is really no such thing as lenses that are made for digital, they are either improved overall and apply to both digital and film or they don't. The exceptions to this rule would be either cropped sensor lenses for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc or Rodenstock's new line of tech camera lenses that have a smaller than 4x5 coverage area because the required image circle with large format digital capture is smaller.

Even the pre-digital era Leica lenses have remarkable color signature, contrast and sharpness, the image I posted (On Ektar 100) was with a pre-digital lens, made in the mid 90's I believe.

And to that end, I see marked improvements in my new 35mm 1.4 FLE vs my previous 35mm 1.4 Asph that was not an FLE type. In fact, every lens I see an improvement with in digital I see the same improvements with on film, whether it is a Leica lens or lenses like my Zeiss 50/2 Milvus in Nikon mount, one of the best lenses I have ever used in any format.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Wow...kinda baffled at the pushback, almost nasty in some ways....

I certainly meant no offense, so I apologize for coming across that way. It would be quite a bit of fun if an experiment were conducted.

There is really no such thing as lenses that are made for digital, they are either improved overall and apply to both digital and film or they don't. ...

I've read posts in dpreview stating lenses designed in the film era were not optimal for the digital sensor because the sensor isn't sensitive to light coming from an angle (that is, it "sees" straight ahead). This isn't a problem with film grains. So, supposedly, a lens designed for digital has its rays more parallel than spread out. That's what I understood of it.

 

[chip j]

There is really no such thing as lenses that are made for digital, they are either improved overall and apply to both digital and film or they don't. The exceptions to this rule would be either cropped sensor lenses for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc or Rodenstock's new line of tech camera lenses that have a smaller than 4x5 coverage area because the required image circle with large format digital capture is smaller.

Even the pre-digital era Leica lenses have remarkable color signature, contrast and sharpness, the image I posted (On Ektar 100) was with a pre-digital lens, made in the mid 90's I believe.

And to that end, I see marked improvements in my new 35mm 1.4 FLE vs my previous 35mm 1.4 Asph that was not an FLE type. In fact, every lens I see an improvement with in digital I see the same improvements with on film, whether it is a Leica lens or lenses like my Zeiss 50/2 Milvus in Nikon mount, one of the best lenses I have ever used in any format.

There is really no such thing as lenses that are made for digital, they are either improved overall and apply to both digital and film or they don't. The exceptions to this rule would be either cropped sensor lenses for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc or Rodenstock's new line of tech camera lenses that have a smaller than 4x5 coverage area because the required image circle with large format digital capture is smaller.

Even the pre-digital era Leica lenses have remarkable color signature, contrast and sharpness, the image I posted (On Ektar 100) was with a pre-digital lens, made in the mid 90's I believe.

And to that end, I see marked improvements in my new 35mm 1.4 FLE vs my previous 35mm 1.4 Asph that was not an FLE type. In fact, every lens I see an improvement with in digital I see the same improvements with on film, whether it is a Leica lens or lenses like my Zeiss 50/2 Milvus in Nikon mount, one of the best lenses I have ever used in any format.

Have you hand-enlarged any of your Milvus pics w/a top enlarger, lens, and paper? Or are you just a screen-squatterr? BTW, the Milvus 15mm 2.8 for Nikon has over 2% linear distortion; the original Zeiss 15mm 2.8 for Nikon had near zero distortion--I can do w/o "improvements" like this.

 

[nolanr66]

Well having your photos glow sounds distressing to me being a guy that works on getting shadows just right. However I think I would go with Zeiss as they are reported to be of excellent quality and they are not chipped for gadget camera's.

I still print photos but to tell the truth I have not seen a Leica print and would not know about the glow. The orange girl picture does not seem to be glowing but it's a digital photo anyway with white balance issues. I would want to see a print. The bad news on that is printing is dead out there. I have seen some Leica prints at MOMA particularly the bell pepper photo and the guy jumping over the puddle. They did not glow and risking sounding blasphemous I did not think they were even good photos.

 

[Ai Print]

Have you hand-enlarged any of your Milvus pics w/a top enlarger, lens, and paper? Or are you just a screen-squatterr? BTW, the Milvus 15mm 2.8 for Nikon has over 2% linear distortion; the original Zeiss 15mm 2.8 for Nikon had near zero distortion--I can do w/o "improvements" like this.

Before I awnser that why don't you check the links at the bottom of my posts, they don't just hire weekend wedding shooters for these types of things, I was and am rigorously vetted.

And when enlarged to even just 11x14 with a Rodenstock 50mm APO-N on my Saunders LPL 4550 XLG onto Ilford warmtone fiber, the overall depth & vibrancy I see from that 50 Milvus is again, stunning to me.

It's what the actual resulting photo looks like to me is what makes or breaks my feeling of a particular piece equipment being viable or not, not specs.

You seem upset at the confluence of pre and post digital equipment sir, I suggest to get more joy out of life you and others on this site allow those streams to be more free flowing amongst each other....they are not as disssimiliar as you may think.

 

[Ai Print]

I still print photos but to tell the truth I have not seen a Leica print and would not know about the glow. The orange girl picture does not seem to be glowing but it's a digital photo anyway with white balance issues. I would want to see a print. The bad news on that is printing is dead out there. I have seen some Leica prints at MOMA particularly the bell pepper photo and the guy jumping over the puddle. They did not glow and risking sounding blasphemous I did not think they were even good photos.

This is patently false, you don't white balance Ektar 100 and it was the mixed light that drew me to take the photo (of my wife), this is something I teach in the class I have at the school I listed below, learn then rules them break them when the shot calls for it. Furthermore, saying anything is dead does no one any good, not even you because it is a damaging blanket statement. I took a survey among those I know, took me about a year and only 5 out of 144 said they never printed photos that they felt strongly about. This goes from family photos, landscapes, art photos, etc.

Some of the Ilfochromes I had printed from Kodachromes shot as late as 1/10/11 are surreal in how the light bursts out of the material it is printed on.

NEXT!

 

[faberryman]

Leica has certainly made some excellent lenses. I think the praise-pushback follows Newton's Third Law -for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Dial back the fanatical (and fantasical) hyperbole and I think you'll find some consensus.

Leica is not a silver bullet, but as for the lenses, the writing has been on the wall for decades. Reputations are not bought or invented, they are brought to bear by critical acclaim and by time tested and proven use.

Don't know if English is your first language, but the phrase "the writing has been on the wall" means the foretelling of a catastrophe, so you seem to be sending a mixed message.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Phase...

I don't think you understand how the phase of the OTF interacts with imaging optics and recording media. The fact Leica optics are not required to record holograms debunks your theories, I hate to say.

Recommend you pick up a good text on Fourier Optics and texts on the prerequisite mathematics necessary to understand how this stuff really works.

The ultra-resolution satellite imaging systems do not use optics designed by Leica. Just saying.

What is the greatest photo(s) in history and why? There is no correlation to Leitz.

 

[Ai Print]

Don't know if English is your first language, but the phrase "the writing has been on the wall" means the foretelling of a catastrophe, so you seem to be sending a mixed message.

Don't know if common sense is your forte but that phrase has been used in multiple contexts for quite some time. And it was spelled correctly....the English laungauge thing.

I'm out, too many unkind people on here who seem to care less about photography and more about being king of the internet.

 

[faberryman]

Don't know if common sense is your forte but that phrase has been used in multiple contexts for quite some time.

Only in your mind.

 

[Alan Gales]

There is really no such thing as lenses that are made for digital, they are either improved overall and apply to both digital and film or they don't. The exceptions to this rule would be either cropped sensor lenses for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc or Rodenstock's new line of tech camera lenses that have a smaller than 4x5 coverage area because the required image circle with large format digital capture is smaller.

Also the "gelded" or G lenses for Nikon. They have no aperture ring so there is no way to adjust the aperture unless the camera can do so.

 

[Alan Gales]

Well having your photos glow sounds distressing to me being a guy that works on getting shadows just right. However I think I would go with Zeiss as they are reported to be of excellent quality and they are not chipped for gadget camera's.

I still print photos but to tell the truth I have not seen a Leica print and would not know about the glow. The orange girl picture does not seem to be glowing but it's a digital photo anyway with white balance issues. I would want to see a print. The bad news on that is printing is dead out there. I have seen some Leica prints at MOMA particularly the bell pepper photo and the guy jumping over the puddle. They did not glow and risking sounding blasphemous I did not think they were even good photos.

I have no idea what the OP means about "glow" with a Leica lens. Normally when photographers talk about glow with a lens they are talking about the spherical aberration of a soft focus lens.

 

[faberryman]

I have no idea what the OP means about "glow" with a Leica lens. Normally when photographers talk about glow with a lens they are talking about the spherical aberration of a soft focus lens.

Perhaps he means: "Don't know if common sense is your forte but that phrase "glow" has been used in multiple contexts for quite some time."

