Leica vs. Nikon
Bram
lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the comparable
Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-lens
system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not be a
better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing 3
lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this quality
issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it seems, than
Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users, no
offense)
Have fun!
Bram
Maverick Koe
However, the creativity and the techique of the photographer are the
essential factors for good photos.
Bram <bvd...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:2w2Y4.7496$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com...
Bram
creativity apart and choose between two systems. How on earth seems one
system to be better, and the other one more popular?
Have fun!
Maverick Koe <kc...@netcom.ca> schreef in berichtnieuws
pG2Y4.2785$qS3....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
wzh...@my-deja.com
there're a lot more Nikon users than Leica users is because leica
lenses and accessories are so much more expensive than Nikon.
However, if you are an AF user... Leica cameras are manual focus
cameras.
In article <415Y4.7500$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alan
with the Nikon dollar and the smallness of the format puts the two on equal
footing. I have both, a Nikon system for my work and teaching duties (
Nikon has a very extensive sytem) and a LeicaM4 rangefinder for courtroom,
and other places "quiet" requires. Leica's SLRs never appealed to me.
Always too late with what I needed. When it gets serious I grab my Bronica
and if it gets extreme the Calumet 4x5. They are tools and the Bram hit a
good point, its what you do with tools..........
"Bram" <bvd...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:415Y4.7500$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com...
strawberry9
"Bram" <bvd...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:2w2Y4.7496$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com...
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica camera's
and
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the comparable
> Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing 3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it seems,
than
> Leica
[snip]
Changing brands, even to Leica, is probably *fourth* on the list of what to
do to get better quality pictures. At least three other items are more
important:
Film size (with associated change in lens focal length);
Tripod;
Film type.
Any one of them will make much more significant improvement than changing to
Leica.
-dan
straw...@worldnet.att.nospamming.net
Q.G. de Bakker
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica camera's
and
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the comparable
> Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing 3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it seems,
than
> Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
> certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users, no
> offense)
Both Leica and Nikon produce lenses with *more than adequate* performance.
Yes, perhaps Leitz lenses are better than Nikons, but beyond a certain level
(which both Nikon and Leica have passed), other considerations start to
outweigh the lens quality issue. Remember you do not just purchase lenses,
but have to use the cameras and accessories that go with it. So look at the
choice of features both Nikon and Leica cameras have on offer (what Leica
system were you contemplating, M or R?), compare the selection of lenses
both brands offer, look at the accessories you will most likely want to use,
and, lastly, consider the amount of money you are willing to part with.
The reasons why Nikon is/seems more popular than Leica, i suspect, have all
to do with these considerations.
And: fixed focal length lenses always perform better than zoom-lenses, so
don't compare your Nikon zoom-lens system to the Leitz fixed focal length
lenses.
Groet.
Maziar Farahmand
lense. (Zeiss T* comes somewhat close to Leica). I can say the
difference between Leica and others(have compared
Minolta,Canon,Nikon,Pentax,Contax) even in 4X6 prints. Especially with
Leica, when you shoot colors, the colors are so much sweeter, and you
get more color saturation with Leica on the same film than anything
else. Somebody mentioned that both Nikon and Leica have passed the
resolution roof. Although this is partially true, one should note that
it is not only resolution that makes the picture quality, but more
importantly also the contrast and abbreation correction which in Leica
are superior than Nikon,.... Just look at a side by side color picture
taken by Leica and any other system and you will see for yourself.
As for why Nikon is more around: 1)Lower Price 2)Better Marketing
strategy and advertising 3)More automation.
In article <2w2Y4.7496$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com>,
"Bram" <bvd...@home.nl> wrote:
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica
camera's and
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the
comparable
> Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-
lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not
be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing
3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this
quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it
seems, than
> Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
> certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users, no
> offense)
>
JETman
>
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica camera's and
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the comparable
> Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing 3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it seems, than
> Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
> certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users, no
> offense)
>
> Have fun!
>
> Bram
Well it depends on exactly what you are comparing to what....
Leica "M" series lenses, (in my experience), are virtually unbeatable.
But in this case, it is comparing apples with oranges, (SLR vs.
RAngefinder).
Let's look at it from another angle. Nikon produces many times of
product then does Leica. Nikon adhers to industry standards of
tolerances in producing its products. Leica on the other hand adhers
to considerably tighter tolerance standards. The result is that leica
optics are more consistant while Nikon buyers will experience a varying
degree of quality. Heinz, can you elaborate on this?
The old saying, "You get what you pay for" perhaps has no better example
when buying any of these products from these two manufacturers. I have
seen excellent Nikon stuff and on occasion mediocre product as well.
Leica on the other hand has always been consistantly high in quality.
--
Regards,
JT, residing in Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
and, Other Things Weird!
Just a few of my favorite things. . .
‘31 Studebaker State Coupe
‘55 Studebaker State Coupe
‘55 Studebaker State Sedan
‘56 Studebaker Power Hawk
‘63 Studebaker Lark Sedan
‘64 Studebaker T-Cab T-6
‘65 Honda 305 Dream
Leica M2 Range Finders
JETman
>
> Thanks for your answer. Of course creativity makes the photo, but set the
> creativity apart and choose between two systems. How on earth seems one
> system to be better, and the other one more popular?
>
>
Leica dominated the 35MM market with its rangefinders for years.
After World War II, Nikon produced a SLR known as the Nikon F which
introduced a new system with great flexibility. Even though the Nikon
was much bulkier than the Leica, (body and lenses), it was a big hit.
I believe that all of this occured in the 1950's. Leica did not get
into the SLR business until the early 1960's and by then it was too late
to recover market share. By then, there was a huge selection of SLR
manufacturers around the world.
Leica ended up by becoming a niche producer, but make no mistake about
it, Leica users are a loyal group to the marque.
Shutrbug
good artist can paint with a nail. You will not go wrong in any way, shape,
or form by using Nikon and I think if you have certain visual challenges, a
Nikon AF will do you justice much better than any Leica. If you have the
money and want all manual focus, Leica isn't a bad way to go any day of the
week but, as one post-er already pointed out, changing camera brands for the
sake of the little bit of quality difference is probably fourth on the list
of important factors for producing a good image. If you really want to
improve your picture quality you must move up to medium format or 4x5. If
you've ever seen the quality of a medium format or a 4x5 view camera, you'd
be hooked.
My two cents.
Mike
Worldview Photography
Bud Cook
currently have.
The perfect situation would be to keep the Nikon system and add a new or
used Leica rangefinder with at least one lens to begin with (35 Summicron).
You will always get your money back if you are not happy with the results of
the Leica. On the other hand, once you become addicted to the Leica (and
you will), you can add lenses and eventually switch from the Nikon SLR to a
Leica SLR to have the best of both worlds.
--
Bud Cook
Remove X to Reply
NO ARCHIVE
"Bram" <bvd...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:2w2Y4.7496$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com...
Heinz Richter
>tolerances in producing its products. Leica on the other hand adhers
>to considerably tighter tolerance standards. The result is that leica
>optics are more consistant while Nikon buyers will experience a varying
>degree of quality. Heinz, can
>you elaborate on this?
The findamental difference between Leica and Nikon (and most other 35mm
cameras) is the in the way they are made. Most camera equipment is mass
produced, which certainly is beneficial to the price structure. Leica cameras,
on the other hand, are manufactured by a process called bench made. The entire
factory has no assembly lines at all. Insted, the various assembly steps for
the cameras and lenses are done on individual work desks, benches. Each
assembly step is allowed as much time as necessary to be completed. This
includes tests by the initial assembler, as well as additional test by other
individuals, doing only testing. Depending on the complexity of the assembly
step, the additional tests may be more than just one. This approach to
manufacture allows adherance to much tighter tolerances, mechanically as well
as optically. These do go hand in hand. I have, in the past, given exmples
where the tighter tolerances are necessary to assure optimum performance of
some of the Leica lenses. This also allows to keep performance variations from
lens to lens to be held to a minimum. Tests have shown that Leica lenses show
substantially less variances in performance from one to the other than mass
produced lenses do. An increase of tighter mechanical and optical tolerances
is necessary to gain a better performance of lenses. Unfortunately, this is
inevitably accompanied by higher prices. Furthermore, this gain is not
proportional to the increase in manufacturing costs. I use both Nikon and
Leica equipment. Both are, of copurse, excellent systems. Yes, the Leica does
have an edge. If this performance difference is worth the extra money is a
question which everyone has to answer for themselves.
