shall I switch from Nikon to Leica?
Kay Wee ANG
with a F3.
about the lenses:
I notice that the shoot taken with the 24 is very "3D" even with an
aperture of f11. with the 105, i can get the effect of the subject
"popping" out of the background.
i'm wondering how much more "3D" is the equivalent Leica lense compared
to the the Nikon 24 and 105? those who have the chance of comparing
Nikon and Leica lense side by side in taking real photos (not those
resolution graphs) please help.
about the body:
definitely, the choice is clear for me. I'll get the Leica R6.2 because
it's what I want in a manual camera. mechanical shutter, mirror lockup,
eyepiece shutter and spot metering. no other brands has any camera like
this Leica R6.2. Ranger finder is not suitable for me as I take a lot
of macro stuff
i'll rob a bank to switch to Leica if the image captured by Leica lense
is "obviously" better than my Nikon primes.
any input appreciated
Thanks in advance!
TravGlen
a few others) have superior slr's compared to Leica. But there is no doubt
in my mine that the Leica rangefinder is one of the top two or three best
cameras ever made. If you love photography, you owe it to yourself to
experience the Leica mystic once in your life.
Kay Wee ANG wrote in message <3695570D...@NOSPAMedm.trlabs.ca>...
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Nikon bodies ever made. I doubt very much that you'll see any "obvious"
improvement going to the Leica SLR system from the Nikon gear you have.
Other lens examples might differ more in their image rendition, but
those two are pretty phenomenal Nikkors.
I love mechanically timed shutters myself; however, the F3's electronic
shutter is one of the most robust, accurate shutters around. The F3's
80/20 centerweight metering is also closer to central spot metering than
to the traditional Nikon 60/40 centerweighted patterns.
I'm not bashing the Leica at all. The Leica SLRs are built like tanks,
work extremely well, and Leica optics are superb. The features of the
Leica body may appeal to you more than the Nikon F3 for whatever reason.
But I suspect you'll spend a lot of money and not see much difference in
your pictures, given the kit you have now. Of course, you could just
enjoy using the Leica more and then that would be worth adding the
second mortgage to your home to get it...
Godfrey
Colyn
wrote:
>A personal opinion? I think without a doubt Nikon and Canon, (and maybe even
>a few others) have superior slr's compared to Leica. But there is no doubt
>in my mine that the Leica rangefinder is one of the top two or three best
>cameras ever made. If you love photography, you owe it to yourself to
>experience the Leica mystic once in your life.
>
>
My personal opinion is the Leicaflex SL and SL2 are 2 of the best
SLR's ever made..but autofocus users will disagree since these are
manual cameras and lacking in electronic features.. and I agree with
you as far as the rangefinder is concerned..
Mecamera
just someone's opinion.
About bodies you may be able to deduct for yourself if you get enough answers,
because they will discribe to you something that you can picture in your mind.
But when it comes to images; only you can tell, based on what you shoot.
In my opinion Nikon is better than Canon, but Leica is better than Nikon. But
if I said that out loud, it would be like asking someone to stone me to death.
The best thing you can do is this: Get two leica lenses that compare to yours
and shoot images with your lenses and the Leica lenses.
Try to shoot the same subject, and use the same setting for both. Shoot with
your first and then the Leicas.
If you can not rent Leicas. Go to a shop that sells them and ask one the
salesmen if they can shoot some tests for you (provided that they use Leica
themselves). Of course; you will have to let them use your camera but just make
sure you know who you are dealing with.
Good Luck.
Manuel E.
Fred Whitlock
>
>I notice that the shoot taken with the 24 is very "3D" even with an
>aperture of f11. with the 105, i can get the effect of the subject
>"popping" out of the background.
This is a function of focal length. Wide angle lenses shot close to a
subject tend to extend the apparent range from near to far while telephoto
lenses used further from the same subject tend to forshorten this range.
Any book on basic photography can fill you in on this phenomenon. It has
nothing to do with the brand of the lenses but rather with their focal
lengths.
>
>i'm wondering how much more "3D" is the equivalent Leica lense compared
>to the the Nikon 24 and 105? those who have the chance of comparing
>Nikon and Leica lense side by side in taking real photos (not those
>resolution graphs) please help.
Leica lenses are not more "3D." I own and use both Leica and Nikkor lenses.
I consider them different but I don't consider one brand "better" than the
other. Generally the Leica designs forego a little contrast in favor of
maximum resolution while the Nikkors forego a little resolution in favor of
maximum contrast. I think the Nikkors are better at wide apertures and
this is also part of tradeoffs inherent in different design philosophies.
This certainly isn't true in every case but is a general tendency. It is
also a very subtle distinction and not obvious. A few lenses seem to have a
certain magical mix of design elements that are simply outstanding (Nikkor
AF 180mm f2.8 and Leica 35mm Summicron are two examples) so like any lens
line there are some examples that are better than others. These two
lenses are so good that it would actually make sense to me to own and carry
camera bodies for them just to have them available when you need that
particular focal length. It isn't something I do but you wouldn't need to
twist my arm to justify it to me.
>
>i'll rob a bank to switch to Leica if the image captured by Leica lense
>is "obviously" better than my Nikon primes.
Don't rob a bank. I don't think you'll find that Leica lenses are
obviously better than Nikkor primes. Outstanding to be sure. Different
from Nikkors in a subtle sort of way-yes. But not necessarily better or
worse. It would be fair to say that there aren't any bad Leica R lenses
but there are some bad Nikkors. So you need to understand that I'm
referring to comparisons between the Leica lenses and the "good" Nikkors.
The only Leicas I use now are rangefinders but I did own and use a complete
Leica R system at one time and the R6 was the mainstay of that system. It
is lovely equipment and makes excellent photographs. The R6 or 6.2 are
quiet and as smooth as butter and the lenses are as good as any on earth.
I could say the same thing about some of my Nikon system if I were selective
in which camera bodies and lenses I included in the mix.
Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
GREENSPAM
Chris Lee
can share with you my experience with Zeiss optics.
I have 2 cameras and six main lenses: Canon EF 28-70/2.8L, 100/2.8Macro,
200/2.8L and Zeiss G 28/2.8, 45/2.0, 90/2.8.
To me the Canon lenses take very nice pictures--sharp, contrasty, vibrant,
and saturated. Much like the way people say they are. But the pictures taken
with the Zeiss look DIFFERENT. The images have some kind of clarity,
definition, and faithful color/tone rendition that I just don't see with my
Canon photos. The only analogy I can give is that the Canons are more like a
symphony orchestra where as the Zeiss lenses are like a jazz quintent. Not
as powerful, not as crowd-pleasing, but a lot more emotional and direct.
That's my personal opinion anyway.
I can only imagine Leica optics to be along the same line, but whether or
not you will like the difference depends on what kind of pictures you take.
But don't expect magic without a good photographer behind the equipment.
Chris Lee
Allan Tingey
league as Leica and you may only have to rob a liquor store.
Allan Tingey
>
> about the body:
>
> definitely, the choice is clear for me. I'll get the Leica R6.2 because
> it's what I want in a manual camera. mechanical shutter, mirror lockup,
> eyepiece shutter and spot metering. no other brands has any camera like
> this Leica R6.2. Ranger finder is not suitable for me as I take a lot
> of macro stuff
>
Kay Wee ANG
chance to get hold of the Leice equipment I want for testing.
