Why Leica, my view with new technical research

[Kevin Caulfield]

Oh, but what about the new technical research?;-)

Yes - I agree with that.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Oh, but what about the new technical research?;-)

In my new book, Making Cameras Great Again, I expose the scam of today's photography industry: there is only one camera and lens manufacturer (Cosina) and all the rest (Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc.) are shell corporations.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

In my new book, Making Cameras Great Again, I expose the scam of today's photography industry: there is only one camera and lens manufacturer (Cosina) and all the rest (Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc.) are shell corporations.

Where can I buy it?

 

[removed account4]

fake news ?

 

[John Wiegerink]

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

John,
You don't have to be sorry. I agree that a 16X20 from a very good 35mm negative trumps a 16X20 from a rotten 4X5 negative, but that's not comparing apples to apples. It all depends on your "type" of photography and the size you wish to go. Camera movements aside, I'm sure Ansel could have taken great shots with his Contax rangefinder or his Hasselblad, so why did he go through all the trouble to build a platform on top his car and lug all that big, heavy gear around? It is true that the best camera and format is the one you have with you. Yes, it's much easier to lug a Minox or even a Minox 35 around over a 4X5 or 8X10 camera. I use two Minox 35's often and it's no problem lugging both at the same time. I've also made some very good 16X20 prints from them, but to my eye anyway, those prints don't stand up to one from a near perfect medium format or large format negative. Actually my Rollei 3.5E or F are just as easy or easier to lug than my Nikon F4s with any lens and a Hasselblad 500C/CM is not far behind.

 

[removed account4]

hi john

You don't have to be sorry

thanks

i agree with pretty much everything you have said

near perfect

especially this, cause to me at least, there is no such thing as perfection, except what
each person things / believes is perfect ...
cheers!
john

 

[John Wiegerink]

hi john


thanks

i agree with pretty much everything you have said

especially this, cause to me at least, there is no such thing as perfection, except what
each person things / believes is perfect ...
cheers!
john

Thanks John! Last night I loaded some Panf+ in my Minox 35 Touring camera for some beautiful Michigan snow scenes today. Tomorrow I might take out my Western Camera Co. No. 5 Cyclone 4X5 falling-plate camera. Heck, I might just take both out at the same time! I just love old stuff, except younger women do seem to catch my eye more.

 

[removed account4]

sounds like a great day !

 

[elcabezagrande]

In my new book, Making Cameras Great Again, I expose the scam of today's photography industry: there is only one camera and lens manufacturer (Cosina) and all the rest (Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc.) are shell corporations.

Is that the sequel to "Your Lens Was Made by Tomioka"?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Is that the sequel to "Your Lens Was Made by Tomioka"?

I think all the major manufacturers have published a book, or at least a nice soft-cover document which describes and extols the virtues of their lenses. I have one for Canon and a few others.

I suppose there are subtle differences though I still think it would be difficult to identify one manufacturer from another based on a blind test of chrome images.

 

[Alan Gales]

I suppose there are subtle differences though I still think it would be difficult to identify one manufacturer from another based on a blind test of chrome images.

You are correct! I used to do that blind test once a week and came up with the same answer.

I belonged to St. Louis Camera Club back in the 1980's. It was a very large camera club and still exists today. Back then they would project our 35mm slides up on a large screen for critique. Members of the club owned just about every brand of 35mm camera. There was no way that I could determine which photograph was taken by which camera. It was then that I figured out that photographs were taken by photographers and not by cameras and lenses.

 

[Huss]

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

I hope you stick around. Maybe not this thread..

I really like your work and judge someone's advice/opinion on photography by the work they produce.

 

[flavio81]

In my new book, Making Cameras Great Again, I expose the scam of today's photography industry: there is only one camera and lens manufacturer (Cosina) and all the rest (Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc.) are shell corporations.

You have my vote!! MAKE CAMERAS GREAT AGAIN!!

 

[chip j]

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

YES! Leica enlarging lenses do give a GOLDEN look to the chrome parts of my car shots, no matter what lens was used to take the picture!

 

[chip j]

You have my vote!! MAKE CAMERAS GREAT AGAIN!!

MAKE PAPER GREAT AGAIN!!

 

[John Wiegerink]

MAKE PAPER GREAT AGAIN!!

I'd say just bring back some of the GREAT PAPERS that are gone. I'd love to see some of Kodak papers I used to use come back from the dead. We can all live with what we have, but some of those Agfa and Kodak papers had a certain quality.

