Why Leica, my view with new technical research

chip j · Dec 18, 2016

narsuitus said:
This statement inspired me to perform a simple comparative test of my favorite lenses. With the exception of the zoom slightly underexposing, I see no significant difference between the lenses. They all produce high quality images.

Slightly telephoto lens test by Narsuitus, on Flickr

The Leica looks smoother to me.

Mike Epstein · Dec 19, 2016

I'm sure scientists could pick apart the results of all these different lenses and find one that has the best performance overall. That's mildly interesting but really unimportant. If you look at the work of masters nobody ever said, "he/she was a master because they shot with Nikon/Leica/Hassleblad etc". You can buy a Leica because it in theory has superior glass. That's cool but it has nothing to do with good photographs. Good photographs have everything to do with the person making them and the way they see the World... Anybody remember David Bailey shooting with the Olympus Trip 35??? Daido Moriyama shot with little compacts that he could shoot one handed. These days there are artists making amazing images on iPhones!

Is the Leica worth the money, if you have the money and you like the camera then I suppose it is. If you buy a Leica because the rangefinder style work's best for you, then buy it for that reason. But don't mis lead yourself into believing that a potentially scientific advantage one lens maker has will make your photographs any better. They won't.

Anyway for my 2 cents worth I think I like the way the Nikon f/1.8 renders the most from the example above.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Dec 19, 2016

endless fanfara,

I love summicron look because doll does not look like doll but a woman. If you dont understand that , you cant buy a leica because you cant split from your honey sweet money

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2016

for all you italian speakers
pretty much the same thread !

http://www.analogica.it/dubbi-dubbissimi-t13973-40.html

locutus · Dec 19, 2016

I think what you are seeing there is a photographers understanding and use of light. not any effect of the lens....

Just one more to chip in; Leica is not magical.... (i have a large Leica system myself, no illusions there)

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2016

hi locutus

while i generally agree with you that maybe a leica is not magical
leicas can make magical images when used by people who can extract magic out of the ether.
some may say that diana's are not magical, or pentax k1000s, or altoid box pinhole cameras or junk brass lenses
but in the right hands ordinary cameras, lenses and film can make extra ordinary images.
people always look for a magic bullet, some find it in german or english or french lenses some find it
in polished plastic some keep looking for the camera and lens that suits what they do and they excell at it.

i just found it to be interesting ( to say the least ) that leica glass has some sort of mythic quality that
on 2 photography websites, simultaneously the same sort of thread and posts about the mythos.
i guess its kind of a cult ..

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Dec 19, 2016

blindness is a sad thing.

faberryman · Dec 19, 2016

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
blindness is a sad thing.

So is self-delusion.

obviouslygene · Dec 19, 2016

"Magical" is probably a feeling that you get from shooting it.
Everything is subjective, this is something I learn from being an "audiophile".
Everyone has their own sound, or in this case has their own preferred look.
You may see something special, or the lens may be super sharp, perhaps the light may be great. But if the photo is of a brick wall, I wouldn't call it magical, probably wouldn't even give it much more than a glance. I'm most definitely not saying Leicas are crap, but every other camera has their own "magic" to give. Be it sentimental reasons, like a family heirloom passed from generation to generation. A camera that has been through with you thick n thin. Your very first camera. Like I said above, everything is subjective. Unfortunately, the 2 magnum photos did not appeal much to me, but that's just me.

To each their own, live and let live.

pentaxuser · Dec 19, 2016

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
endless fanfara,

I love summicron look because doll does not look like doll but a woman.

Are you referring to the 4 pictures submitted by chip j? If so, they all look like dolls to me. For the eventuality that one day I cannot distinguish between a woman and a doll in any photograph with any lens, irrespective of make, I carry a pill, which they tell me tastes of bitter almonds but the effect last only a few seconds( the taste effect that is ), unlike the Leica effect which some find to be eternal and good luck to those individuals. They are not bad persons.

pentaxuser

faberryman · Dec 19, 2016

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
I love summicron look because doll does not look like doll but a woman.

Sure saves on the modeling fees.

frank · Dec 19, 2016

Makes life simpler.

Ai Print · Dec 19, 2016

No, there is no "magic" associated with Leica glass but there are some optical design and coating features that allow these lenses to deliver different results & I will be the first to admit that recent offerings from Nikon and especially Zeiss are narrowing that gap.

Hundreds of really good photographers the world over have long held Leica optics in high regard for real reasons, not waxing poetic or being disillusioned by something because they spent more than most did. The results have spoken for themselves for decades and I see it too, my 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE is just incredible, hardly even suffers from diffraction at F16 compared to most lenses, a true performer at any aperture and the images it produces are pretty much done right after the shutter is clicked, film or digital.

Bottom line, if you are not seeing the difference, then you are not creating the kind of images that will allow you to see the difference.

faberryman · Dec 19, 2016

Ai Print said:
No, there is no "magic" associated with Leica glass but there are some optical design and coating features that allow these lenses to deliver different results & I will be the first to admit that recent offerings from Nikon and especially Zeiss are narrowing that gap.

Hundreds of really good photographers the world over have long held Leica optics in high regard for real reasons, not waxing poetic or being disillusioned by something because they spent more than most did. The results have spoken for themselves for decades and I see it too, my 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE is just incredible, hardly even suffers from diffraction at F16 compared to most lenses, a true performer at any aperture and the images it produces are pretty much done right after the shutter is clicked, film or digital.

Bottom line, if you are not seeing the difference, then you are not creating the kind of images that will allow you to see the difference.

You were doing so well until the last sentence.

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2016

Ai Print said:
No, there is no "magic" associated with Leica glass but there are some optical design and coating features that allow these lenses to deliver different results & I will be the first to admit that recent offerings from Nikon and especially Zeiss are narrowing that gap.