Happy shooting!
p/s: these few nights i've been taking those crytalline snow flakes
outside at -20 degree Celcius, the F3 functioned as normal despite the
fact that i left it on the tripod for several hours in very cold
temperature. I was surprized that the metering (and the battery) and
LCD still works. i reversed the 24 mm onto an 60mm (52+8) extension
tube which worked out to approximately 6X lifesize. focusing rail is a
MUST for those who are interested in take macro of at least 1X lifesize.
summ...@my-dejanews.com
newsgroup!). If you're happy with your Nikkors, which you sound like you
are, I really don't think you'll be switching to Leica. Grab yourself a
Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS and you'll have a kit that will give the Leica equivalent a
run for the money (er, outrun, if money is factored in)... ;)
I use Leica M myself, and like everyone else here, I discovered that the
optics were merely different, not better, than the other leading brands. But
it appealed to me, so it was worth the money. I guess it really comes down
to your own testing, which would make everyone else's opinions a nonissue.
> i'll rob a bank to switch to Leica if the image captured by Leica lense
> is "obviously" better than my Nikon primes.
Guess what... the images can be improved for free... take whatever you have,
Kodak Instamatic or Linhof 4x5, and practice practice practice!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Heavysteam
even works without a battery. Works great in cold weather!!
As far as image quality goes, that is determined more by the photographer than
the camera. I'll bet any day on a great photographer with a mediocre camera
vs. a hack with a hassy or Leica. Another question to ask yourself is this:
Who are the folks making a living with their cameras and shooting all those
fabulous pictures I see, and what are they using? More often than not, it
will be a Nikon or Canon 35mm. Save your Leica money and spend it on
training, film and processing, and you'll whip the guy with the Leica who spent
his cash on the fancy name.
Visit my web site for 100's of model railroad items in HO and O scale....
http://members.aol.com/notcheight
RedD...@aol.com
heavy...@aol.com (Heavysteam) wrote:
...
> fabulous pictures I see, and what are they using? More often than not, it
> will be a Nikon or Canon 35mm. Save your Leica money and spend it on
> training, film and processing, and you'll whip the guy with the Leica who
spent
> his cash on the fancy name.
Your implication is what's good for the goose (pro) is good for the gander
(amateurs). This is not necessarily so. Pros have different requirements
for cameras (availability of quick repairs, rental, manufacturer support,
etc.) that most of us don't need and wouldn't use. Not to mention the fact
that pro equipment is typically large enough to influence gravity in the
area.
The Amateur can get along with almost any decent camera system if he
just thinks of the camera as a tool to express his vision. However, I
find personally that a camera that I enjoy using makes photography a
much more pleasant experience than it might be otherwise (and I DO
do it for fun). So, if you decide you like Leica equipment, and you
can afford it, go for it. If you want to be a pro, you might definitely
want to investigate Nikon and Canon. Don't have any Canons but I sure
think those Image Stabilizer lenses are neat.
Fred Whitlock
I think there is distinction between a photographer and a camera lover. I'm
one of those people unlucky enough to be both. I own Leica equipment and
enjoy it just like Red Drake does. I wouldn't think of using it on a
photographic assignment. On the other hand, I wouldn't think of carrying
an F5 for vacation shooting. It would take the enjoyment out of the
vacation to lug that sort of equipment around. I travel with an M6, a 35
Summicron and a 90 Elmarit-no camera bag and no meter, just a camera on the
shoulder and another lens in the pocket with some film. Every system
excels at something and so does the Leica system. Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
>
Don Baccus
Fred Whitlock <a...@cl-sys.com> wrote:
>I think there is distinction between a photographer and a camera lover. I'm
>one of those people unlucky enough to be both. I own Leica equipment and
>enjoy it just like Red Drake does. I wouldn't think of using it on a
>photographic assignment. On the other hand, I wouldn't think of carrying
>an F5 for vacation shooting. It would take the enjoyment out of the
>vacation to lug that sort of equipment around. I travel with an M6, a 35
>Summicron and a 90 Elmarit-no camera bag and no meter, just a camera on the
>shoulder and another lens in the pocket with some film. Every system
>excels at something and so does the Leica system. Good shooting.
Of course, the original poster seemed to be asking if he should move
to a Leica SLR, not rangefinder system. You list the obvious
benefits of the Leica rangefinder system (I'd like to have one,
too! Nice machines, though I don't worship them as some seem
to). I personally can't think of any reason for believing that
dumping a Nikon SLR system for a Leica R system will improve
the original poster's photography...
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Kay Wee ANG
Leica system will improve my photography. As far as i know, every brand
of camera system has their effect on the "look" and "feel" of the images
they produce. I'm interested in the difference between the "3D" effect
of the Nikon and Leica system. What I mean by "3D" effect is of no
relation to the perspective of different focal length. The "3D" I meant
is the relationship of the subtle amount of non-sharpness of the
background/foreground in relation to the distance from the object in
focus. I read from the newgroups that Leica lenses is good at
reproducing a more "3D" image and also the stuff about background blur.
If the feel and look of the images produced by the Leica system
complements my style of photography or what I'm trying to express
(synergy?) more than the Nikon system, then switching Leica is worth
it. As someone has already pointed out before, my conclusion (from
reading the feedbacks from all those who are kind and helpful taking the
time to post their comments) is that I'll need to use the Leica myself
to decide whether it's worth it to switch to Leica. I'm more of a
photographer still sourcing out my tools but I'm in almost the final
stage of my search, Nikon or Leica. Who know's, in the end, I may find
that I prefer the look and feel of the images taken with Nikon over that
of Leica.
Don Baccus wrote:
> Fred Whitlock <a...@cl-sys.com> wrote:
cut..
> >shoulder and another lens in the pocket with some film. Every system
> >excels at something and so does the Leica system. Good shooting.
>
> Of course, the original poster seemed to be asking if he should move
> to a Leica SLR, not rangefinder system. You list the obvious
> benefits of the Leica rangefinder system (I'd like to have one,
> too! Nice machines, though I don't worship them as some seem
> to). I personally can't think of any reason for believing that
> dumping a Nikon SLR system for a Leica R system will improve
> the original poster's photography...
>
Anders Svensson
hard way.
There is a (pretty small) group of people who sincerely believe that
German lenses have qualitys that Japanese lenses doesn't.
It is not clear if all German lenses have this 3D, better bokeh effect
or if it is just some, but the reports and endorsements seem to favor
the lensmakers Leitz (now Leica) and Zeiss.
This puzzles me a little, because if it was national, it would be
diluted with so many Zeiss and Leica lenses now being made in Japan. If
it was national, such "performers" like the 30 mm Orestegon and the
Görlitz 450 mm would have superior 3D and bokeh - wich they usually
aren't labeled to have.
Let's therefore assume that (if) the difference exists, it is inherent
in the design of the lenses, not the country of origin or the
nationality of the designers (If we think that, we'll quickly get in
trouble defending this standpoint due to factual evidence of the
contrary).
Now to defining the difference - can it be measured or defined in other
than subjective terms.
I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or Zeiss)
pictures out from a random selection of similar quality
(sharpness/contrast) and subject samples, that is sufficient to define
a objective difference.
Has such a experiment been conducted, and if so, are the results
significant or repeatable ?
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Kay Wee ANG <ka...@NOSPAMedm.trlabs.ca> skrev i inlägg
<3695570D...@NOSPAMedm.trlabs.ca>...
> first of all, i have 2 Nikon primes, 24/2.8 AIS and 105/2.8 micro AIS
> with a F3.
>
> about the lenses:
>
> I notice that the shoot taken with the 24 is very "3D" even with an
> aperture of f11. with the 105, i can get the effect of the subject
> "popping" out of the background.