Heinz
HRphotography
http://hometown.aol.com/hrphoto/myhomepage/business.html
FOTOgraphicART
http://hometown.aol.com/fotogrart/myhomepage/business.html
GMB Custom Black & White Lab
http://hometown.aol.com/gmbbwlab/myhomepage/business.html
Heinz Richter
You might also want to go to:
http://www.f32
and see under articles: "Manufacture and Performance of Photographic Lenses.
DNA Plasmid
them to be on par or better that Leica lenses for sharpness, but Leica
lenses do have a certain quality to them. At camera club I am always able
to pick out the slides made by the members that use Leica.
Q.G. de Bakker
I think what makes Leitz lenses instantly recognizable is the way they
render colour. Zeiss lenses are in every way their equal, but are more
neutral, i.e. do not have that typical Leitz colour.
Fred Whitlock
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the
comparable
> Nikon stuff.
They are mechanically superior but optically they are different.
Typically lower in contrast and less flatness of field than Nikkors
and higher in edge resolution. Certainly they are excellent in every
sense of the word.
Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not
be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of
purchasing 3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
It may be a good move but you would be making it for the wrong reason.
The reasons to own and use a Leica are not the same as the reasons to
own and use a Nikon system.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this
quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it
seems, than
> Leica.
Because it is far less expensive and enjoys superior marketing.
(I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
> certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users,
no
> offense)
No there are many, many, many times more Nikon users than Leica. I
would venture to say there are literally thousands of Nikons for
every Leica in use today. Incidentally I own and use both systems.
Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
stanley
regret it. Nikon is just as reliable (so far), more versatile, better
metering, more extensive and available accessories,and AUTOFOCUS. I
think Leica prime lenses may be technically superior in optical
testing(MTF), but I cannot tell the difference even with enlargement
to 16x 20, or in projected image (50" screen). I have no experience
with Leica M series cameras, but all RF cameras have an inherent
superiority to SLR's due to the short rear lens element-film plane
distance.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jeff S
primes are much newer designs, with the current 35/2, 35/1.4, 50/2.8,
90/2 and 90/3.4 (and others) optics having been designed within the past
few years and incorporating aspherical lens elements which are rare in
older designs. But you won't find an autofocus Leica SLR yet and if you
walk into the store with $1,500 US, you'll be lucky to walk home with a
new Leica camera body--no lens!
Bram wrote:
>
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica camera's and
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the comparable
> Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing 3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it seems, than
> Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
> certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users, no
> offense)
--
Jeff
Somewhere in Boulder, Colorado
Anders Svensson
>
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica camera's and
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the comparable
> Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing 3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it seems, than
> Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
> certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users, no
> offense)
>
>
> Bram
There is no question about Leica lenses being among the best
lenses for photography there is. But, considering the cost
vs performance ratio to really good lenses from any maker ,
and knowing where the performance bottlenecks are located,
it is possible (or even likely) that their excellent
performance will go unnoticed.
I think I can promise you that you will find the difference
between (say) a set of 24 -50-105 mm Nikkor primes and the
lenses you own now to be far greater than the difference
that you will find between these lenses and the equivalent
Leica lenses.
You may also want to weigh into the equation that going with
Leica means a whole new attitude towards photography,
skipping auto support and AF. That might be a far bigger
difference (for better or worse - you decide) than the
difference between the lens systems.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul van Walree
> And: fixed focal length lenses always perform better than zoom-lenses
If they were both being designed today, yes, of course. But it's not
hard to find a modern zoom lens that outperforms a 20-year old fixed
focal length design.
W.
Mxsmanic
news:2w2Y4.7496$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com...
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard
> that Leica camera's and lenses are more expensive,
> but also better in quality than the comparable Nikon
> stuff.
If you compare top-of-the-line Nikon with Leica (specifically, the M
rangefinders), they are about the same, in both quality and price. It's
a matter of personal preference. I have both, and I wouldn't give up
either, but no matter what you hear, the pictures they produce are
pretty much indistinguishable from each other.
A Nikon F5 with an AF-S zoom costs about the same as a Leica M with a
single prime. The results are pretty much the same, too. The
difference is in the ergonomy from the photographer's standpoint.
Leicas have a huge advantage in some situations (discretion, size,
weight, silence, ease of use, no need for batteries, ultrasharp primes),
and Nikons have a huge advantage in others (flexibility, high shutter
speeds, WYSIWYG viewfinder, motor drive, choice between full auto and
full manual with everything in between, ability to use zoom lenses, auto
exposure and focus).
> Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon
> zoom-lens system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes,
> I wonder if it would not be a better idea to go for
> the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing 3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
Top-quality Nikon and top-quality Leica will be so similar that I don't
think there's any point in fretting about the difference--it's a
religious question, really. They'll cost about the same, too. Just
remember that only the high-end Nikons compare; Nikon has not only pro
lenses but also cheaper "consumer" lenses that are pale shadows of Leica
quality, but Leica does not have a "consumer" grade--all the Leica glass
is expensive and professional. Be sure to compare apples to apples.
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice,
> because if this quality issue is really true, than
> why is Nikon so much more popular it seems, than
> Leica.
Nikon has better marketing, and SLRs have a lot of advantages. Leica
has had the same camera design for decades: all manual. It's simple and
easy and pleasant to use once you get used to it, but it lacks the
flexibility of an advanced SLR. The two systems actually serve
different purposes, with only a small amount of overlap. There's
nothing wrong with having both, if budget permits. If not, it all
depends on what kind of photography you prefer.
> I am not sure there are more Nikon users than
> Leica users ...
There are millions of Nikon users, and only tens of thousands of Leica
users. I think the huge difference is due to factors other than
technical merit, though.
Mxsmanic
news:8gr505$k26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Just look at a side by side color picture
> taken by Leica and any other system and you
> will see for yourself.
I have, and I can't see the difference.
You get what you pay for. Leica lenses are of very high quality because
they are very expensive. Nikon lenses are also of very high quality,
when you are talking about the most expensive Nikkor lenses. Obviously,
the cheapest lenses made by Nikon are nowhere near as good. But you get
what you pay for.
Mxsmanic
news:bCwxOcBuUasWa5...@4ax.com...
> I'm not getting rid of my Nikon equipment, and
> I'm really enjoying my Leica.
It's not either/or. If you are fortunate enough to have both, keep
them. SLRs have their place, and so do rangefinders, and there isn't
much overlap between the two.
McEowen
macro work, the flash stuff, the fast action, and other tasks for which an SLR
is best suited. I use the Leica for the "quiet" stuff -- not necessarily just
because the cameras are quiet themselves but because the rangefinder is a
better tool for careful observing and recording interactions and little
moments. In other words, "horses for courses" . . .
Oh yes, Leica does make SLRs too but personally I don't notice . . .
Q.G. de Bakker
>If they were both being designed today, yes, of course. But
it's not
>hard to find a modern zoom lens that outperforms a 20-year old
fixed
>focal length design.
By the same token, it's not hard to find a modern fixed focal
length lens that outperforms a 20-year old fixed focal length
design, *and* outperforms a modern zoom!
Groet.
Q.G. de Bakker
>[...] In other words, "horses for courses" . . .
Yes indeed. But i believe Bram was wondering whether to get rid
of his Nikon in favour of Leica, or to stick with Nikon and get
some fixed focal length lenses for it. Perhaps funds won't
permit the horses for courses approach.
>Oh yes, Leica does make SLRs too but personally I don't
notice . . .
