Why Leica, my view with new technical research

[mynewcolour]

... 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.

Haha! Perhaps not the best test of the camera lens optics?

(but a fine way to judge photography)

 

[mynewcolour]

I'm quite surprised at the lack of faith in Leica optics.

I'm not sure 35mm film shows much difference between 'good' current standard lenses.

It wasn't until I'd shot a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 G (on D700) and a Summilux (on an M9) that I became a believer. That was when the daylight between very good and exceptional became clear.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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

"Nobody is perfect".
http://blog.leica-camera.com/2016/10/05/exploring-detroits-soul/

 

[nolanr66]

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

 

[nolanr66]

I did not say Bruce Gilden used a FG and a FM2n. I said I used them. That is my current camera line up.

 

[Alan Gales]

Haha! Perhaps not the best test of the camera lens optics?

(but a fine way to judge photography)

No, not the most accurate test but a real world test. Most of us shoot in the real world and don't shoot test charts in a laboratory.

 

[zanxion72]

For accuracy combined with durability and a bucket full of features nothing beats Nikon F6. The only excuse would be the size, but this is not always what matters. As for the lenses, one can easily say that the cold blooded perfection of the latest Japanese made lenses is on par to the best of the rest.
The point is, that the best photos have not been taken only best cameras, and best lenses. Not to mention that several of the best photos ever had been a product of some sort of accident.

 

[darkosaric]

I did not say Bruce Gilden used a FG and a FM2n. I said I used them. That is my current camera line up.

I know, I wanted to say that I saw that Bruce Gilden used nikon:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7219/7361432044_d3b0389c65_b.jpg

 

[mynewcolour]

No, not the most accurate test but a real world test. Most of us shoot in the real world and don't shoot test charts in a laboratory.

Sure, it sounds fun. As a test though it's far worse than almost any example of print or screen (the methods most used to view photography in 2016). No charts needed.

I've found even casual tests show differences on modern digital sensors and modest enlargement. I haven't tried with Leica glass on film.

 

[mynewcolour]

For accuracy combined with durability and a bucket full of features nothing beats Nikon F6. The only excuse would be the size, but this is not always what matters. As for the lenses, one can easily say that the cold blooded perfection of the latest Japanese made lenses is on par to the best of the rest.
The point is, that the best photos have not been taken only best cameras, and best lenses. Not to mention that several of the best photos ever had been a product of some sort of accident.

Could you name the lenses you've most recently tested please?

 

[baachitraka]

...you guys have lots of patience...

 

[faberryman]

As someone once said, you cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is irrational.

 

[Harry Stevens]

Three cameras I would like to borrow for a day are a Leica M3/M6 and a Holga 120 and all based upon what I have read over the years, the Holga for the craziness and the Leica to see if the hype becomes fact.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Three cameras I would like to borrow for a day are a Leica M3/M6 and a Holga 120 and all based upon what I have read over the years, the Holga for the craziness and the Leica to see if the hype becomes fact.

I have seen M6, skip it and proceed directly to M3

 

[darkosaric]

Three cameras I would like to borrow for a day are a Leica M3/M6 and a Holga 120 and all based upon what I have read over the years, the Holga for the craziness and the Leica to see if the hype becomes fact.

Hi Harry,

If you ever come to Hamburg - let me know, and I will borrow you M3 and M6 for a day .

 

[mynewcolour]

As someone once said, you cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is irrational.

Hello. Is this aimed at someone?

 

[faberryman]

After reading the 130+ posts in the tread so far, it seemed to be an appropriate comment.

 

[4season]

I'm quite surprised at the lack of faith in Leica optics.

IMO, it's much better to maintain a healthy sense of skepticism whenever someone wants to charge you a hefty premium!

Leica M was my system of choice for over two decades, and I enjoyed using them. Today? I have alternatives aplenty. If I felt that I could reliably discern an advantage in images shot with a Leica without knowing beforehand the equipment used, it might be a different story.

But the biggest change over the years has probably been my own attitude I used to get a kick out of buying into the mythos, but these days I just want good photos.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...but these days I just want good photos.