>
> i'm wondering how much more "3D" is the equivalent Leica lense
compared
> to the the Nikon 24 and 105? those who have the chance of comparing
> Nikon and Leica lense side by side in taking real photos (not those
> resolution graphs) please help.
>
> about the body:
>
> definitely, the choice is clear for me. I'll get the Leica R6.2
because
> it's what I want in a manual camera. mechanical shutter, mirror
lockup,
> eyepiece shutter and spot metering. no other brands has any camera
like
> this Leica R6.2. Ranger finder is not suitable for me as I take a
lot
> of macro stuff
>
> i'll rob a bank to switch to Leica if the image captured by Leica
lense
> is "obviously" better than my Nikon primes.
>
mber...@popd.ix.netcom.com
Both Minolta and Canon have for years produced lenses with this 3D look and
have talked about it in their equipment descriptions.
I have 3 Canon lenses; 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 macro, and 70-200mm f/2.8
zoom, that show excellent 3D imaging.
This 'look' is popular within Japan and elsewhere. The Leica 35mm f/2.0 is
revered. It has qualities that aren't revealed in standard lens tests.
Some will argue that the qualities aren't real. Some will say it is all
about nothing.
I find the quality real. I find that in doing macro work this 3D look
really adds to the picture. The same is true in sports photography to
isolate the athlete.
It also seems that Leica is more consistant in this look than Zeiss.
Marc
steve sanacore
I have had this conversation with a few very respectable photographers who
are very firm on Leica optics being superior to Nikon or Cannon. I was very
skeptical at first but over the past year have become a believer. The few
people that I really respect, convinced me. I am soon going to pick up an M6
with one of the new aspheric lenses and find out for myself. I don't think I
will ever give up my Nikons as my main 35mm system. The Leica just doesn't
have enough options for the work I do. I also hated the feel of the R8 in
my hands. And I love the F5.
Just my 2 cents.
Steve Sanacore
----------
In article <01be445d$472050a0$026f0b01@anders>, "Anders Svensson"
<anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
Snip
>There is a (pretty small) group of people who sincerely believe that
>German lenses have qualitys that Japanese lenses doesn't.
>
>I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or Zeiss)
Colyn
<anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Let's therefore assume that (if) the difference exists, it is inherent
>in the design of the lenses, not the country of origin or the
>nationality of the designers (If we think that, we'll quickly get in
>trouble defending this standpoint due to factual evidence of the
>contrary).
lens is real but not because of geography.... The reason is these 2
manuf. designed their lens to see 3D objects rather than quality of
reproduction of charts... Japanese lens makers design their lens for
mass production and base their quality on the test charts..
>
>I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or Zeiss)
>pictures out from a random selection of similar quality
>(sharpness/contrast) and subject samples, that is sufficient to define
>a objective difference.
>Has such a experiment been conducted, and if so, are the results
>significant or repeatable ?
>
>
The average person may not be able to pick out the photos from random
shots but someone who "sees" photography from an "artistic" point of
view can...... My Leica B&W prints and color slides and to a lesser
degree, my color prints are clearly different.. They have a more
realistic look to them compared to the flat 2D look of the shots taken
with my Japanese cameras....... However, that's not to say the
Japanese cameras are trash..
CWood 7000
>I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or Zeiss)
>pictures out from a random selection of similar quality
>(sharpness/contrast) and subject samples, that is sufficient to define
>a objective difference.
In audio comparison testing we use the term Blind A/B...maybe that is
appropriate for this crowd as well.
Mecamera
>
when it comes to colors and the 3D look; LEICA is the name of the game.
I think the same goes for Canon and Nikon.
The Canon pro lenses may be sharper, but when it comes to color faithfullness
(and maybe some generic 3D in some lenses), Nikon is the name of the game.
Manuel E.
Moreno Polloni
One thing that's also important when considering a lens system, is colour
matching between the lenses. Nikon is really good in this regard. The
Hasselblad Zeiss lenses aren't too bad either. The worst example I've seen
is the Pentax 67 lenses.
Anders Svensson
smiley!)
I feel that simply coming up with arguments like "you'll know it when
you see it", "it can't be explained, but it *is* there, trust me" and
the most strange of all, "It is the property that (all) Zeiss and Leica
have ", seems so thin.
My suspicion is that this property isn't inherent in the name of the
lens maker, but in the design and build quality and as such may be
quantified.
One suggestion have been the number of blades in the aperture diaphragm
makes a difference, the more blades, the rounder "circle of confusion".
Are there more such reasons or "mappings" to lens design parameters?
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
CWood 7000 <cwoo...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
<19990120235410...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
Anders Svensson
Ok, so it is possible to see a difference. (It is not important what
one prefer, ofcourse, but let's assume that there is a difference that
perhaps I cant see, but you can - thats enough).
Can this difference now be mapped to design elements?
Is it (as you to some degree suggests) a trade off between flat field
maximum sharpness and "3d-effect
Is this possible to map to some consistent and measurable lens
property?
All questions, no answers...
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Colyn <colyn....@airmail.net> skrev i inlägg
<29250FD245D54F3F.513C378B...@library-proxy.airnew
s.net>...
> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:12:12 GMT, "Anders Svensson"
> <anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
> >Let's therefore assume that (if) the difference exists, it is
inherent
> >in the design of the lenses, not the country of origin or the
> >nationality of the designers (If we think that, we'll quickly get in
> >trouble defending this standpoint due to factual evidence of the
> >contrary).
> The difference between Zeiss and Leica optics compared to Japanese
> lens is real but not because of geography.... The reason is these 2
> manuf. designed their lens to see 3D objects rather than quality of
> reproduction of charts... Japanese lens makers design their lens for
> mass production and base their quality on the test charts..
> >
> >I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or
Zeiss)
> >pictures out from a random selection of similar quality
> >(sharpness/contrast) and subject samples, that is sufficient to
define
> >a objective difference.
Boon-Li Ong
based on their manufacturer's specification and lens resolution test.
but that is only one aspect of a lens/optics evaluation. aspects such as
bokeh can only be evaluated subjectively. and sometimes, seeing is
believing. have you ever bought any product based solely on the
manufacturer's specification or test done by third parties? if you have,
then i must say that you have a lot of faith or experience going just by
specs and/or product test.
furthermore, it is far from thin that "it is the property that (all)
Zeiss and leica have". the materials that goes into the elements makes a
difference. this property of a lens cannot be measure objectively. it
can only be measured subjectively by actually viewing photos taken with
such lenses.
bl
Anders Svensson wrote:
>
> Well, a *blind* A/B won't do, obviously... -) (look, no eyes in the
> smiley!)
>
> I feel that simply coming up with arguments like "you'll know it when
> you see it", "it can't be explained, but it *is* there, trust me" and
> the most strange of all, "It is the property that (all) Zeiss and Leica
> have ", seems so thin.
>
> My suspicion is that this property isn't inherent in the name of the
> lens maker, but in the design and build quality and as such may be
> quantified.
>
> One suggestion have been the number of blades in the aperture diaphragm
> makes a difference, the more blades, the rounder "circle of confusion".
> Are there more such reasons or "mappings" to lens design parameters?
>
> --
> Anders Svensson
> ----------------------------------------
>
> CWood 7000 <cwoo...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
> <19990120235410...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
> > >
> > >I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or
> Zeiss)
> > >pictures out from a random selection of similar quality
> > >(sharpness/contrast) and subject samples, that is sufficient to
> define
> > >a objective difference.
> >
> > In audio comparison testing we use the term Blind A/B...maybe that is
> > appropriate for this crowd as well.
> >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply address above has been doctored to prevent SPAMming. Please
reply to esq...@clear.net.nz if you do not wish to receive an
undeliverable mail message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boon-Li Ong
you'll get 100 different results. so if there an objective way of
measuring the quality of Picasso's work? even if you did formulate some
sort of measurement chart, it's what appeals to the viewer that will
dictate at the end of the day. look at figure skating competitions.
there are technical aspects to the competition but you will get a wide
ranging result when it comes to presentation. the skaters may be doing
everything by the book but if overall presentation is bad, does that
mean that it's still good?
you have to understand that not everything in this world can be measured
objectively. perhaps you come from a scientific background but in the
field of arts, not everything is objective.
bl
> > >I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or
> Zeiss)
> > >pictures out from a random selection of similar quality
> > >(sharpness/contrast) and subject samples, that is sufficient to
> define
> > >a objective difference.
> > >Has such a experiment been conducted, and if so, are the results
> > >significant or repeatable ?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > The average person may not be able to pick out the photos from random
> > shots but someone who "sees" photography from an "artistic" point of
> > view can...... My Leica B&W prints and color slides and to a lesser
> > degree, my color prints are clearly different.. They have a more
> > realistic look to them compared to the flat 2D look of the shots
> taken
> > with my Japanese cameras....... However, that's not to say the
> > Japanese cameras are trash..
> >
--
Anders Svensson
Are you acting on their opinion, or can they show you where the
difference is?
I mean, if it is "better" will at least mean that it is different, and
somehow, that must show, no?
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
steve sanacore <ste...@flinet.com> skrev i inlägg
<786apd$kq3$1...@news.flinet.com>...
> Well;
>
> I have had this conversation with a few very respectable
photographers who
> are very firm on Leica optics being superior to Nikon or Cannon. I
was very
> skeptical at first but over the past year have become a believer.
The few
> people that I really respect, convinced me. I am soon going to pick
up an M6
> with one of the new aspheric lenses and find out for myself. I don't
think I
> will ever give up my Nikons as my main 35mm system. The Leica just
doesn't
> have enough options for the work I do. I also hated the feel of the
R8 in
> my hands. And I love the F5.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Steve Sanacore
>
>
> ----------
> In article <01be445d$472050a0$026f0b01@anders>, "Anders Svensson"
> <anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> >There is a (pretty small) group of people who sincerely believe that
> >German lenses have qualitys that Japanese lenses doesn't.
> >
>
> >I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or
Zeiss)
> >pictures out from a random selection of similar quality
> >(sharpness/contrast) and subject samples, that is sufficient to
define
> >a objective difference.
> >
> >Has such a experiment been conducted, and if so, are the results
> >significant or repeatable ?
> >
> >--
>
Anders Svensson
tests and manufacturers spec's only - but it is certainly better than
nothing.
I simply ask if there is any evaluation methods *at all* for 3D and
bokeh, if they work and if they are quantifiable in any way.
I certainly would accept that the 3D and bokeh propertys are real, even
if I can't see them myself, if someone else can pinpoint them out of a
reasonable population of good, sharp, high quality photos in a
reasonable way and with a reasonable significance.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Boon-Li Ong <esquir...@clear.net.nz> skrev i inlägg
<36A6FB69...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > >I'll think that if someone can consistently pick the Leica (or
> > Zeiss)
> > > >pictures out from a random selection of similar quality
> > > >(sharpness/contrast) and subject samples, that is sufficient to
> > define
> > > >a objective difference.
> > >
> > > In audio comparison testing we use the term Blind A/B...maybe
that is
> > > appropriate for this crowd as well.
> > >
>
phyr...@my-dejanews.com
Kay Wee ANG <ka...@NOSPAMedm.trlabs.ca> wrote:
> first of all, i have 2 Nikon primes, 24/2.8 AIS and 105/2.8 micro AIS
> with a F3.
>
> about the lenses:
>
> I notice that the shoot taken with the 24 is very "3D" even with an
> aperture of f11. with the 105, i can get the effect of the subject
> "popping" out of the background.
>
> i'm wondering how much more "3D" is the equivalent Leica lense compared
> to the the Nikon 24 and 105? those who have the chance of comparing
> Nikon and Leica lense side by side in taking real photos (not those
> resolution graphs) please help.
>
> about the body:
>
> definitely, the choice is clear for me. I'll get the Leica R6.2 because
> it's what I want in a manual camera. mechanical shutter, mirror lockup,
> eyepiece shutter and spot metering. no other brands has any camera like
> this Leica R6.2. Ranger finder is not suitable for me as I take a lot
> of macro stuff
>
> i'll rob a bank to switch to Leica if the image captured by Leica lense
> is "obviously" better than my Nikon primes.
>
> any input appreciated
>
> Thanks in advance!
I know I'm repeating some of the other posts, but it can't be stressed
enough (this from expensive experience): rent or beg the Leica and lenses
comparable to your Nikkors, shoot the same subject in the same light with the
same film from the same tripod, etc. etc., but have some identifying marks
put on the prints or slides (slides preferably) by the lab, and DON'T LET
THEM TELL YOU WHAT THOSE MARKS ARE!! (I assume you have a regular lab where
they know you and will arrange this). Get the results back and look at them
critically, and have several other people look at them too. If one set is
definitely, obviously, measurably, etc. better, go with the camera/lens
system that produced them. If not stick with what you have. The price of
even a used Leica system can pay for an awful lot of film, even a nice
vacation spot to burn it at.
RPMPhoto
Jason
Colyn
<anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Ok, so it is possible to see a difference. (It is not important what
>one prefer, ofcourse, but let's assume that there is a difference that
>perhaps I cant see, but you can - thats enough).
>
In some cases, even non photographicly inclined people can see a
difference......
>
>Can this difference now be mapped to design elements?
>
To a certain extent yes... For example, Leica will intentionally
leave in some curvature of field and even a little coma to help achive
a more realistic look....
>
>Is it (as you to some degree suggests) a trade off between flat field
>maximum sharpness and "3d-effect
>
Yes.. Some manuf. such as the Japanese firms prefer mass produced
razor sharp optics whereas the German firms (Leica and Zeiss) prefer
instead to "leave in" some flaws....
>Is this possible to map to some consistent and measurable lens property?
I doubt that you can achive a "consistant and measurable" lens
property using this technique.. Each lens property varies from one
unit to the next.. For example 2 35mm f/3.5 Elmars: one may have a
little more curvature of field than the other.......
Don Baccus
Boon-Li Ong <esquir...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>you have to understand that not everything in this world can be measured
>objectively. perhaps you come from a scientific background but in the
>field of arts, not everything is objective.
There is *no* element of lens performace that can't be measured
objectively.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Colyn
<anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>>One suggestion have been the number of blades in the aperture diaphragm
>makes a difference, the more blades, the rounder "circle of confusion".
>Are there more such reasons or "mappings" to lens design parameters?
>
>
The only difference I have noted between diaphragm design is the ones
with fewer blades tend to make the abberations more octagonal and out
of focus whereas the ones with more blades tend to produce abberations
that are rounder which become more defined as you stop down....
Classic Photo
>There is *no* element of lens performace that can't be measured
>objectively.
What about the vastly overused term "bokeh" ? Color rendition ?
If you use a lens that you feel renders flesh tones slightly
"warm", and I find them a little "cool", then who is being
objective ? These would be subjective opinions, that are
objective in the eye of the beholder no ?