Hundreds of really good photographers the world over have long held Leica optics in high regard for real reasons, not waxing poetic or being disillusioned by something because they spent more than most did. The results have spoken for themselves for decades and I see it too, my 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE is just incredible, hardly even suffers from diffraction at F16 compared to most lenses, a true performer at any aperture and the images it produces are pretty much done right after the shutter is clicked, film or digital.

Bottom line, if you are not seeing the difference, then you are not creating the kind of images that will allow you to see the difference.

sounds good to me, i am glad they are happy with what the lenses are
and what they can do with them. it also makes me wonder if they
used pentax lenses a yashica if they would be able to get the same results.
there is a great collection of short films called "lumiere and company"
that came out at the 100th anniversary or the lumiere brothers inventing
moving picures, and i was pretty amazing watching the 45second long takes
that established film makers known world wide made with the orignial c
amera that was used by the lumiere brothers. some were able to
make something every bit as amazing with the 110 year old camera, simple lens &c
as they would with their modern camera. personally, i think that if someone
is able to take beautiful lumiescant photographs with leica glass, they can
probably do the same sort of thing wtih glass made by anohter manufacturer.

NJH · Dec 19, 2016

On film its all a little irrelevant IMHO. For sure the lenses have amazing resolution but it means having to shoot technical low ISO film on a tripod which negates the point of these cameras which is all about available light, handheld, decisive moment etc. May as well use an RB/RZ67 or large format camera at the point where the tripod is needed.

michr · Dec 19, 2016

narsuitus said:
This statement inspired me to perform a simple comparative test of my favorite lenses. With the exception of the zoom slightly underexposing, I see no significant difference between the lenses. They all produce high quality images.

Slightly telephoto lens test by Narsuitus, on Flickr

I'm not sure f/11 on a crop sensor tells us a lot about the lens. Most lenses are pretty good stopped down that far, especially when you cut off the edges of the image circle, as in a crop sensor.

However, some of our forum members have incredible sensitivity. Overlaying the Nikon and the Leitz image in Photoshop and using the difference tool, after correcting for the different field of view, seems to show these images as being nearly identical.

None of the lenses performed poorly, though I do wonder about the exposure issue on the Fuji. I'd love to see a comparison that includes old 70s zooms, like Albinars and JC Penney lenses. How would they look side by side with the modern Leitz and Nikons?

Still, this test has not resolved the mystery of the Leitz lens. Only some can see the magic it seems.

Cholentpot · Dec 19, 2016

michr said:
I'm not sure f/11 on a crop sensor tells us a lot about the lens. Most lenses are pretty good stopped down that far, especially when you cut off the edges of the image circle, as in a crop sensor.

However, some of our forum members have incredible sensitivity. Overlaying the Nikon and the Leitz image in Photoshop and using the difference tool, after correcting for the different field of view, seems to show these images as being nearly identical.

None of the lenses performed poorly, though I do wonder about the exposure issue on the Fuji. I'd love to see a comparison that includes old 70s zooms, like Albinars and JC Penney lenses. How would they look side by side with the modern Leitz and Nikons?

Still, this test has not resolved the mystery of the Leitz lens. Only some can see the magic it seems.

Oh the magic of a 70's zoom with a no name 2x teleconverter with pushed expired film!

Such a magical photo!

chip j · Dec 19, 2016

pentaxuser said:
Are you referring to the 4 pictures submitted by chip j? If so, they all look like dolls to me. For the eventuality that one day I cannot distinguish between a woman and a doll in any photograph with any lens, irrespective of make, I carry a pill, which they tell me tastes of bitter almonds but the effect last only a few seconds( the taste effect that is ), unlike the Leica effect which some find to be eternal and good luck to those individuals. They are not bad persons.

pentaxuser

Those AREN'T my photos!!!

Theo Sulphate · Dec 19, 2016

Cholentpot said:
Oh the magic of a 70's zoom with a no name 2x teleconverter with pushed expired film!

Such a magical photo!

You nailed that one. Nice!

obviouslygene · Dec 19, 2016

Cholentpot said:
Oh the magic of a 70's zoom with a no name 2x teleconverter with pushed expired film!

Such a magical photo!

Ooohhhhh. Nice shot.

mynewcolour · Dec 19, 2016

michr said:
I'm not sure f/11 on a crop sensor tells us a lot about the lens.

^ this needed saying.

Any test is better than no test of course.

pentaxuser · Dec 19, 2016

chip j said:
Those AREN'T my photos!!!

Thank you for that. I did say "submitted" I have to say that the Leica lens shot didn't look any smoother to me but I was essentially asking the OP if he felt that the pictures you submitted made the doll in the picture look like a woman as opposed to a doll by means of the Leica lens.

When he used the word "doll" he may not be referring to the pictures you submitted but he hasn't clarified his reference yet.

pentaxuser

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2016

i'm starting to think leica glass are bliss gloggles
they make everything better ..

but in the end .... its all the same

Cholentpot · Dec 19, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
You nailed that one. Nice!

obviouslygene said:
Ooohhhhh. Nice shot.

Thanks!

Nikon F3HP, Vivitar 1 Series 70-210 2.8 @ f8 1/2000, 2x Teleconverter Noname, Tmax 400 @ 1600 expired in '06, Tmax Dev 1:1 @ 75 Degrees.

The whole roll came out real nice I gotta say. Sure it's got grain you can pick out with a tweezers, but it sure was fun shooting with the MD and annoying the digital guys around me. Clunk SCRRRCHchuckSCRRRCH. My arm and shoulder took some time to recover...

Here's a link to the album
http://imgur.com/a/hpAz3

Why Leica, my view with new technical research

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency