Zeiss AND Voigtländer lenses the better option in comparison to the original Leica ?

Zeiss C Sonnar T 1,5 / 50 ZM BTW


with regards

Obviously, you have decided NOT to understand what I mean so the discussion is over.

When I go to a gallery opening I first ask the photographer what lens he used. Only then will I make a decision on whether I like the photograph.

Similarly, when I'm listening to a jazz band, I always approach the tenor sax player afterwards and ask him which reeds he uses and what the tip opening is on his mouthpiece.

Actually saxophone players are quite interested in details of mouthpiece, ligature, reed, etc.
I read Lester Young was very secretive about how he trimmed his reeds and the lay of his mp.

You have spectacularly misunderstood and misappropriated what was involved in that photo by Robert Capa of the D-Day Landings.
Nothing at all to do with the lens or resolution (equating the image with a pinhole camera ... come off the sauce!!), but a lot to do with circumstances before, during and after that shoot. Time for you to polish up your research and fact-finding skills,

Poisson Du Jour said:

You have spectacularly misunderstood and misappropriated what was involved in that photo by Robert Capa of the D-Day Landings.
Nothing at all to do with the lens or resolution (equating the image with a pinhole camera ... come off the sauce!!), but a lot to do with circumstances before, during and after that shoot. Time for you to polish up your research and fact-finding skills,

Click to expand...

What's up - pls. don't telling me what you think what I am misunderstood - or be wrong - or what ever! Capa of course had a best lens of that period - pinwhole photography need not sharpness -
Cappas photographs are iconic caused from its look (unsharp) that has nothing to do with his zeiss - he intended to shot good documentary - yes and to be precise not he (but I guess Capa also didn't feel much fine this day) precise bis lab had a bad day! - SO WHAT ?

And what has nothing at all to do with is a summary oft your missinterpretation - my good
[QUOTE="Poisson Du Jour, post: 2168131, member: 27047"Time for you to polish up your research and fact-finding skills,[/QUOTE]

Time for you to shut up Poisson Du Jour ! Polish up your research - my good I don't need research!

Poisson Du Jour said:

You have spectacularly misunderstood and misappropriated what was involved in that photo by Robert Capa of the D-Day Landings.
Nothing at all to do with the lens or resolution (equating the image with a pinhole camera ... come off the sauce!!), but a lot to do with circumstances before, during and after that shoot. Time for you to polish up your research and fact-finding skills,

Click to expand...

This here is such an easy thread - for sure - what is there misunderstandable?

High - volume - user......!

A good photograph has to have a good sharpness and resolution!
To all - this is also to be said for a bad photograph : " Is it at least sharp?"
Exeption if sharpness isn't intended! Sharpness and resolution is allways in concern and relation of print format!
A pinwhole photograper might have a feeling that high resolution photography has the need of
a very good lens!
And as an example for pinwhole photographer Cappa is quite good - because from his look
(example was given) - pinwhole photographers perhaps feel fine - because unsharp photography can also be Extra good !

But between :"I am unsharp" and - "that is art" is a barier = Art comes from ability!


with regards

My God - like at school.....

Huss said:

When I go to a gallery opening I first ask the photographer what lens he used. Only then will I make a decision on whether I like the photograph.

Click to expand...

Given the feeding frenzy to associate certain looks with particular lenses, it would be easy to pass off dirt cheap glass with luxury brands. People assume only a few expensive brands come with a strong signature appearance. The truth is plenty of older designs had a look people associate with "quality", and that is enhanced by certain developers and papers.

The statement of Huss (#28) is meant 100% ironicaly! Theo's statement (#29) ......
I gues is just 60% ironicaly and choilifan post#30 is again without ironicaly substance!
He stated his opinion! Be aware off that........

with regards

Have you ever sat bewildered, staring at the computer screen and praying the Lord would take you now?
I have this desire...
Is this ironically substantive?

choiliefan said:

Have you ever sat bewildered, staring at the computer screen and praying the Lord would take you now?
I have this desire...
Is this ironically substantive?

Click to expand...

Sorry but I own no computer up to now!

I came up with a summary (if you are interested) - but you should wait a bit - there is no time now!
But it would help to read what IS stated (I read it twice) - that will quite clearify that there is no way for misinterpretation -REALY ! (its easy going to folow the logic)

with regards

don't feed the troll
with regards

Yes I know - no worrys - I might explain it to him again a bit!
That's no problem at all!

with regards

PS : A honest mission - to try to get some trolls back from the DARK SIDE!

choiliefan said:

Have you ever sat bewildered, staring at the computer screen and praying the Lord would take you now?
I have this desire...

Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly how I felt. I was going to swallow some rat poison, but then I realized I'm going on safari tomorrow.

I'll return after a few weeks and maybe this nightmare will be over.

chris77 said:

don't feed the troll
with regards

Click to expand...

Aren't we but all trolls in the greater scheme of things? Spending time on a blue white spec in the great infinite universe, all thinking ours is the voice that must be heard..

trendland said:

Yes I know - no worrys - I might explain it to him again a bit!
That's no problem at all!

with regards

PS : A honest mission - to try to get some trolls back from the DARK SIDE!

Click to expand...

I am sorry Trendland, but i guess you misunderstood me.
Are you making a fool of us all here?
Feels like there's a hidden camera somewhere.

I hope we are losing a lot in the translation.
If not, may the spirits of Durward Kirby and Alan Funt carry us into the ether.

Time to return to topics : Summary part 1 of 3 parts :

Is a Zeiss OR a Voigtländer lens the better option in
comparison to the original Leica (lens) ?

Answer : YES of course - this is stated 100% for sure! WHY is the original Leica lens M-mount
(so friends - we are just regarding M-mount here - nothing else) no good option?
It has to do with the quality of a Leica M-mount lens (optical characteristics) in relation to its price! Within the past (all the time) Leica was much expensive but meanwhile their lenses are
astronomical highly priced! This is extreme noticable with M-mount (small market niche)!

So during the past the decision for Leica M-mount (incl. the M camera series) was much more
easy than it might be today! Notice : Two M cameras and a couple of Leica lenses (the higher priced ones) can easily crossing the price of a sportscar! And I am speaking not about a so called
sportscar named Mazda! A real sportscar is meant!
So Mazda and Leica would not like to read this here (some of you also have a different opinion) ?
And at last you are shooting with a complete Leica M equipment in 35mm format!

If it goes about quality of shots in concern of sharpness And resolution And in concern of color
depth - a normal 4,5 x 6 camera is more sharp, has more resolution showes more true colors
(color resolution) with normal midt format lens!
BTW in midt format one is unable to buy a bad lens!
A friendly pros. photographer told decades ago : There were you need max. quality you decide on sheed films and big format! The smalest from this couple of different formats is 4x5 (9x12) but pros are using 5x7 (13x18) = 4x5 is mostly not used from pros. - what? pros do not like
4x5....hmm?

He explained : " There were you don't need big format from sheeds - you use medium format - because it is easy to handle, it has lower wheight it is much more inexpensive from equipment
AND films"

And what about 35mm ? "35mm has always been the domain of amateur photographers"

I will correct this legendary statement with the following : Example: war photographers with
Leica - a bit later : war photographers with Nikon F - a bit later : press photographers (within the period of bw press photography) - a bit later also in color!
Hmm 35mm for the price of a PORSCHE ......your decision!

Photographers with love to 35mm film can made a smart decision or a much stupit decision
(in case they prefer Leica M)

Within the past a "silly" decision in regard of original Leica (till 1995) was much more easy - because a Leica M6 with the normal lens was a kind of INVESTMENT! Look at the pricing between 1995 - 2012! And it was more easy because there was No real alternate!
Both have changed dramatically (Leica pricing - different alternates came up)!

To some Leica M owners a second body is a need! Spending USD 4500,- for a second M6 (M7)
or decide on a Voigtländer 2.body with a couple of additional lenses from Voigtländer brand
(Cosima manufactured) to the same pricing OR FOR LESS if you need not ALL Voigtländer lenses was THE question bginning 2001 !

I am quite sure that friends of Porsche and Voigtländer including the companies bejond will love
to hear this but Mazda an Leica will hate me now! But are people realistic ?

Be silly or better : To be smart?

with regards

Welcome to my Ignore list.

medium - format ....4,5

Dali said:

Welcome to my Ignore list.

Click to expand...

Proud about to be ignored from Dali!

with regards

PS : If you have read my post #25 you should have noticed that I (in parts) agree with you.
So your statement ".....The important thing is the picture (and the photographers eye) not the lens." is right! In summary : YOU ARE RIGHT !
So I wonder about what happened with you?
But that what you stated can not stand "absolute" of course!
The proof : What about a photographer with remarcable craft AND lousy equipment?
So to explain again - if both can come together : good photography AND fine technical quality
it is the best (optimal) case! So it is the basis for me to talk about a technical concern that it has to stand for good photography!
But you didn't feel fine with that? NOT MY PROBLEM!

Talk to the hand.