Boon-Li Ong
you have to discard your need for a scientific evaluation (i.e.
quantifiability) and evaluate the result objectively. and trust me, it
is easy to identify a good bokeh from a bad bokeh. it can be quantified
by quantification has to be relative and not objective.
so at the end of the day, seeing is believing.
bl
> > > One suggestion have been the number of blades in the aperture
> diaphragm
> > > makes a difference, the more blades, the rounder "circle of
> confusion".
> > > Are there more such reasons or "mappings" to lens design
> parameters?
> > >
Terry Danks
>
>There is *no* element of lens performace that can't be measured
>objectively.
Leica manages to design these supposedly superior lenses in the first
place?
"Eye of newt", I guess.
Incidentally, while I use Japanese stuff, I would love some Leicas to
play with too . . . gott'a get out and buy lottery tickets I guess.
Terry Danks
Nova Scotia
Canada
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
Terry Danks
<esquir...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>...which alludes to my original point: not everything is quantifiable.
>you have to discard your need for a scientific evaluation (i.e.
>quantifiability) and evaluate the result objectively. and trust me, it
>is easy to identify a good bokeh from a bad bokeh. it can be quantified
>by quantification has to be relative and not objective.
This is anathema to me. I had hoped I left this kind of thinking
behind in the audio/hi-fi groups.
If it doesn't stand up to a double blind test . . . it isn't real.
My $.02
Colyn
(Classic Photo) wrote:
>What about the vastly overused term "bokeh" ?
>
>
Where did this word "bokeh" come from in???
Tom
that everything that you need to know is measurable. I might add to
this statement a comment that some of these measurements may not yet
have been actually been performed because of cost, lack of perceived
interest, motivation, etc..
For example, one poster strongly suggested Bokeh is just not
measurable. This is utterly wrong and and borders on the "religious
mysticism" b.s. associated with high end audiophile discussions.
Bokeh is not only measurable, but, its measurable by virtually the
same equipment you use for everyday optical testing.
For example,use an autocollimator to produce a point source of light
at infinity and scan the image at the focal plane with a pinhole (or
equivalent). This gives you the classic "point spread function" of
the lens while in focus. Now, you just move the pinhole out of the
plane of focus and do the same thing. Presto, you are measuring Bokeh
along one axis and one set of focussing conditions. Do 2D scans, do
scans in monochromatic light (to look for differences which would
result in color fringing in the out of focus images), do scans with
different focussing conditions, etc. etc. etc., and you have
physically characterized the Bokeh for the lens.
Now comes the hard part, distinct from the above physical optics
measurements, you have to subjectively define which of these
measurements are importent or even observable to users of the optic.
This is essentially a problem in psychology / psycho-optics. To do
this step properly, you would have to do present images with known
amounts of specified individual "Bokeh abberations" to "blinded"
panels of observers and do statistics on the results. The effort
expended in this part of the task could easily exceed the effort
expended in the optical measurement task by orders of magnitude.
In light of the above, perhaps it is not surprising that some people
might make statements like "Bokeh is unmeasureable", but the reality
of the matter is simply that its simply a hard job which might not
warrent the required expenditure of effort.
In any case in a forum like this, it clearly more fun to argue about
"religious beliefs" than actually do the work required to settle these
issues.
Amen.
Tom
Washington, DC
On 21 Jan 1999 16:39:35 PST, dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
>In article <36A6FC75...@clear.net.nz>,
>Boon-Li Ong <esquir...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>you have to understand that not everything in this world can be measured
>>objectively. perhaps you come from a scientific background but in the
>>field of arts, not everything is objective.
>
>There is *no* element of lens performace that can't be measured
>objectively.
Anders Svensson
It's all in the picture, but it should be possible to see (reasonably)
easy, especially if someone used to see these differences points it
out.
Instead of striving to be "perfect", the lens maker accepts some
abberations as "beneficial". It is not completely consistent in what
amount or type.
While not agreeing on that this explanation automatically will make
Zeiss and Leica lenses "higher quality", I certainly agree on that it
can make sense, especially from "artistic" viewpoints.
I offer an analogy: Some sound buffs prefer tube distortion to
semiconductor distortion, because the tube clips "nicer".
Thanks for the factual response - my quest for greater understanding
goes on... :-)
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Colyn <colyn....@airmail.net> skrev i inlägg
<ACFE2DCD06F25BAF.6A1F3347...@library-proxy.airnew
s.net>...
Anders Svensson
Yes, I accept that photography is highly subjective. I don't have a
problem with viewers that see stuff that I don't, either. But if
someone says that Leica/Zeiss lenses are better, but cannot point out
why, I become a little skeptical.
In those cases, a "blind A/B test" - simply meaning identifying the
Zeiss/Leica derived pictures out from a crowd of other, similar
technical quality pictures is essential.
If the issue then simply is "wich picture do I like better" - I have no
problem, either way.
I have never heard about such a test being conducted. Is there anyone
else who has ?
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Boon-Li Ong <esquir...@clear.net.nz> skrev i inlägg
> ...which alludes to my original point: not everything is
quantifiable.
> you have to discard your need for a scientific evaluation (i.e.
> quantifiability) and evaluate the result objectively. and trust me,
it
> is easy to identify a good bokeh from a bad bokeh. it can be
quantified
> by quantification has to be relative and not objective.
>
Wim Kuilman
Colyn wrote:
> Where did this word "bokeh" come from in???
It's Japanese... but the Germans have it :-)
Here are a few good www pages about the subject:
<http://www.princeton.edu/~law/lenses.html>
<http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~vhchan/bokeh.html>
The last one is good, he explains the effect with pictures.
Regards,
Wim
Chris Lee
> objectively.
> --
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
We can probably measure most physical aspects of lens performance, but that
doesn't necessarily imply that we already can or ever will be able to
measure perceived performance or human preferences.
To be able to measure human preferences, you will have to be able to at
least describe human preferences mathematically, a utility function of some
sort. But there are human behaviors and cognitive characteristics that just
can't be logically/mathematically approximated, let alone precisely
described/measured. For example, I may prefer Math over English, and English
over Physics, but I somehow prefer Physics over Math. That is, A>B and B>C,
but C>A!! Human preferences just aren't always mathematically logical, and
it's useless trying to talk about these preferences in mathematical terms.
Consider the otherwise: Human preferences can be exactly measured,
mathematically described, and therefore simulated on a computer. You'll be
able to get a computer to distinguish a good photograph from a bad one like
an average person would. Or we can possibly design a Creative Computer
(oxymoron?) that beats me, you, Ansel, and, for that matter, Picasso. Do you
think so? I personally don't see photographs or art as 0s and 1s. Not geeky
enough, I guess.
To that end I do not believe that the lenses with the best measurements will
necessarily equate the best perceived image quality. Neither do I think the
converse should be true.
Anders Svensson
evaluator cannot get any other clue than the actual, evaluated
performance when he is making his evaluation.
Your friend was probably not doing a "blind" test, simply because he
knew what lense was used for wich picture.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Boon-Li Ong <esquir...@clear.net.nz> skrev i inlägg
<36A86193...@clear.net.nz>...
> a "blind A/B test" simpliciter will not work with randomly chosen
> viewers, the reason being that they are not familiar with images
> produced by such products. a "blind A/B test" may work if the viewers
> are people experienced with the camera systems involved. and so i
hope
> you meant the latter with the "blind A/B test".
>
> i have a friend who has a Contax 50mm f1.8 (or f1.9 or something
around
> that range) lens. when he moved over to a Canon, he noticed a
difference
> in optical performance. he regretted getting the Canon system.
>
> bl
Only me...
"What do you hope to gain buy switching to Leica?"
Answering that yourself will go a long way to solving your "dilemma".