Why? They too are excellent!
wzh...@my-deja.com
about...
Hi Warus!
Wei
In article <3931A293...@xs4all.nl>,
Paul van Walree <odob...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
>
> > And: fixed focal length lenses always perform better than zoom-
lenses
>
> If they were both being designed today, yes, of course. But it's not
> hard to find a modern zoom lens that outperforms a 20-year old fixed
> focal length design.
>
> W.
wzh...@my-deja.com
and how much for leica lenses?
:)
Wei
In article <M%hY4.129113$MB.24...@news6.giganews.com>,
wzh...@my-deja.com
Yep, totally agree! It's the matter of consistency!
Wei
In article <393112...@worldnet.att.net>,
JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Bram wrote:
> >
> > Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica
camera's and
> > lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the
comparable
> > Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-
lens
> > system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not
be a
> > better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of
purchasing 3
> > lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
> >
> > Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this
quality
> > issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it
seems, than
> > Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users,
but
> > certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users,
no
> > offense)
> >
> > Have fun!
> >
> > Bram
>
> Well it depends on exactly what you are comparing to what....
>
> Leica "M" series lenses, (in my experience), are virtually
unbeatable.
> But in this case, it is comparing apples with oranges, (SLR vs.
> RAngefinder).
>
> Let's look at it from another angle. Nikon produces many times of
> product then does Leica. Nikon adhers to industry standards of
> tolerances in producing its products. Leica on the other hand adhers
> to considerably tighter tolerance standards. The result is that leica
> optics are more consistant while Nikon buyers will experience a
varying
> degree of quality. Heinz, can you elaborate on this?
>
> The old saying, "You get what you pay for" perhaps has no better
example
> when buying any of these products from these two manufacturers. I
have
> seen excellent Nikon stuff and on occasion mediocre product as well.
> Leica on the other hand has always been consistantly high in quality.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> JT, residing in Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
> and, Other Things Weird!
>
> Just a few of my favorite things. . .
>
> ‘31 Studebaker State Coupe
> ‘55 Studebaker State Coupe
> ‘55 Studebaker State Sedan
> ‘56 Studebaker Power Hawk
> ‘63 Studebaker Lark Sedan
> ‘64 Studebaker T-Cab T-6
> ‘65 Honda 305 Dream
> Leica M2 Range Finders
>
wzh...@my-deja.com
modern CZ lenses are somewhat warmer (have more saturated colors) than
the images taken with Leica lenses. Leica lenses produce sharper
images than the CZ lenses, but the images from the CZ lenses have a
some kind of 3D look.
BTW, the reason why I say modern CZ lenses is because I have heard that
the CZ lenses made for the Contarex cameras don't produce as saturated
color images as the modern CZ T* lenses... I don't know, I have never
used any contarexes.
Wei
In article <8grkfv$dt1$1...@news.fsr.net>,
"DNA Plasmid" <dnapl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How do Zeiss lenses compare? I have used them for 30 years and have
found
> them to be on par or better that Leica lenses for sharpness, but Leica
> lenses do have a certain quality to them. At camera club I am always
able
> to pick out the slides made by the members that use Leica.
>
>
wzh...@my-deja.com
myself a Leica M3 on my birthday!
Wei
p.s. Hi Bud!
In article <39312...@news1.prserv.net>,
"Bud Cook" <bud...@attglobalX.net> wrote:
> Nikon primes should be a huge improvement over the extreme zooms that
you
> currently have.
>
> The perfect situation would be to keep the Nikon system and add a new
or
> used Leica rangefinder with at least one lens to begin with (35
Summicron).
> You will always get your money back if you are not happy with the
results of
> the Leica. On the other hand, once you become addicted to the Leica
(and
> you will), you can add lenses and eventually switch from the Nikon
SLR to a
> Leica SLR to have the best of both worlds.
> --
> Bud Cook
> Remove X to Reply
> NO ARCHIVE
>
> "Bram" <bvd...@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:2w2Y4.7496$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com...
> > Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica
camera's
> and
> > lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the
comparable
> > Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-
lens
> > system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not
be a
> > better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of
purchasing 3
> > lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
> >
> > Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this
quality
> > issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it
seems,
> than
> > Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users,
but
> > certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users,
no
> > offense)
> >
> > Have fun!
> >
> > Bram
> >
> >
>
>
McEowen
notice . . .
Why? They too are excellent! >>
Two reasons: First, although I own Leica lenses for my M I think Leica glass is
obscenely expensive. The only reason I can see paying $2000 for a 24mm lens (or
worse yet, $1000 for a 50mm) -- no matter HOW good -- is because with the M
you only have one choice. You buy the Leica lens or you do without (the 25mm
Cosina is not the same, as it isn't rangefinder coupled). I can understand the
high price in terms of limited market and production but that doesn't mean I
like paying it. But to pay those kinds of prices when Nikon and Canon offer
substitutes that are 95 percent as good is a bit foolhardy in my mind -- a
proposition best left to well-healed doctors and old-money types. My second
reason is simply that Nikon and Canon over a much more complete system with a
much better support system.
Bud Cook
Good idea:-)
--
Bud Cook
Remove X to Reply
NO ARCHIVE
<wzh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8gtg96$61t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Maziar Farahmand
with 4X6, some people are able to say. Some people have better vision
and , and not everyone's eye is trained the same. Anyhow it is an issue
of color and contrast, rather than resulotion.
In article <M%hY4.129113$MB.24...@news6.giganews.com>,
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Maziar Farahmand" <maz...@landau.mirc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:8gr505$k26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Just look at a side by side color picture
> > taken by Leica and any other system and you
> > will see for yourself.
>
> I have, and I can't see the difference.
>
> You get what you pay for. Leica lenses are of very high quality
because
> they are very expensive. Nikon lenses are also of very high quality,
> when you are talking about the most expensive Nikkor lenses.
Obviously,
> the cheapest lenses made by Nikon are nowhere near as good. But you
get
> what you pay for.
>
>
Paul Chefurka
>well-healed doctors
Unintentional perhaps, but funny nonetheless :-) Thanks for the
smile.
Paul van Walree
> By the same token, it's not hard to find a modern fixed focal
> length lens that outperforms a 20-year old fixed focal length
> design, *and* outperforms a modern zoom!
So we agree.
mvg,
W.
Paul van Walree
> Depend on what 20-year old fixed focal length lens you were talking
> about...
And also on which modern zoom I am talking about :-)
W.
Bud Cook
--
Bud Cook
Remove X to Reply
NO ARCHIVE
"Paul van Walree" <odob...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:393296E9...@xs4all.nl...
> Hi Wei,
fros...@my-deja.com
with Lieca for decades, I sold it all and went with Nikon for the
automation about six years ago. First experience with N90 knocked me
out.
Now having many, many Nikon shots to compare with many, many Leica
shots niether I, my friends, editors, or customers can tell any
difference. I am familiar with all the opinions and lab tests
indicating Leica superiority. However, my ratio of keepers (and sales)
is way up with Nikon compared to Leica. I have very high regard for
Leica -- but I'll never go back.
In article <2w2Y4.7496$aO.21...@news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com>,
"Bram" <bvd...@home.nl> wrote:
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica
camera's and
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the
comparable
> Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-
lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not
be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing
3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this
quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it
seems, than
> Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
> certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users, no
> offense)
>
> Have fun!
>
> Bram
>
>
Q.G. de Bakker
> So we agree.
Apparently. But what was your point?
John R
>with Leica M series cameras, but all RF cameras have an inherent
>superiority to SLR's due to the short rear lens element-film plane
>distance.
That is only true for lenses that are wider than normal. This is not a
problem with normal or tele lenses.
JCR
Q.G. de Bakker
In fact there *is* a problem with rangefinder cameras and long
lenses. To get acurate focussing the base of the rangefinder
should be wider than the camerabody would allow. Lenses longer
than about approx. 100 mm should be used on a SLR.
Paul van Walree
> > So we agree.
