Why Leica, my view with new technical research

[flavio81]

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.

Just as a note:

That software "correction" effectively corrects distortion, but you lose resolution/detail in the process. Same with chromatic aberration correction.

 

[chip j]

I love Leica lenses-they give more "weight" to a scene (for instance, the metal in a car body looks like heavier metal than w/other glass). The problem for me is that M lenses are designed for what is, for me, a relatively useless & uncomfortable camera, and I don't think R lenses ever reached their full potential re sharpness (I know of some R lenses that were modified to give significantly greater sharpness).

 

[John Wiegerink]

I love Leica lenses-they give more "weight" to a scene (for instance, the metal in a car body looks like heavier metal than w/other glass). The problem for me is that M lenses are designed for what is, for me, a relatively useless & uncomfortable camera, and I don't think R lenses ever reached their full potential re sharpness (I know of some R lenses that were modified to give significantly greater sharpness).

Really!!! How were they modified may I ask???

 

[nolanr66]

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!

When your digitizing color print film you can in fact adjust white balance. It's your photo however. It is a nice sharp image.

As far as printing being dead I guess I could have said it has ceased to exist. Anyway there are no labs, no camera stores, no printing, no film for sale in the entire county to my knowledge.

 

[ColColt]

I've had Lecia M2, M3 and M4 and the 35 f2, 50 f2 and 902.8 Summicron lens. I've also had(have) Nikon F's and F2 with similar lens. I can't tell a great deal of difference between them all. This was shot back in the 80's downtown where I worked at the time doing some street shooting during lunch. It was with an M2 and 35f2 Summicron with Tri-X, IIRC. Not bad but no Pulitzer Prize either.

 

[pentaxuser]

I love Leica lenses-they give more "weight" to a scene (for instance, the metal in a car body looks like heavier metal than w/other glass).

Great! How are they at convincing viewers of photographs that a polished brass object is actually gold? Be careful how you answer this. My question and your response may get us both indicted for fraud but at least in my case it would need extradition

I should be OK as over the years I have become a member of the GB branch of the F.B.I. Unkind people say that in my case this stands for The Fat Boys Institute but qualifying was great.

Unwarranted whimsy you may say but this is surely in keeping with the spirit of your post.

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I've owned my Leica M2 and M4-P, with 35mm, 50 mm and 90mm Leica lenses since the early 80's, about 30 years or so. I've kept them in very good nick all this time. I've run Kodachrome, Fujichrome and all manner of B&W film and color through them. I still use these cameras and I like them a lot. Maybe it is because of their crude simplicity that attracts me as a user.....I don't know.

Comparing the output to my Nikon cameras, (F2, F3HP) I have to say I cannot tell the difference. There may be a difference, but I can't see it, and if it is that small I don't really care.

There is a certain physical grace to the Leicas, but I don't think that affects my photography in any positive or negative way.

 

[chip j]

Really!!! How were they modified may I ask???

There were 2 things done-the shape of the aperture blades were modified, and one other thing that my friend in NYC, a long-time Pro who told me the story, can't remember. It was done for a husband & wife team of commercial photographers in NYC.

 

[miha]

Just as a note:

That software "correction" effectively corrects distortion, but you lose resolution/detail in the process. Same with chromatic aberration correction.

In theory, yes.

 

[miha]

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.

Just ignore the unkindness and contribute further.

 

[Harry Stevens]

Being a poor photograher as long as it as Cosina on it I am happy.........

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I am an poor man also , I worked 15 hours a day , 6 days a week and 2.5 years to buy my first Leica. It was a IIIF with Uncoated Summitar like newly made. I now use a fed body and hektor 13.5 and 2 minis with vario elmar 35-70 and elmar 35. Last two was a donation from an good friend.
You can buy a mini for 5 dollars and hektor for 60 dollars.

 

[nolanr66]

I am not poor but I do not buy much stuff. I took some photos today with a Nikon FG that I paid $39.00 for.

 

[John Wiegerink]

There were 2 things done-the shape of the aperture blades were modified, and one other thing that my friend in NYC, a long-time Pro who told me the story, can't remember. It was done for a husband & wife team of commercial photographers in NYC.

I sure would like to know more about this, so called, modification. Aperture modification should have little or no effect on sharpness. I can't think of anything else that might be done to an existing "R" lens to make it sharper? Was this done by Leitz or by Marty Forshner?

 

[Odot]

I have a brand marketing background and can reassure you that Leica has mastered the art of Branding. If you ask most people to tell you in their OWN words and reasonable facts why Leica is the best, they cannot give you a legit answer. Leica has been conditioning people to say it's the best but is it really? I don't think so and lab results of their digital cameras can prove this. As far as analog, whenever you bring up (classic example) the M6 and why it's better than a Bessa r3 or so, people say subjective things like "it just is.." or my favorite: it just feels better.

Don't get me wrong, i like Leica, i really do, Leica does great products but i am tired of being told how it is the best when it is not and absolutely not worth the money.