David.
RedD...@aol.com
> i'm wondering how much more "3D" is the equivalent Leica lense compared
> to the the Nikon 24 and 105? those who have the chance of comparing
> Nikon and Leica lense side by side in taking real photos (not those
> resolution graphs) please help.
>
...
> i'll rob a bank to switch to Leica if the image captured by Leica lense
> is "obviously" better than my Nikon primes.
>
Well, objectively you'd probably be hard pressed to be handed a slide
from a Leica M, a Contax SLR, a Nikon, etc. and say "That's a Leica
slide." I'm speaking as the owner of a Leica IIIf, M2, Contax RTSIII,
Minolta XK, Minolta 600si, etc. However, that said, Leica has a lot
going for it, though they are very expensive. Build quality is typically
excellent, and for their time, Leica lenses are among the best corrected,
sharpest lenses around.
Leica is different though in that only they (as far as I know) don't fully
correct some of the abberations the other lens makers eliminate. They are
looking for a "leica look" that seems to depend on some residual abberations.
I think this includes some spherical aberration. Also, of course, all lens
makers use different multicoatings which have their own slight color
rendition.
In a sense, Leica is more of an experience than most cameras are. The F5
is a great camera, but it's probably not any kind of special experience
using it. Photogs use it because of it's capabilities. It's not designed
to be a tactile experience. On the other hand, Leica cameras (M's and
screwmounts anyway) ARE such an experience for me. It's like comparing
a ride in Lincoln Limosine (F5) to a ride in a Lambourgini Diablo (M6).
The point I'm trying to make is that with a Leica, to some extent, the
journey is the reward. This isn't solely a Leica property and is highly
variable according to what the photographer likes and wants (I think
the Contax SLR's are pretty close).
The F5 is a triumph of engineering and innovation, but it's not a work
of art (at least I don't think so). The Leica M6, the R8, and the earlier
cameras are works of art that are also darned fine cameras.
Kay Wee ANG
http://www.princeton.edu/~law/bokeh/
Now, this is enough for me to get the Leica system. I'll like to thank
everyone for chipping in their 2 cents, I've got a few dollars now :)
(I'm the original poster you see). It has been a very good learning
experience reading this thread. I'll still keep my NIkon system but
I'll definitely going to get my hands on the Leica system. hey, I'm
actually thinking of geting a much more expensive system because of
better "blurness" and not sharpness. before everything else, I'll look
at all my slides again, this time not looking for sharpness but the
blurness.
Happy Shooting!
Only me...
Kay Wee ANG wrote in message <36A8F14A...@NOSPAMedm.trlabs.ca>...
, I'm
>actually thinking of geting a much more expensive system because of
>better "blurness" and not sharpness.
Oh no! Not the dreaded bokeh thing again.
Kay Wee ANG
Switching to another system, will affect the feel of the image due to
the difference in lense design. In short, just want to match the image
that I want to record down and the image that's recorded by the
equipment. Of course, skills and techniques matter a lot too.
another aspect is that I also enjoy the process of taking a shot,
setting up the tripod, focusing, deciding the exposure, adjusting the
aperture, turning the shutter speed dial and waiting for that magical
moment when I release the shutter.
Just sourcing out the best manual focus system (35mm) that suits my
needs. I wanted to see some side-by-side comparisons between Nikon and
Leica (from tests and/or from other's experience) and then decide
subjectively. yes, subjectively according to my own preferences and
likings.
Boon-Li Ong
viewers, the reason being that they are not familiar with images
produced by such products. a "blind A/B test" may work if the viewers
are people experienced with the camera systems involved. and so i hope
you meant the latter with the "blind A/B test".
i have a friend who has a Contax 50mm f1.8 (or f1.9 or something around
that range) lens. when he moved over to a Canon, he noticed a difference
in optical performance. he regretted getting the Canon system.
bl
Anders Svensson
unfortunately - cost.
They certainly are nice, and if photography only is a hobby - why
not... For a pro, specific features and "pay-off" may come into it.
If your wish is for a Leica, and you need some rational argument, don't
dismiss enjoyment, pride of ownership and user satisfaction as worthy
reasons for getting the camera and lenses that you feel will make your
hart tick a little faster.
What stops you from getting, say, a used Leica and a few lenses and
have this equipment side by side with your current SLR ? After a while,
you'll know if there is a difference - for you.
-
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Kay Wee ANG <ka...@NOSPAMedm.trlabs.ca> skrev i inlägg
<36A917DD...@NOSPAMedm.trlabs.ca>...
JSenko4398
quality..I must admit that Japanese lenses are excelent but German lenses are
slightly better......
Only me...
Kay Wee ANG wrote in message <36A917DD...@NOSPAMedm.trlabs.ca>...
>very simple. I just want to record what I see AND feel onto films.
>Switching to another system, will affect the feel of the image due to
>the difference in lense design
No it won't. How you feel can only be put on film by being a good
photographer. How can a good lens put how you feel on film? However, it's
your money....
David.
Richard Saylor
<dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> No it won't. How you feel can only be put on film by being a good
>photographer. How can a good lens put how you feel on film? However, it's
>your money....
>
Lens and film are to the photographer as artist materials are to the
painter. This equipment influences the way the artist works and
thereby affects the finished product (photograph or painting).
Of course, philosphically speaking, the equipment is secondary to the
vision that initiates any work of art, but try to suggest to an
orthodox watercolourist that he add white paint to his palette (or,
even worse, that he try using acrylic paints), and be prepared to run
for cover.
Photographers tend to be less passionate about their equipment than
painters, but it is still important.
Richard
Colyn
<dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>How you feel can only be put on film by being a good
>photographer.
>
Not always, I've known a couple of people who had no artistic or
photographic talent who picked up the camera and produced outstanding
photos with their first roll of film..
>
> How can a good lens put how you feel on film?
>
By carefully picking the system that conveys the "look" you want...
>
>
>
>
>
summ...@my-dejanews.com
"Only me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> No it won't. How you feel can only be put on film by being a good
> photographer. How can a good lens put how you feel on film? However, it's
> your money....
Yes it will. Believe it or not, there are some people who are so sensitive
to the photographic process that they must every element right. From the
largest decisions (ie format, color or b&w, etc) to the most minute details
(color rendition, out of focus character), they aren't satisfied until they
get it just right. For some, only a $2600 Leica 35/1.4 ASPH will do. For
others, a $20 Holga fits the bill perfectly. And no one is wrong, to each
their own. And yes, it is our money, thank you very much.
summ...@my-dejanews.com
"Only me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh no! Not the dreaded bokeh thing again.
Do you even know what bokeh is?
Asher Langton
wrote:
>>photographer.
>>
>photographic talent who picked up the camera and produced outstanding
>photos with their first roll of film..
They had not photographic talent, yet produced outstanding photos?
That soundsa bit contradictory to me.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Asher Langto...@cts.com-jalangton@ucdavis.edu-DoD #2017
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Only me...
Richard Saylor wrote in message <36ab7c01...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>Lens and film are to the photographer as artist materials are to the
>painter. This equipment influences the way the artist works and
>thereby affects the finished product (photograph or painting).
Yes, this is true to a certain extent, but I fail to see that it can
effect how you translate your feelings to film. After all, using one manual
focus lens is pretty much like using another. The original poster said that
the sharpness of the lens will help him do this, not the tactile feel.
Tactile feel I can relate to, but to say that factors like lines per
millimetre effects your emotions is really taking a point to far.