>
> Apparently. But what was your point?
My point was that the statement
> And: fixed focal length lenses always perform better than zoom-lenses
needs some differentiation.
W.
Mxsmanic
news:8gteg1$4si$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> How much for those "the most expensive Nikkor lenses"?
>
> and how much for leica lenses?
I paid about the same price for my AF-S Nikkor 28-70/2.8D ED-IF as I did
for my Leica Summicron-M 1:2/35 ASPH. These are the standard lenses
that I use on my F5 and M6 (respectively) pretty much all the time.
As I've said before, the cost of the F5 + the AF-S zoom was about the
same as the cost of the M6 plus the Summicron.
Mxsmanic
> What size are we talking here?
Scanned at 2700 dpi. This is the equivalent of about a 36x24-inch
enlargement, on my monitor.
> If slide you neede a loupe.
A loupe doesn't show the level of detail that a scan does, unless it's a
microscope.
> Anyhow it is an issue of color and contrast,
> rather than resulotion.
On the contrary, the only difference seems to be in resolution. Of
course, the Leica is a prime, and the AF-S is a zoom, which makes a
difference.
My impression is that both lenses resolve more than the film can readily
hold, and more than can be scanned (at least by my scanner). Color and
contrast are about the same in both lenses.
Mxsmanic
news:012118f3...@usw-ex0104-028.remarq.com...
> By the same token, it's not hard to find a modern
> fixed focal length lens that outperforms a 20-year
> old fixed focal length design, *and* outperforms
> a modern zoom!
Nowadays, a good zoom is a better buy. It is more than sufficient for
just about any purpose you might have in mind, and it gives you the
flexibility of multiple focal lengths. A prime gives you only one focal
length, and its optical superiority--if any--is too small in magnitude
to make any difference in practice.
Fred Whitlock
in optical performance can be subtle to extreme but putting a value on
those differences for someone else is purely subjective. I find the
differences very obvious and important. You don't. Subjective
preference.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
Fred Whitlock
prices with 35mm f2 lenses on both cameras.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
Bob Mathison
>
> "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu_98N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:012118f3...@usw-ex0104-028.remarq.com...
>
> > By the same token, it's not hard to find a modern
> > fixed focal length lens that outperforms a 20-year
> > old fixed focal length design, *and* outperforms
> > a modern zoom!
>
> just about any purpose you might have in mind, and it gives you the
> flexibility of multiple focal lengths. A prime gives you only one focal
> length, and its optical superiority--if any--is too small in magnitude
> to make any difference in practice.
The prime will be smaller, faster, and have a more effective lens shade
it's a question of what's more appropriate for the particular purpose.
j
Edward Craft
> Nobody can tell the difference between shots taken with a Leica and shots
> taken with a good Nikon and Nikkor lens.
I can. The world is going to seem like a lonely and bitter place if it
turns out I'm the only one.
Shuddering,
Edward Craft
Mxsmanic
news:393508...@ix.netcom.com...
> The prime will be smaller, faster, and have a
> more effective lens shade it's a question of what's
> more appropriate for the particular purpose.
True. But I have both, just in case, and I use each system about 50% of
the time (not deliberately, but that's just the way it tends to work
out).
Mxsmanic
news:8h2uge$1af8$1...@nix2.kconline.com...
> You'll get a lot of argument with that kind of
> statement.
Only from dedicated amateurs, pros, and wannabes. For the average
amateur and casual consumer, my statements are highly applicable.
Indeed, even for the first-mentioned groups, they are still fairly
widely applicable. Once an optical system gives you the quality you
need, anything beyond that is gravy, and other considerations are more
important, such as ergonomy. And nobody can tell the difference between
Mxsmanic
> That's a fairly meaningless comparison. Rather
> you should compare the prices with 35mm f2 lenses
> on both cameras.
Nope. I'm comparing real-world use and results, not hardware
components. I use the AF-S and Nikon for pictures, and I use the Leica
and Summicron for pictures. I don't need or want a 35mm f/2 on the
Nikon--I have that on the Leica. I don't need or want a 28-70 zoom on
the Leica; I have that on the Nikon. So the two systems are equivalent.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
decides to use.
Godfrey
Gregg
Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Fred Whitlock" <a...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> news:8h2ugf$1af8$2...@nix2.kconline.com...
>
> > That's a fairly meaningless comparison. Rather
> > you should compare the prices with 35mm f2 lenses
> > on both cameras.
>
> Nope. I'm comparing real-world use and results, not hardware
> components. I use the AF-S and Nikon for pictures, and I use the Leica
> and Summicron for pictures. I don't need or want a 35mm f/2 on the
> Nikon--I have that on the Leica. I don't need or want a 28-70 zoom on
> the Leica; I have that on the Nikon. So the two systems are equivalent.
hmmmm ...... interesting logic. May I compare my Hitachi Digital Camcorder
too?
Edward Craft
> "Edward Craft" <ecraft...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3936D820...@optonline.net...
>
> > I can. The world is going to seem like a lonely
> > and bitter place if it turns out I'm the only one.
>
> I'm sure that there are others, out of six billion people in the world.
> I'm not sure why you'd feel lonely and bitter if there were not,
> however.
Either your irony detector is malfuntioning or my irony expressor is on
the fritz. I'll be more direct.
The difference is readily apparent. I could shoot the same image with my
Leica and my Nikon, have them printed, put them side by side, show them to
a stranger, and that person could see the difference. Are both pictures
excellent? Yes. Is one better? Yes. The shot taken with the Leica is
better. Would that stranger know which one came from the Leica and which
is from the Nikon? Probably not. Would he or she be able to point to one
and say *this one's better?* Yes. And that shot would be the Leica's.
If you can't see the difference, you should take up Whitlock on his offer.
Your dismissal of his remark about *a little bit of training* was, pardon
my bluntness, sophistic. (So too, as long as I'm at it, was the curious
point about the *equivalence* of the systems.) No training is required,
and I have to believe you know that. You indicate that you use both
systems about 50-50. So do I. (Actually, I envy you there. I'm probably
70-30 in favor of the Nikon because autofocus and zoom are spoiling me.)
So you know what each system can do. Personally, if I want a shot with the
absolute best sharpness color resolution, and if factors like lens
requirements and film advance cooperate, I'll use the Leica. And I'll bet
you would, too. If not, why have a Leica at all?
Regards,
Edward Craft
Edward Craft
> Edward, see it this way:
>
> There are undoubtedly other people that can see the
> difference between a Leica image and a Nikkor one, side by
> side, equally well taken, and so on. It is even possible
> that the difference is *easy* to see under some
> circumstances.
>
> OTOH, for me (and probably for a lot of other people) all
> the other image quality factors are more problematic and
> more relevant, and in that sense the difference between the
> best Nikkor (or, Canon, Pentax Minolta, even Tokina et al)
> qualities and the Zeiss or Leica qualities becomes a minor
> question and the rest of the process becomes more important.
>
> Heck, comparing old slides (from the 60's, 70's and 80's)
> taken with 60's Minolta primes to new(er) Nikon produced
> slides, even I see a difference. But content, composition
> and execution (focus and exposure) are greater
> differentiators than lens qualitys, that's for sure.
Yes. To me, the lens is of utmost importance, but only insofar as the system
(Leica M) it's attached to lets me get the shot. If it doesn't, I'll gladly use
another system (Nikon). Without hesitation. Nothing about Leica's legendary
quality diminishes Nikkor's near-legendary quality.
Interesting observation about your vintage Minolta shots. I'll have to rummage
through my files and do a similar comparison. I know I got some terrific
pictures with an SRT-101 (when I was, of course, a mere child in swaddling
clothes) but don't know if the negs have survived years of neglect.
Regards,
Edward Craft
Mxsmanic
> The difference is readily apparent.
Describe the difference, then, in objective terms.
> Is one better? Yes. The shot taken with the Leica is
> better.
I don't see any difference.
> Would he or she be able to point to one
> and say *this one's better?* Yes. And that
> shot would be the Leica's.