 

[jscott]

I have all the other cameras, but there have been a few shots on a screwmount Leica that had this cool 3-D look.
It doesn't always happen, but at it's best it is quite wonderful...
I think that in this case it IS the equipment. IMHO.

 

[Cholentpot]

Look at everyone arguing over a low-fi small format.

135 is and always will be a small, low fidelity format. Get the best microscopic, hand turned, CAD designed, clean room, hand assembled lens and it still will have nothing on a larger format with an even mediocre lens.

Yeah!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Look at everyone arguing over a low-fi small format.

135 is and always will be a small, low fidelity format. Get the best microscopic, hand turned, CAD designed, clean room, hand assembled lens and it still will have nothing on a larger format with an even mediocre lens.

Yeah!

I couldn't agree more! While I think 35mm cameras and lenses by Zeiss and Leitz are first rate they simply can't holdup to a good medium format or 4x5 camera when it comes to making enlargements 11X14 or more. 5X7 and maybe 8X10, but no way when you go larger. My last and best 35mm outfit is two Contax G bodies and three lenses. These lenses are as good as it gets and I have no problem with getting a good 16X20 print. I said good! If I want a great 16X20 print I'll use my Hasselblad or Pentax 6X7. I'm sorry, as the ladies often say or think, "bigger is better".

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I can't put a large format camera in my pocket or even carry it around all day while walking in the city or countryside.

Plenty of very good photos have been made with 35mm - resolution and other optical characteristics are only part of the value of a photo.

For what it's worth, I have some Minox 8x11mm portraits that are among the best I've made - and they are sharp!

 

[Cholentpot]

I can't put a large format camera in my pocket or even carry it around all day while walking in the city or countryside.

Plenty of very good photos have been made with 35mm - resolution and other optical characteristics are only part of the value of a photo.

For what it's worth, I have some Minox 8x11mm portraits that are among the best I've made - and they are sharp!

I agree, but arguing over the minute optical qualities of one manufacturer over another is a bit silly for this format.

 

[chip j]

I sure would like to know more about this, so called, modification. Aperture modification should have little or no effect on sharpness. I can't think of anything else that might be done to an existing "R" lens to make it sharper? Was this done by Leitz or by Marty Forshner?

It was done long ago by an unnamed independent repairman. BTW, my Mighty Durst 35mm Micromat will give a swelling-muscle Micaelangelo-type look to my prints--MAYBE a large-format enlarger of some kind might, but it would have to have a modified semi-point-light source (I can also get this quality in 6x6 w/my Durst 606)! Lens quality is pretty much all-important in 35mm-that's why the best cost so much. BTW, when I'm inspired my auto-winder can't keep up, all while standing in the the same spot! I"d rather have lots of great pics rather than just a few.

 

[removed account4]

I couldn't agree more! While I think 35mm cameras and lenses by Zeiss and Leitz are first rate they simply can't holdup to a good medium format or 4x5 camera when it comes to making enlargements 11X14 or more. 5X7 and maybe 8X10, but no way when you go larger. My last and best 35mm outfit is two Contax G bodies and three lenses. These lenses are as good as it gets and I have no problem with getting a good 16X20 print. I said good! If I want a great 16X20 print I'll use my Hasselblad or Pentax 6X7. I'm sorry, as the ladies often say or think, "bigger is better".

sorry
i have seen plenty of large format enlargements that don't hold their own to even a minox enlarged to 11x14 or 16x20. and seen 32x40 enlargements made with 35mm that are mind blowing/\
film and format have nothing to do with anything, if the person behind the camera is just pushing the button ... its the same old tired argument that bigger is better when size has nothing to do with anything

 

[Alan Gales]

sorry
i have seen plenty of large format enlargements that don't hold their own to even a minox enlarged to 11x14 or 16x20. and seen 32x40 enlargements made with 35mm that are mind blowing/\
film and format have nothing to do with anything, if the person behind the camera is just pushing the button ... its the same old tired argument that bigger is better when size has nothing to do with anything

Ya better watch yourself, John! Ken Rockwell said that the camera doesn't matter and had the digital folks screaming bloody murder!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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

Right on the money, but half of the banknote!
T, SL lenses, yes. M - no.

I have coded Summarit-m 35 2.5 which was ment to be for M8. But this lens is very nice on BW film. I see no reason to buy any other lens. It gives what I like on darkroom prints.

Maybe all of these conclusions comes from those who never used good lens on 135 film. Same like me, I have printed from LF, MF cameras like Graflex with Schneider lens and Yashica latest TLR and didn't find it overhemently superior to good lens on 135 film and on 11x14.
Actually, I have seen Gary Winogrand large prints from 135 negs taken with M4 and Canon Lens. Quality was good and he wouldn't be able to take those pictures on 4x5 or even MF. I ditched it as well. Not good for photography I'm into...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I agree, but arguing over the minute optical qualities of one manufacturer over another is a bit silly for this format.

Yes - I agree with that.