>
>Of course, philosphically speaking, the equipment is secondary to the
>vision that initiates any work of art, but try to suggest to an
>orthodox watercolourist that he add white paint to his palette (or,
>even worse, that he try using acrylic paints), and be prepared to run
>for cover.
>
Oh my yes.. :-) Been there, done that, got the scars :-) Photography
is all about vision though. I feel a good photographer could translate that
to film using any camera, providing it gives manual, creative control. I
use Nikon through choice, but if I had to, I could put how I feel onto a
piece of film with a Pentax K1000 just as readily. I used a couple of
Olympus OM1ns for a few years too. No problem with that either. The time
came when I needed fast AF, and there you have it. They're all just the
same though once you're used to them.
>Photographers tend to be less passionate about their equipment than
>painters, but it is still important.
>
Indeed. I refuse to use a chrome camera for some reason. I couldn't
tell you why that is, it just is. My cameras have to be black, or not at
all (probably the real reason I got rid of the OM1 to be honest ;-)). This
doesn't effect my photography though, it's just an idiosyncrasy I have.
David.
>Richard
>
Only me...
Colyn wrote in message
<034E5049CC3DA7DD.64B38D36CAF8DD90.FEFAFFE412ABF72F@library->>
>By carefully picking the system that conveys the "look" you want...
I have two photos here. One taken with a Nikkor, and one taken with a
Zeiss lens. It's just a little something left over from a previous argument
about this. To be honest, I can hardly tell which is which, so to suggest
that using one over the other will effect how you put your feelings onto
film is not really very a very convincing argument. The differences are
minute at best. A good photographer can produce thought provoking, creative
images with any camera. You can't buy talent.
David.
Only me...
Asher Langton wrote in message <36aadf8e...@news2.cts.com>...
>They had not photographic talent, yet produced outstanding photos?
>That soundsa bit contradictory to me.
>
It is. They got lucky, that's all. Anyone can produce a great shot
every once in a while. It's that old saying about 7000 monkeys typing for
7000 years will write the greatest novel. We all bag a good one every now
and then. It doesn't make that person a photographer. A photographer can
do it to order.
David.
Only me...
summ...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<78eol8$ep6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>Yes it will. Believe it or not, there are some people who are so sensitive
>to the photographic process that they must every element right.
No one's that sensitive. A talented photographer can produce work with
anything. That's just a lame excuse. I'm not buying that, not for one
minute.
David.
Only me...
summ...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<78ep8j$fb3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <78b13b$qgp$3...@newnews.global.net.uk>,
> "Only me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Oh no! Not the dreaded bokeh thing again.
>
>Do you even know what bokeh is?
Of course I know what Bokeh is. Why else would I say "Oh no, not that
Bokeh thing again"?
David.
Neuman - Ruether
(Terry Danks) wrote:
>>...which alludes to my original point: not everything is quantifiable.
>>you have to discard your need for a scientific evaluation (i.e.
>>quantifiability) and evaluate the result objectively. and trust me, it
>>is easy to identify a good bokeh from a bad bokeh. it can be quantified
>>by quantification has to be relative and not objective.
>This is anathema to me. I had hoped I left this kind of thinking
>behind in the audio/hi-fi groups.
>If it doesn't stand up to a double blind test . . . it isn't real.
>My $.02
I agree... (being myself a recovering audiomaniac...;-).
Perception is a funny thing, which can be "tilted" by
the oddest of events. In audio, I often had a firm belief
in the "clear audibility" of one or another characteristic,
only to see the perception of it change with a mere word,
or even a simple test...;-) My current scepticism about
audio "mysteries" is rather high, as it is for similar
claims in photography. Which is not to say that some rather
subtle differences don't exist - but they are generally
measurable, also... (It is fun to show that most everyone
can hear a 1/8db change in audio frequency response, if
it occurs over a wide enough frequency range - and to show
on a 'scope with a 1kHz square-wave trace what happens
to it when exchanging the amp, the speaker, and sometimes
just the wire. The source of the "different" sound [which
is described by all those flowery audio-terms...] is
obviously evident... [I refer to audiomania as "the art
of applying 1/8th db corrections to 10db errors..." ;-])
I guess in photography, I ask for lenses that have good
sharpness and contrast to the corners at wide stops and
over a wide focus range, and which are acceptably low in
flare, color variation, and mechanical problems... I did
not like the images made by some of the "favored"
German lenses - they were often too soft at wide stops
for my taste. And I actually prefer the images made with
lenses with "bad bokeh"...! (There are samples on my web
page [under "Aht Fotoz" and "Sun-Plants"] that depend
on "bad bokeh" - they could not have been made without
it! ;-) I think, in general, from about f5.6 at medium
to long focus distances with most good non-zoom lenses
from any source, people would be hard-put to see
significant differences in images that could be attributed
to the lens' "magic" inherent pecular qualities...
(the "magic" shows at wider stops...! ;-).
David Ruether
rp...@cornell.edu
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
Neuman - Ruether
wrote:
[most deleted...]
>If one set is
>definitely, obviously, measurably, etc. better, go with the camera/lens
>system that produced them. If not stick with what you have. The price of
>even a used Leica system can pay for an awful lot of film, even a nice
>vacation spot to burn it at.
Ah, but this is too "objective"...! ;-)
It flies in the face of "belief"...! ;-)
(It is amusing to hear the high praise for
Leitz lenses [which may not be unjustified
in some instances...], when one knows that
some of those lenses [with the "wonderful"
characteristics...;-] are relabeled Sigma,
Tokina, and Minolta lenses of undistinguished
capabilities...;-)
mber...@popd.ix.netcom.com
This is why I don't like the terms 'Good Bokeh' and "Bad Bokeh'.
There is a bokeh that can be more aestheticly pleasing but there is nothing
wrong with using a bad bokeh lens wide open to convey a feeling the
photographer wants in their image.
Marc
Neuman - Ruether wrote:
Moreno Polloni
>It flies in the face of "belief"...! ;-)
>(It is amusing to hear the high praise for
>Leitz lenses [which may not be unjustified
>in some instances...], when one knows that
>some of those lenses [with the "wonderful"
>characteristics...;-] are relabeled Sigma,
>Tokina, and Minolta lenses of undistinguished
>capabilities...;-)
>David Ruether
What!
You mean the emperor has no clothes?
Does this mean there'll be a bunch of used Leitz stuff for sale tomorrow? I
wouldn't mind picking up an M6 with some Minolta lenses.
Boon-Li Ong
Asher Langton wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 06:31:40 GMT, colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn)
> wrote:
> >On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:42:36 -0000, "Only me..."
> ><dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>How you feel can only be put on film by being a good
> >>photographer.
> >>
> >Not always, I've known a couple of people who had no artistic or
> >photographic talent who picked up the camera and produced outstanding
> >photos with their first roll of film..
>
> They had not photographic talent, yet produced outstanding photos?
> That soundsa bit contradictory to me.
in what way is it contradictory? haven't you heard of the term "fluke"?
or perhaps a more eloquent version of it, "eldritch luck"?
bl
Colyn
>Not always, I've known a couple of people who had no artistic or
>>photographic talent who picked up the camera and produced outstanding
>>photos with their first roll of film..
>
>
>They had not photographic talent, yet produced outstanding photos?
>That soundsa bit contradictory to me.
>
>
No, it's not contradictory.. Many people who have never used a camera
have produced excellent results the first time they tried it......
>
>
>
>
Colyn
<dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Asher Langton wrote in message <36aadf8e...@news2.cts.com>...
>>They had not photographic talent, yet produced outstanding photos?
>>That soundsa bit contradictory to me.
>>
>
> It is. They got lucky, that's all.