Sure.
> If you can't see the difference, you should take up
> Whitlock on his offer.
If he has to _train_ people to see the difference, then that is proof
that there is no difference worth worrying about.
> Your dismissal of his remark about *a little bit
> of training* was, pardon my bluntness, sophistic.
See above.
> No training is required, and I have to believe
> you know that.
No, I don't know that. I don't see any difference between images taken
with the two cameras. I suppose the Leica would do better on MTF, but I
don't shoot too many slides of test charts, so that isn't really
important to me.
> You indicate that you use both systems about
> 50-50.
Yes. The Nikon is for days when I go out to take pictures, the Leica is
for days when I might take pictures while going out.
> So you know what each system can do.
Yup. They both yield flawless results.
> Personally, if I want a shot with the absolute best
> sharpness color resolution, and if factors like lens
> requirements and film advance cooperate, I'll use
> the Leica.
Personally, I'll try to compose my photos in a way such that they have
something more going for them besides sharpness or color resolution.
> And I'll bet you would, too.
Nope. I want to take pictures that people find interesting, not
pictures that meet ISO norms for MTF.
> If not, why have a Leica at all?
Because there's a lot more to Leica than the partially imaginary
nonsense about their lenses being so far above all others. Lens quality
was not the major factor leading me to buy a Leica, especially once I
saw how nice high-end Nikon lenses are.
Jim MacKenzie
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sjVZ4.120807$701.1...@news4.giganews.com...
> with the two cameras. I suppose the Leica would do better on MTF, but I
> don't shoot too many slides of test charts, so that isn't really
> important to me.
When you consider the results that you can get, say, with a $90 US AF 50/1.8
Nikkor versus a $700 US 50/2 Summicron, I think a person has to consider
that even if Nikon lenses are 95% as good as Leica (and they are pretty
close - in a few cases they're better), that Nikon lenses are a much more
worthwhile expenditure. You can buy and destroy seven Nikkors in this case
and still be ahead in money terms.
When it comes to esoteric glass, the Leica prices are out of this world. I
have enough trouble affording high-end Nikkor glass.
Jim
Q.G. de Bakker
> When you consider the results that you can get, say, with a $90 US AF
50/1.8
> Nikkor versus a $700 US 50/2 Summicron, I think a person has to consider
> that even if Nikon lenses are 95% as good as Leica (and they are pretty
> close - in a few cases they're better), that Nikon lenses are a much more
> worthwhile expenditure. You can buy and destroy seven Nikkors in this
case
> and still be ahead in money terms.
Lets see...
If i buy and destroy 7 Nikkors, i am left with no lens and $630 out of
pocket.
If on the other hand i buy 1 Summicron, i have a great lens and have spent
$700.
Difference in money terms: $70.
But then, i am in no way ahead, since i am stuck without a lens. Obviously,
you can't even get a $90 Nikkor for $70...
;-)
R. Saylor
>If one has to train someone to see a Leica difference, that suggests that
>there is something different than reality in that picture.
There is something different than reality in every photograph ever
made.
Richard
R. Saylor
>But there is presumably an attempt to approximate reality in pictures. If
>one can actually point to a certain quality that a given lens has, that
>suggests a formal step away from reality quite different than the usual
>difficult attempts to approximate reality.
A photograph is not an approximation of reality.
Richard
li...@ork.net
> If he has to _train_ people to see the difference, then that is proof
> that there is no difference worth worrying about.
If one has to train someone to see a Leica difference, that suggests that
li...@ork.net
>>If one has to train someone to see a Leica difference, that suggests that
>>there is something different than reality in that picture.
> There is something different than reality in every photograph ever
> made.
But there is presumably an attempt to approximate reality in pictures. If
one can actually point to a certain quality that a given lens has, that
suggests a formal step away from reality quite different than the usual
difficult attempts to approximate reality.
Which step should be removed.
Mxsmanic
news:393829dc$1...@news3.cableregina.com...
> When you consider the results that you can get,
> say, with a $90 US AF 50/1.8 Nikkor versus a $700
> US 50/2 Summicron, I think a person has to consider
> that even if Nikon lenses are 95% as good as
> Leica (and they are pretty close - in a few cases
> they're better), that Nikon lenses are a much more
> worthwhile expenditure.
I agree. The increment in quality with increasing cost is far smaller
than the increment in price. You might pay 2-3 times more for only a 5%
increase in image quality. So unless you really must have (or want)
that last tiny 5%, you are probably wasting money. And 99% of the
people looking at your photos aren't going to notice the difference in
quality, so you can't use that as an excuse for buying the more
expensive glass.
> When it comes to esoteric glass, the Leica
> prices are out of this world.
I wouldn't say that. Obviously if you want very long focal lengths and
high speeds (particularly at the same time), you're going to pay high
prices no matter where you look. But in that case, you're already in
the Twilight Zone of photography, where most people don't venture.
Among the more common lenses, the M-series Leica lenses are expensive,
but not really astronomical. The same is true for high-end Nikkor
lenses.
> I have enough trouble affording high-end Nikkor glass.
Leica doesn't cost that much more. The real constraint, though, is that
you have to buy glass that you can mount on your camera body, so you
have to buy Nikkor for Nikon (almost), and Leica for Leica.
Mxsmanic
news:r6mgjskdud2ghr5vm...@4ax.com...
> There is something different than reality in
> every photograph ever made.
But the closer two lenses comes to projecting reality onto the film, the
less difference there will be between them. The difference is always an
artifact.
Mxsmanic
> A photograph is not an approximation of reality.
Yes it is--that's the whole point. If you want impressionism, you
paint.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > A photograph is not an approximation of reality.
>
> Yes it is--that's the whole point. If you want impressionism, you
> paint.
Even impressionism is an approximation of reality.
R. Saylor
wrote:
>"R. Saylor" <rlsa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:nmpgjso3etq2ahg5b...@4ax.com...
>
>> A photograph is not an approximation of reality.
>
>Yes it is--that's the whole point. If you want impressionism, you
>paint.
A photograph of a house is not an approximation of a house. All
representational art, including the various schools of realism, is
impressionistic. The French impressionist movement was, in part, a
recognition of this fact.
Richard
Mxsmanic
news:s4rhjska25rfdhlht...@4ax.com...
> Even if we say that the quality is the same,
> and Leica lenses are just more expensive without
> returning any additional image quality than
> corresponding Nikon lenses, there's still a
> difference: the cameras.
Yes, and that's the only real reason for choosing one system over the
other. If you want the best SLR made, you buy a Nikon. If you want the
best rangefinder made, you buy a Leica.
R. Saylor
<q...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>There cannot be such a strict distinction between representation and
>approximation. In fact all approximation, in doing so, represents that what
>is being approximated, albeit in a approximate way. If not, there is no
>telling *what* it is approximating. And all representation must approximate
>that which it is trying to represent, or else it will fail. Representation
>and approximation really are one and the same thing, perhaps seen from
>different angles. Neither can ever claim to *be* their object. A photograph
>of a house is a approximation, as well as a representation of a house.
A house is an object. When we look at a house we get a visual
impression of the house. Since our brains are involved in creating
this impression, different people may "see" the house differently. A
photograph may be an approximation to this visual impression, but it
is most emphatically not an approximation of the house itself.
But even it you dismiss the above as hair-splitting semantics, the
"approximation of reality" notion still has problems. Does a black and
white photograph approximate reality? Does a color photograph
utilizing a polarizing or graduated ND filter approximate the reality
of the particular scene being photographed?
But getting back to the original issue, we cannot really say whether
one lens gives images which are "closer to reality" than another lens,
because we don't know exactly what that means. We do, however, have a
visual impression of a scene, which is partly subjective, and we may
have a vision of how we would like a two-dimensional representation of
the scene to look. One lens may produce images more in accord with
that vision than another. Likewise for the use of black and white film
and filters. Reality is hardly the issue, but rather our impression of
reality and the ability of our equipment to approximate that
impression.