 

[nolanr66]

I think that Leica makes very good gear and it has been used for great results by Pro's for decades.. I think Bruce Gilden makes large wonderful prints using the Leica with flash. For myself I need to keep photography affordable and I need some flash options. I am not Bruce Gilden for sure. Just a basic 1/50th non ttl shutter speed for me would be a difficult situation to work with. Currently I have a FG with TTL flash and a cripled flash sync speed and the FM2n with is non ttl but it's got that 1/250th flash sync. I am going to stick with those. When the FG finally breaks I am not going to replace it even though you can buy them for $20.00.

I think for a guy like me that takes a lot of family photos and a large amount of Grand Children photos I would be lost with a big camera. I need something that is easy to carry, quick to come out of the bag and ready to shoot when that moment is there. For landscape or still subject photogrphy you have the possibility of that big negative and that is awesome. At my age I still do quite a bit of hiking but I would not be able to carry a Hasselblad or Large format camera for 10 miles which seems to be our hiking range. Plus the tripod.

Actually about 10 years ago my wife and I were hiking in Yosemite and I had to much gear. I had my F100, several lenses and an aluminum tripod. Later that day coming back I became so tired I decided I could not make it back to the car. I told my wife I was going to throw away the tripod and she said I brought and now pack it and be quiet about it. I did tough it out with that stinging response but that is the last time I carried a tripod or more then 1 lens while hiking. I use my daypack for a tripod now. It's been good all around. I am not a landscape guy however. I do take photos hiking but it's not my thing. I prefer pictures of people and their wonderful faces. People I know so street work is not my thing. I do love Bruce Gildens pictures however.

I also love Michael Kenna's landscape photos. I guess he actually just sit and stands around during his 10 hour exposures. I could not do that.

Anyway Leica is awesome. But I am not likely to get one but never say never. All the camera's out there are 20+ years old now. You can get a MP that is new or only slightly used. It may be what has to be done down the road.

 

[Ron789]

I'd say just bring back some of the GREAT PAPERS that are gone. I'd love to see some of Kodak papers I used to use come back from the dead. We can all live with what we have, but some of those Agfa and Kodak papers had a certain quality.

Agree.... Agfa Record Rapid was great, better than anything we can buy today. Problem was that to make it so great they had to put Cadmium in. Since that is a very harmful substance it's no longer used in any modern paper. I can fully understand that but when I compare old Record Rapid prints with modern print (I mainly use Ilford MG FB) the old prints are impressive!

 

[Ai Print]

I hope you stick around. Maybe not this thread..

I really like your work and judge someone's advice/opinion on photography by the work they produce.

Absolutely I am around, not much else to say on this thead and that is not the end of the world either.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Absolutely I am around, not much else to say on this thead and that is not the end of the world either.

Glad you're still with us.

 

[Arvee]

Lets just stop all this argument right now!
Because everyone really knows the best lenses are Konica lenses!

Just thought the pot needed an extra turn or two.

Have to agree, could not believe the reproduction quality of the 52/1.7 on my T3.

 

[darkosaric]

Bruce Gilden ....FG ... FM2n

Bruce Gilden used nikon SLR for close up portraits projects - I saw it in one documentary .

 

[Arvee]

For me, it means that with either a good slide film or digital, the 50 Summicron I had was better wide open in terms of less aberrations, colors were far more rich, higher contrast from wide open through the entire range and much better micro contrast. The corners were about the same until around F4 or so when the Summicron started to pull away quickly. The only downside to the Summicron was it's propensity to flare vs the Nikon.

In short, the little 1963 Summicron was head and shoulders above the Nikon 50mm 1.8AIS. I still have the Nikon for "rough" work but no longer have the vintage Summicron, it was replaced with a current version which is even better, especially in terms of flare control.

When you make a living at this game, the above constitutes to me at least, a lens "Blowing the Doors off" the other. Finally, if you are not "Seeing the Light"...it probably means you are not shooting in the kind of light that Leica glass truly excels in and that is mixed light sources.

35mm F/2 Summicron version 4 @ F2:
View attachment 168876

Sure seems like a lot of depth of field for a close focus portrait at f/2. Are you certain this was taken at f/2? DOF charts for a 35mm lens at f/2 focused at 3 feet show depth of focus at just a few inches.

 

[Ai Print]

Sure seems like a lot of depth of field for a close focus portrait at f/2. Are you certain this was taken at f/2? DOF charts for a 35mm lens at f/2 focused at 3 feet show depth of focus at just a few inches.

Positive, plus you can tell by the out of focus attributes of shooting a non-aspheric lens wide open in the peripheral areas the lower left and right. Not really a chart guy, I just shoot.

 

[mynewcolour]

What camera body was used? Great colour.