I was more interested in the term "bone drapery". I thought he was searching for the word "cadavorous", and then he posted the photo of Simon Rattle and Claudio Abbado, and I figured I was right.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Leicasturbate, Leicasturbate, Leicasturbate. Enough already. Too much spilt developer on the chatroom floor - can y'all wipe it up already?

While I'm happy for anyone who finds happiness with their camera choice, WHO REALLY GIVES A DAMN what camera you use? I care about the images you present. I'd much rather see someone make a great image with a pinhole camera, or a box brownie, or a whatever, or even better not know what camera and/or lens they used at all and just enjoy the image, than hear someone blather on about the MTF charts of their particular brand of camera lens. If you've been paying enough attention to cameras and photography for any length of time, you can tell if something was shot with small format, medium format, large format, pinhole, or digital. The "glow" people are attributing to gear has as much to do with the awareness and perception of the photographer in the scene at the moment knowing where to point the camera, when to click the shutter and what film to load as it does anything else. I don't care if you have a Leica Jizzicron or a Zeiss Spoogeogon or a Kodak Junktar on the front of your camera - if you point it at the wrong scene in the wrong light and have outdated, poorly handled Seattle Filmworks in the camera, you're not getting that "glow". You'll get gummed-up, gritty, contrasty crap. Shoot a pastel landscape with Velvia 50, and it won't matter what lens you use - you'll have eye-bleeding super-saturated colors. Shoot the Vegas strip at night with Agfachrome, and it'll look like an overexposed shot of the desert at high noon, again regardless of lens.

 

[flavio81]

There is no question in my experience that the biggest difference is the glass....a 1960's 50mm F2 Summicron blows the doors off of a Nikon 50mm 1.8 AIS for example, even in color.

Oh really?

A nice Summicron-M 50/2 wasn't really superior to the lowly Canon FD 50/1.8...

... You know, what we Canon FD shooters consider the most inferior of the FD normal lenses, largely preferring the 50/1.4.

Test by the awesome Marco Cavina:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Canon_FD_lenses_and_Leica_M/00_pag.htm

People with Leica threadmount rangefinders usually go for Canon or Nikon lenses.

Now, Leica-R lenses are on another level altogether.

 

[railwayman3]

I could go out tomorrow and buy a box of the finest Winsor and Newton oil colors, a set of their best traditional brushes handcrafted using Chungking bristles, and a canvas made from the purest white cotton. But, having few painting skills, I'll be no nearer producing a masterpiece than if I bought a kid's paintbox from the local toy shop. Good quality tools and materials obviously help a skilled worker in making a masterpiece, whether it's photo, inkjet, painting, sculpture or whatever, but it's down to the artist or craftsman to produce a Rembrandt or Michaelangelo. Going on about Leica (or Nikon/Canon/Pentax, etc.) as being to only way to a masterpiece is just snobbery, IMHO.

 

[Huss]

There is really no such thing as lenses that are made for digital, they are either improved overall and apply to both digital and film or they don't. The exceptions to this rule would be either cropped sensor lenses for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc or Rodenstock's new line of tech camera lenses that have a smaller than 4x5 coverage area because the required image circle with large format digital capture is smaller.

The 28mm lens on the Leica Q is very sharp but has massive distortion that is corrected by software.
The 35mm Zeiss lens on the Sony RX1 is the same.

The 24-120 VR f4 Nikon lens has lots of distortion when shot on my Nikon F6, but none when shot on digital as the software's lens profile removes it. That doesn't work with film as there is no data to tell the software what focal length/aperture/focusing distance was used.

So in my experience the same lens can work very differently when used on film or digital. And it seems that newer lenses are allowed to have 'defects' which will show up on film because the mfg knows they will almost always be used on digital cameras, where software will correct for them.

 

[chip j]

+1

 

[chip j]

Before I awnser that why don't you check the links at the bottom of my posts, they don't just hire weekend wedding shooters for these types of things, I was and am rigorously vetted.

And when enlarged to even just 11x14 with a Rodenstock 50mm APO-N on my Saunders LPL 4550 XLG onto Ilford warmtone fiber, the overall depth & vibrancy I see from that 50 Milvus is again, stunning to me.

It's what the actual resulting photo looks like to me is what makes or breaks my feeling of a particular piece equipment being viable or not, not specs.

You seem upset at the confluence of pre and post digital equipment sir, I suggest to get more joy out of life you and others on this site allow those streams to be more free flowing amongst each other....they are not as disssimiliar as you may think.

I checked your work--Ho Hum, cold, standard commercial fare. But yes, there IS a glow to Zeiss lenses-I see it in my prints, too.