Richard
Q.G. de Bakker
> A photograph of a house is not an approximation of a house. All
> representational art, including the various schools of realism, is
> impressionistic. The French impressionist movement was, in part, a
> recognition of this fact.
There cannot be such a strict distinction between representation and
approximation. In fact all approximation, in doing so, represents that what
is being approximated, albeit in a approximate way. If not, there is no
telling *what* it is approximating. And all representation must approximate
that which it is trying to represent, or else it will fail. Representation
and approximation really are one and the same thing, perhaps seen from
different angles. Neither can ever claim to *be* their object. A photograph
of a house is a approximation, as well as a representation of a house.
Impressionism is not a side in a fictional argument between representation
and approximation.
The french impressionistic movement was all about no longer trying to copy
reality (like the realists), but instead recognize and appreciate the way
the medium (canvas and paint) influences, hampers, attempts at a realistic
depiction. Having realized that mirroring nature was not feasible, the
impressionists were free to create a picture representing the way their
subject made them feel. Something they all felt to be far more important
anyway. (Allthough it is rumoured that they just did not like the amount of
work involved in trying for a realistic depiction ;-)). Instead of to
imitate reality, they sought to intimate reality.
Q.G. de Bakker
> A house is an object. When we look at a house we get a visual
> impression of the house. Since our brains are involved in creating
> this impression, different people may "see" the house differently. A
> photograph may be an approximation to this visual impression, but it
> is most emphatically not an approximation of the house itself.
It certainly is. Perhaps a very poor one indeed, only giving an
approximation of one aspect of the house, its visual characteristics. None
the less an approximation.
> But even it you dismiss the above as hair-splitting semantics, the
> "approximation of reality" notion still has problems. Does a black and
> white photograph approximate reality? Does a color photograph
> utilizing a polarizing or graduated ND filter approximate the reality
> of the particular scene being photographed?
They all do, each giving a different, perhaps better,
approximation/representation of the same aspect, or even different aspects,
of reality.
Being different does not in itself make this notion problematic. It would be
so only if we could say reality to be of an unequivocal, singular nature. It
isn't though (do you like Bruxelles sprouts? I don't. Does this mean that me
describing them as having a foul taste, while someone else might describe
them as being delicious would make the concept of taste and our ability to
approximate the reality of sprouts problematic? I don't believe it will.).
> But getting back to the original issue, we cannot really say whether
> one lens gives images which are "closer to reality" than another lens,
> because we don't know exactly what that means. We do, however, have a
> visual impression of a scene, which is partly subjective, and we may
> have a vision of how we would like a two-dimensional representation of
> the scene to look. One lens may produce images more in accord with
> that vision than another. Likewise for the use of black and white film
> and filters. Reality is hardly the issue, but rather our impression of
> reality and the ability of our equipment to approximate that
> impression.
We do not have to know exactly what "closer to reality" means at all. The
subjective impressions and anticipation you mention is as close as we are
going to get to reality anyhow. So there really is no difference between
reality and our impression of reality. At least not in any way that might
dismiss arguments concerning quality of lenses built upon, or using the
concept of "reality", rather than the concept "impression of reality".
Though perhaps the whole issue is rather vague and undetermined, we all know
when a certain "rendering of reality" by a lens will qualify as "bad" (i.e.
if it will show a sky, we distinctly see or remember to have seen being blue
as brown, etc.). Reality at this level is a matter of an, easily achievable,
consensus.
Taking this "certainty" as point of departure, we will eventually reach a
point when we will (have to) say a lens to be good, in this respect. *When*
we will arrive at this point is indeed a matter of a subjective decision,
some will arrive at this decision earlier then others. Consensus will be
progressively harder to achieve. But what this means is that if someone is
stating a particular lens is "getting closer to reality" better than another
lens, he is not talking gibberish, even though someone else might not agree.
li...@ork.net
> But getting back to the original issue, we cannot really say whether
> one lens gives images which are "closer to reality" than another lens,
> because we don't know exactly what that means. We do, however, have a
> visual impression of a scene, which is partly subjective, and we may
> have a vision of how we would like a two-dimensional representation of
> the scene to look. One lens may produce images more in accord with
> that vision than another. Likewise for the use of black and white film
> and filters. Reality is hardly the issue, but rather our impression of
> reality and the ability of our equipment to approximate that
> impression.
This is becoming semantic wordplay.
I can tell which lens, a 50mm 1.4 USM or a 28-80mm zoom, looks more like
the reality I see when I look at a house.
I prefer the 50mm's version of reality.
It doesn't do a perfect job, but to the extent it deviates, it's a fairly
random deviation. There's been no attempt to create a recognizable
deviation. The 28-80 has done a worse job, but it's still a fairly random,
though larger, deviation.
Not so, apparently, with Leica lenses. People keep talking about how they
can recognize a Leica lens by the "look" and all sorts of other
stuff. Personally, I think it's nonsense. But, to the extent that it is
not, all I can say is that to the extent that a series of lenses from one
manufacturer have been manufacturered so as to have a "look" that allows a
person to distinguish them from other good lenses.
That is troubling. There should not be enough room or skill to create an
excellent lens, yet with some kind of artifact that allows such
recognition. It implies that there is a standard type of deviation from
reality.
That is *not* good.
Mxsmanic
news:2Nq_4.225$35.3...@news.shore.net...
> Not so, apparently, with Leica lenses. People
> keep talking about how they can recognize a
> Leica lens by the "look" and all sorts of other
> stuff. Personally, I think it's nonsense.
It is. I worried about talk about lenses being "warm" or "cool" before
getting a Leica. I was happy to note that the Leica lens, like the
Nikkor lens, is simply "colorless."
It is true that if I had kept with the 28-200 or the 24-120 and then
gone to Leica, the Leica would have shown a dramatic difference. But
that would only be because the Leica lens is a much better (and much
more expensive lens), not because it is made by Leica. In fact, I first
got an AF-S Nikkor zoom, then got the Leica, and it's hard to see any
difference between them at all. I can't distinguish between slides made
with one and slides made with the other. There may indeed be
differences, but they are below the threshold at which I really have
reason to care, for my normal use. They are both _extremely fine_
lenses.
> It implies that there is a standard type of
> deviation from reality.
>
> That is *not* good.
I agree. I want a lens that shows reality as closely as possible, not
one that has a "look."
It reminds me of a fashion in piano tuning some decades ago, when pianos
were tuned so that certain common chords would sound better than certain
uncommon chords. Of course, the piano as a whole deviated from the
ideal in consequence. Nowadays, pianos are tuned in a uniform way, and
tuners have stopped trying to give pianos a specific sound predicated on
some presumption of how they will be used.
If I want a deviation from reality, I'll use a filter, or Photoshop.
Fred Whitlock
Sometimes to reach a better performance level in one parameter one has
to settle for lesser performance in another. The designers'
priorities are what give some lenses a particular "character." As an
example, the Germans in general strive for maximum corner resolution
while giving up some contrast while the Japanese tend to design for a
higher level of contrast while giving up some corner resolution.
This isn't true with every designer and with every lens but it's a
fairly obvious "tendency." That doesn't make one lens better or worse
than another but it does make it different. It isn't nonsense. It's
preference. Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
Personally, I think it's nonsense. But, to the extent that it is
> not, all I can say is that to the extent that a series of lenses
from one
> manufacturer have been manufacturered so as to have a "look" that
allows a
> person to distinguish them from other good lenses.
>
> That is troubling. There should not be enough room or skill to
create an
> excellent lens, yet with some kind of artifact that allows such
> recognition. It implies that there is a standard type of deviation
wcm...@attglobal.net
pictures taken with Leica, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, or most any other lens
produced in modern times. With Computer-aided design and manufacture, you'd
almost have to deliberately try to produce a poor lens to get one. "My
experience" goes up to and including 20x24 inch prints. Beyond that print size,
there may be a difference; But why use a 35mm camera anyhow to get something
bigger than a 20x24 print? Have some fun with your expert friends: take a
picture with a 50mm Summicron on a Leica, then take the same picture with your
favorite 50mm Jupiter-8 lens on your favorite Zorki. Print both to, say, 11x14
and see how many of them can tell you which camera/lens combo took which
picture. You'll find this to be an interesting experiment. I know I did.