Good photos me wants to. No Leica lens needed for good photos. I do good with Industars. And I'm keep "buying into the mythos" such "this lens as good or better than this Leica lens", but every time me need Leica lens for very good photos, not just good photos.

 

[Alan Gales]

Sure, it sounds fun. As a test though it's far worse than almost any example of print or screen (the methods most used to view photography in 2016). No charts needed.

I've found even casual tests show differences on modern digital sensors and modest enlargement. I haven't tried with Leica glass on film.

I guaranty you that I could blow up a bunch of photographs to 8x10 from various 35mm cameras using the same film and you wouldn't be able to tell me which camera shot which photograph. Yes, there are subtle differences in 35mm lenses but it's not as dramatic as some make it out to be. This is all coming from someone who shot Contax and owned 5 Zeiss lenses.

I've never tested older film lenses on digital cameras.

 

[mynewcolour]

I guaranty you that I could blow up a bunch of photographs to 8x10 from various 35mm cameras using the same film and you wouldn't be able to tell me which camera shot which photograph.

I've no doubt. Project them and I'd never even stand a chance.

Yes, there are subtle differences in 35mm lenses but it's not as dramatic as some make it out to be. This is all coming from someone who shot Contax and owned 5 Zeiss lenses.

I agree. I shoot a Contax 139q with a couple of Zeiss MM lenses. I shoot cheap(ish) compact cameras and plastic lens cameras quite happily too.

I maintain that differences exist and they are most obvious at high resolution. Whether this is of value is another question. Whether it makes economic sense to invest in those better lenses is again ... another question.

 

[Alan Gales]

I maintain that differences exist and they are most obvious at high resolution. Whether this is of value is another question. Whether it makes economic sense to invest in those better lenses is again ... another question.

I've no doubt. Project them and I'd never even stand a chance.



I agree. I shoot a Contax 139q with a couple of Zeiss MM lenses. I shoot cheap(ish) compact cameras and plastic lens cameras quite happily too.

I maintain that differences exist and they are most obvious at high resolution. Whether this is of value is another question. Whether it makes economic sense to invest in those better lenses is again ... another question.

Well, it sounds like we are in agreement.

I bought a brand new Contax 139 back in December of 1983 or 1984. It was a great camera!

 

[4season]

... I do good with Industars ... but every time me need Leica lens for very good photos, not just good photos.

If it works for you, go for it!

I suppose if I wanted to be strictly accurate I should've said "Highly-resolving lenses with great color, out-of-focus rendition, etc can be had from a number of makers these days". Because since when did a great photo require great optics?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I guaranty you that I could blow up a bunch of photographs to 8x10 from various 35mm cameras using the same film and you wouldn't be able to tell me which camera shot which photograph. Yes, there are subtle differences in 35mm lenses but it's not as dramatic as some make it out to be. This is all coming from someone who shot Contax and owned 5 Zeiss lenses.

I've never tested older film lenses on digital cameras.

8x10 darkroom prints from different lenses this is what I do every over week for about three years now. Usually I'm using lens for several months and printing from differently taken negatives, never test charts. And this is what forces me to Leica lenses in addition to their specific handling, which I finding to be best for me.
I have printed from Cosina made lenses, FSU, Olympus, Leica and P&S... These days it is not so easy to get old Leitz lens in condition suitable for good prints. And modern Leica lenses are too expensive to justify paying insane price for good quality prints.

I also tried older film SLR lenses on Canon DLSR and it never left me impressed. But on digital Leica it is different. I have tested old film RF lenses, FSU and Leitz. Surprisingly they are not worst to modern RF lenses. And not only Leitz made.

But to me character of the lens is more visible on darkroom prints, not in the files from digital cameras. And 8x10 paper size seems to be optimum to unveil it.

...Because since when did a great photo require great optics?

This is the question I'm asking myself every time I lith print from negatives taken by Summarit-M 35 2.5

 

[faberryman]

I am confused. Are you saying a Leica lens a) is, or b) is not required for the quality of the photo you posted of the cat and the remotes?