Bill Martin
Bram wrote:
> Yesterday on the Photo Academy in Amsterdam, I heard that Leica camera's and
> lenses are more expensive, but also better in quality than the comparable
> Nikon stuff. Since I am on the threshold of expanding my Nikon zoom-lens
> system(24-120 & 70-300) with a few primes, I wonder if it would not be a
> better idea to go for the Leica system instead. I think of purchasing 3
> lenses: 24mm (or 20mm), 50 and 85.
>
> Is there somebody who could give me sound advice, because if this quality
> issue is really true, than why is Nikon so much more popular it seems, than
> Leica. (I am not sure there are more Nikon users than Leica users, but
> certainly Nikon users have more to say on this NG than Leica users, no
> offense)
>
> Have fun!
>
> Bram
JETman
>
> In my experience, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference among
> pictures taken with Leica, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, or most any other lens
> produced in modern times. With Computer-aided design and manufacture, you'd
> almost have to deliberately try to produce a poor lens to get one. "My
> experience" goes up to and including 20x24 inch prints. Beyond that print size,
> there may be a difference; But why use a 35mm camera anyhow to get something
> bigger than a 20x24 print? Have some fun with your expert friends: take a
> picture with a 50mm Summicron on a Leica, then take the same picture with your
> favorite 50mm Jupiter-8 lens on your favorite Zorki. Print both to, say, 11x14
> and see how many of them can tell you which camera/lens combo took which
> picture. You'll find this to be an interesting experiment. I know I did.
>
> Bill Martin
>
>
You would lose.
In the past, I have shot photos to incorporate into reasonably high end
brochures with my Leica with excellent results.
About a year and a half ago, I used a Canon EOS to do the same and the
results were disapointing to say the least. The customer was happy but
I sure wasn't.
And these were 8x8 panels. 11x14??? I don't think so.
--
Regards,
JT, residing in Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
and, Other Things Weird!
Just a few of my favorite things. . .
‘31 Studebaker State Coupe
‘55 Studebaker State Coupe
‘55 Studebaker State Sedan
‘56 Studebaker Power Hawk
‘63 Studebaker Lark Sedan
‘64 Studebaker T-Cab T-6
‘65 Honda 305 Dream
Leica M2 Range Finders
Neal
One thing that seems to have been missed in these discussions is the
following point: Part of the expense of Leica lenses is that they are
all colour matched by Leitz before they leave for sale to consumers.
This is part of the appeal of Leica quality. Consistency from lens to
lens, shot to shot.
I, too own fine lenses by Nikon, Canon, Zeiss (for Hasselblad), and
Leitz. Fixed lenses, zooms, et all and quality shows in the results
obtained regardless of subject matter photographed. Hands down, if I
could afford only one 35mm system it would be Leica (one R and one M
system). To compare Leitz optical and mechanical quality to anything
else is unfair. It is like comparing a Corvette to a Ferrari. Both are
cars, both are transportation, both are "sports cars" and both come
from an assembly line. Beyond that there are huge differences, and
there is a reason Ferrari retains its value far beyond what a Chevy
will.
On the whole, it is the extra care in manufacture, and the
aforementioned colour matching that make Leitz lenses what they are -
and the extra care in manufacture is directly related to man-hours in
production and eventual cost. Every extra moment the lens is in the
factory in someone's hands (or in a test/calibration machine) is more
cost that adds to the customer's eventual expense. Most Leitz
users/owners appreciate these subtleties. [Did you know that David Hume
Kennerly (famous White House photographer) was strictly a Leica
photographer?]
Please don't misunderstand. I have no quarrel with Nikon quality or
other top manufacturers (or other quality independent lens makers).
It's just that Leitz gets "top dollar" for a ne-plus-ultra product and
the results speak for themselves - if they didn't would they still be
in business inspiring other makers to reach their level of quality?
Thanks for the opportunity to share an opinion.
Regards,
Neal
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mxsmanic
news:8hf17u$3i5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Part of the expense of Leica lenses is that they are
> all colour matched by Leitz before they leave for
> sale to consumers.
Perhaps Leica should be concentrating on getting rid of the color,
instead of matching it.
Mxsmanic
news:393AF6...@worldnet.att.net...
> wcm...@attglobal.net wrote:
> About a year and a half ago, I used a Canon EOS
> to do the same and the results were disapointing
> to say the least. The customer was happy but
> I sure wasn't.
In other words, the customer didn't see any difference. QED.
Anders Svensson
> It's just that Leitz gets "top dollar" for a ne-plus-ultra product and
> the results speak for themselves - if they didn't would they still be
> in business inspiring other makers to reach their level of quality?
I don't intend to argue that Leica lenses are extremely high
quality. But the mechanism that makes people think that
Ferraris, Rolexes and Leicas are superior products in their
respective range are not based on performance.
You will no longer see people that need precise timepieces
use a Rolex, it is jewelry. A Ferrari is still a covetet and
sought after Very Nice Car, but there are better cars around
for almost every kind of duty, including winning car races.
I believe that the same thing is true about Leica.
While extremely good, a big part of the magic is historical,
some is based on exclusivity, and some is based on
uniqueness. Different images, yes, but better is a question
about values and perceptions, not objective super high
quality or superior optical performance.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mac Breck
>
> One thing that seems to have been missed in these discussions is the
> all colour matched by Leitz before they leave for sale to consumers.
> lens, shot to shot.
I have never noticed differences in the colors from any of my Nikkors.
> I, too own fine lenses by Nikon, Canon, Zeiss (for Hasselblad), and
> Leitz. Fixed lenses, zooms, et all and quality shows in the results
> obtained regardless of subject matter photographed. Hands down, if I
> could afford only one 35mm system it would be Leica (one R and one M
> system). To compare Leitz optical and mechanical quality to anything
> else is unfair. It is like comparing a Corvette to a Ferrari. Both are
> cars, both are transportation, both are "sports cars" and both come
> from an assembly line. Beyond that there are huge differences, and
> there is a reason Ferrari retains its value far beyond what a Chevy
> will.
It depends if you buy it to be an investment or a sports car. The Chevy's
more dependable (Leica to Nikkor comparison breaks down here.), less
expensive to work on, and plenty exotic enough for me.
Mac
> On the whole, it is the extra care in manufacture, and the
> aforementioned colour matching that make Leitz lenses what they are -
> and the extra care in manufacture is directly related to man-hours in
> production and eventual cost. Every extra moment the lens is in the
> factory in someone's hands (or in a test/calibration machine) is more
> cost that adds to the customer's eventual expense. Most Leitz
> users/owners appreciate these subtleties. [Did you know that David Hume
> Kennerly (famous White House photographer) was strictly a Leica
> photographer?]
>
> Please don't misunderstand. I have no quarrel with Nikon quality or
> other top manufacturers (or other quality independent lens makers).
> It's just that Leitz gets "top dollar" for a ne-plus-ultra product and
> the results speak for themselves - if they didn't would they still be
> in business inspiring other makers to reach their level of quality?
>
Mac Breck
news:393B4FE0...@swipnet.se...
> Neal skrev:
>
> > It's just that Leitz gets "top dollar" for a ne-plus-ultra product and
> > the results speak for themselves - if they didn't would they still be
> > in business inspiring other makers to reach their level of quality?
>
> quality. But the mechanism that makes people think that
> Ferraris, Rolexes and Leicas are superior products in their
> respective range are not based on performance.
>
> You will no longer see people that need precise timepieces
> use a Rolex, it is jewelry. A Ferrari is still a covetet and
> sought after Very Nice Car, but there are better cars around
> for almost every kind of duty, including winning car races.
>
> I believe that the same thing is true about Leica.
>
> While extremely good, a big part of the magic is historical,
> some is based on exclusivity,
Don't forget nostalgia.
Mac
li...@ork.net
> "Neal" <neal_c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8hf17u$3i5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Part of the expense of Leica lenses is that they are
>> all colour matched by Leitz before they leave for
>> sale to consumers.
> Perhaps Leica should be concentrating on getting rid of the color,
> instead of matching it.
ROTFL! :)
JETman
Yeah, but I'll bet a number of the recipients noticed it as being
substandard.
As far as I am concerned, if it is not the best that it can be, it
isn't worth a hoot!
There IS A DIFFERENCE!!!
Edward Craft
> "JETman" <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:393AF6...@worldnet.att.net...
> > wcm...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> > About a year and a half ago, I used a Canon EOS
> > to do the same and the results were disapointing
> > to say the least. The customer was happy but
> > I sure wasn't.
>
> In other words, the customer didn't see any difference. QED.
No, the customer didn't see the comparison. Nice try, though.
Regards,
Edward Craft
ShadCat11
>> all colour matched by Leitz before they leave for sale to consumers.
>> lens, shot to shot.
>I have never noticed differences in the colors from any of my Nikkors.
Nikkors have long been acknowledged for their color consistency. Major motion
picture studio productions don't economize on optics and presumably a director
of photography can select any system made, including Leica and Zeiss. Color
consistency is absolutely essential in these applications. Several movies
have been filmed through off-the-shelf Nikkor SLR lenses. "Indiana Jones and
the Temple of Doom" was one, I believe, and "Star Wars" another. I saw nothing
to criticize in either film re: color matching, and also seems sufficiently
sharp and contrasty. I don't know if Leica would have been superior, but on a
price no object basis, some highly competent cinematographers thought Nikon
made the cut. So do I.
Allen Zak
Bud Cook
rendition was all over the place. My post multi-coated Nikkors were much
more consistent than earlier ones.
--
Bud Cook
Remove X to Reply
NO ARCHIVE
"ShadCat11" <shad...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Nikkors have long been acknowledged for their color consistency.
[Snip]
> Allen Zak
>
>
Q.G. de Bakker
> Nikkors have long been acknowledged for their color consistency. Major
motion
> picture studio productions don't economize on optics and presumably a
director
> of photography can select any system made, including Leica and Zeiss.
Color
> consistency is absolutely essential in these applications. [...]
Motion pictures are shot on negative stock. There is always an extra step in
motion picture production, called .... colour matching!
Sure, colour matched lenses help, but colour matching when printing is
always done anyhow.
wcm...@attglobal.net
even Zorki. Maybe Leica negatives will be better under a microscope, but I've never
seen an ordinary mortal who can tell the difference between 11x14 prints taken (under
the same conditions) by cameras from the various makers. What makes Leica better ( and
it IS better, in my opinion ) is the superb engineering; But computer-aided design and
manufacture will produce lenses that rival the best, at reasonable print sizes, for a
lot less than Leica sells its lenses for. Optical design is a pretty straightforward
process, and the best lenses don't have to be hand ground by little old men in the
Black Forest anymore. It's kinda like a Mercedes Benz is worth every penny paid for
it, to the person who loves precision engineering, but for a lot less money you can
buy a Honda or Toyota, and they'll last just as long. So anyway, as long as you're
happy with your Leica, that's the main thing. I sold mine and bought Pentax.
JETman wrote:
> wcm...@attglobal.net wrote:
> >
> > In my experience, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference among
> > pictures taken with Leica, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, or most any other lens
> > produced in modern times. With Computer-aided design and manufacture, you'd
> > almost have to deliberately try to produce a poor lens to get one. "My
> > experience" goes up to and including 20x24 inch prints. Beyond that print size,
> > there may be a difference; But why use a 35mm camera anyhow to get something
> > bigger than a 20x24 print? Have some fun with your expert friends: take a
> > picture with a 50mm Summicron on a Leica, then take the same picture with your
> > favorite 50mm Jupiter-8 lens on your favorite Zorki. Print both to, say, 11x14
> > and see how many of them can tell you which camera/lens combo took which
> > picture. You'll find this to be an interesting experiment. I know I did.
> >
> > Bill Martin
> >
> >
>
> You would lose.
>
> In the past, I have shot photos to incorporate into reasonably high end
> brochures with my Leica with excellent results.
>
> About a year and a half ago, I used a Canon EOS to do the same and the
> results were disapointing to say the least. The customer was happy but
> I sure wasn't.
>
> And these were 8x8 panels. 11x14??? I don't think so.
>
Edward Craft
> Keep right on dreaming...<snip>...I've never seen an ordinary mortal who can tell the
> difference between 11x14 prints taken (under the same conditions) by cameras from the
> various makers.
This thread began, I believe, with a statement to the effect that no one can tell the
difference between a Leica shot and a Nikon shot. You have seconded the motion. But a
number of us posted replies to the original that we certainly can tell the difference.
Your response is, in essence, that we have our heads up our asses. Why is that? How does
the fact that you can't see a difference preclude the possibility that others can and do?
Regards,
Edward Craft
JETman
I would suppose that it is becuase most people are satisfied with second
best.......
li...@ork.net
> This thread began, I believe, with a statement to the effect that no one
can tell the > difference between a Leica shot and a Nikon shot. You have
seconded the motion. But a > number of us posted replies to the original
that we certainly can tell the difference. > Your response is, in essence,
that we have our heads up our asses. Why is that? How does > the fact that
you can't see a difference preclude the possibility that others can and
do?
-------
And most recently proceeded with a message saying that objective
blindfolded studies are not as good as being told which one was the Leica,
in order to "help" perceptions.
Mxsmanic
news:393BCFB3...@optonline.net...
> No, the customer didn't see the comparison.
> Nice try, though.
If the difference were visible, the customer wouldn't need to compare;
he'd know immediately whether or not the image was shot with a given
brand of lens just by looking at the isolated photograph.
Mxsmanic
news:393B4FE0...@swipnet.se...
> I believe that the same thing is true about Leica.
Not quite. Leica glass is certainly the equal of just about any other
glass around; it just isn't necessarily demonstrably better. This means
that buying a Leica involves no sacrifice in the quality of results.
This is quite different from the case of, say, a Rolex, which is
dramatically inaccurate when compared to a cheap quartz watch, and thus
requires that one sacrifice quality for whatever else ownership of a
Rolex provides.
So, while a Leica may not necessarily produce better pictures, it
certainly does not produce worse pictures.
Q.G. de Bakker
>Not quite. Leica glass is certainly the equal of just about
any other
>glass around; it just isn't necessarily demonstrably better.
This means
>that buying a Leica involves no sacrifice in the quality of
results.
>This is quite different from the case of, say, a Rolex, which is
>dramatically inaccurate when compared to a cheap quartz watch,
and thus
>requires that one sacrifice quality for whatever else ownership
of a
>Rolex provides.
>
>So, while a Leica may not necessarily produce better pictures,
it
>certainly does not produce worse pictures.
Which of course is not even close to being an answer. A Leitz
lens is certainly not *necessarily* worse than a Lomo.
And it is not *necessarily* better than a Nikkor either.
However, what we are interested in here is the question whether
or not it *actually* is better or not.
You stated that Leitz lenses certainly do not produce worse
pictures. Now answer the question whether they actually produce
better pictures.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Q.G. de Bakker
>If the difference were visible, the customer wouldn't need to
compare;
>he'd know immediately whether or not the image was shot with a
given
>brand of lens just by looking at the isolated photograph.
Most likely the customer was considering/worrying about other
things...
Might it perhaps be that only photographers show this extreme
obsession with optical quality?
Anders Svensson
> I would suppose that it is becuase most people are satisfied with second
> best.......
Rational people (and there is no need to always be
completely rational, that's for sure) usually are satisfied
with "good enough", not striving for the ultimately best. If
that always was the case, even Leica would have problems,
BTW.