>
No luck involved, it's actually talent.. You will never know what
talent you actually have till you try...
BTW: One of those people I was referring to is now one of the best
photographers in East Texas..
>
>Anyone can produce a great shot
>every once in a while.
>
>
Judging by this statement, I'd say you aren't much of a photographer
and you don't have much respect for others or confidence in people..
Colyn
<dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Colyn wrote in message
><034E5049CC3DA7DD.64B38D36CAF8DD90.FEFAFFE412ABF72F@library->>
>
>to suggest that using one over the other will effect how you put your feelings onto
>film is not really very a very convincing argument.
>
And why not?? By using the equiptment you are most comfortable with
will make you feel better about your work whether or not it makes you
a better photographer..
>
> A good photographer can produce thought provoking, creative
>images with any camera.
>
>
Not true............... Many people cannot produce good images with
autofocus but can with manual cameras/lens....
>
>You can't buy talent.
I agree, talent is God given...
Colyn
<dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> No one's that sensitive.
>
A true artist is "that" sensitive...... Many photographers have used
countless boxs of photo paper to get 1 print that lives up to their
expectations.....
>
>A talented photographer can produce work with anything.
>
As I have stated before, for a photographer or artist to produce
his/her best he/she has to be comfortable with the equiptment..
>
> That's just a lame excuse. I'm not buying that, not for one
>minute.
>
>
>
That's because you tried to do your best........
JSenko4398
agree with Richard 100%...
JSenko4398
instead of using average equip.(Nikon/Canon) why not to use the best of
Zeiss/Leica when financial situation allows it......
BLAKEBANTA
added the 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm lens.
The quality constuction of the body and lenses is quite obvious, but I had a
major problem with the unit.
For the life of me, I couldn't get used to the rangefinder focusing. I just
couldn't get reliable results due to this problem.
I sold the equipment and still use my Nikons,
but manual and auto focus.
Asher Langton
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:55:25 GMT, as...@cts.com (Asher Langton) wrote:
>
>>Not always, I've known a couple of people who had no artistic or
>>>photographic talent who picked up the camera and produced outstanding
>>>photos with their first roll of film..
>>
>>
>>They had not photographic talent, yet produced outstanding photos?
>>That soundsa bit contradictory to me.
>>
>>
>No, it's not contradictory.. Many people who have never used a camera
>have produced excellent results the first time they tried it......
You're confusing photographic talent with photographic skill. A
person need not have any formal skills to have photographic talent.
And anybody who can pick up a camera and produce outstanding photos
has photographic talent.
Only me...
mber...@popd.ix.netcom.com wrote in message
<36AB3E5A...@popd.ix.netcom.com>...
>David,
>
>This is why I don't like the terms 'Good Bokeh' and "Bad Bokeh'.
>
>There is a bokeh that can be more aestheticly pleasing but there is nothing
>wrong with using a bad bokeh lens wide open to convey a feeling the
>photographer wants in their image.
>
>Marc
I know. I've been looking at a few lenses since this reared it's ugly
head again, and for what it's worth, I think most Canon lenses have the most
pleasing bokeh. Does this mean I'm going to ditch all my Nikkors? Does it
bollocks :-)
David.
Only me...
Colyn wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:33:30 -0000, "Only me..."
><dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Colyn wrote in message
>><034E5049CC3DA7DD.64B38D36CAF8DD90.FEFAFFE412ABF72F@library->>
>>
>>to suggest that using one over the other will effect how you put your
feelings onto
>>film is not really very a very convincing argument.
>>
>And why not?? By using the equiptment you are most comfortable with
>will make you feel better about your work whether or not it makes you
>a better photographer..
I agree with you there, but the original poster was saying that the
sharpness of he lens will help him convey his feelings to film, not the
"feel" of the equipment. I can relate to the tactile experience of the
equipment very much, but lens sharpness? That's a sterile thing you have no
feeling for at the shooting stage of things.
David.
Only me...
Colyn wrote in message
<8C9BDC8B570F60C1.CBF80CA7...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>>
>A true artist is "that" sensitive...... Many photographers have used
>countless boxs of photo paper to get 1 print that lives up to their
>expectations.....
True, but irrelevant in this case.
>As I have stated before, for a photographer or artist to produce
>his/her best he/she has to be comfortable with the equiptment..
As my above posting said, the sharpness of the lens can have no effect
at the shooting stage. It has nothing to do with feel, or any other hands
on experience. It will not help you get your feelings onto film at all.
Only talent can do that.
>>
>> That's just a lame excuse. I'm not buying that, not for one
>>minute.
>>
>>
>>
>That's because you tried to do your best........
No, it's because I disagree. How can lens sharpness effect how you
feel? You may have feeling for you equipment in general, but it usually has
nothing to do with anything as cold and disconnected as lines per
millimetre. You form attachments to things. This guy just wants an excuse
to buy a Leica, in the misguided belief that he'll take better shots with
it. He won't. If that's his frame of mind, he won't.
David.
Only me...
JSenko4398 wrote in message
<19990124211419...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
>Of course a talented photographer can produce work with anything......But
>instead of using average equip.(Nikon/Canon) why not to use the best of
>Zeiss/Leica when financial situation allows it......
Because I, and others don't agree with that statement. Using a Leica
would ruin me as a photographer, so why should I use a Leica? For me
they're crap, overpriced, and underspecified, and I can not tell the
difference between a Leica lens and a Nikon one in most cases. Actually,
I've seen some nikkors that I prefer over the equivalent Leica lens. It's
just a case of you shoving your beliefs down others throats. Same as those
religious maniacs that knock on your door and try to sell you God. If you
like Leicas then that's great, but I don't. That doesn't make you right.
It just makes you, you.
David.
Only me...
Asher Langton wrote in message <36abe145...@news2.cts.com>...
>You're confusing photographic talent with photographic skill. A
>person need not have any formal skills to have photographic talent.
>And anybody who can pick up a camera and produce outstanding photos
>has photographic talent.
>
So those who have skill, as opposed to talent need to use a Leica? A
Canon, or a Nikon won't do it for them will it? This is nonsense. People
think of Leicas like they do Mercedes or Porche. Oooh, it's German and
expensive (drool). Give me a Lexus any day. This German exotica isn't
quite so exotic over here in Europe, and it's funny isn't it, you don't get
this Leicamania either. We use Mercedes 190 and 200 as taxis over here :-)
You think of them as luxury cars. It's all a case of what seems desirable
at the time. Right now, over there, Leicas are desirable, and to those who
desire them, there's no better thing in the world. Good luck to you as well
(no sarcasm intended). However, I still don't want one ;-)
David.
Asher Langton
<dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Asher Langton wrote in message <36abe145...@news2.cts.com>...
>
>>You're confusing photographic talent with photographic skill. A
>>person need not have any formal skills to have photographic talent.
>>And anybody who can pick up a camera and produce outstanding photos
>>has photographic talent.
>>
>
> So those who have skill, as opposed to talent need to use a Leica? A
>Canon, or a Nikon won't do it for them will it? This is nonsense.
I think you missed the previous posts in this dialogue. My reply
referred to someone's claim that their friend had to photographic
talent, yet shot excellent photos. Despite the thread title, it had
*nothing* to do with camera brand. FWIW, I use Canon and Voigtlander
equipment (and occasionally a borrowed Minolta), and I have never so
much as touched a Leica.
Kay Wee ANG
will help convey my feelings. in fact, i don't think Leica is sharper
than Nikon or otherwise. i said different lense designs will produce
images with different "feels". one needs to understand that this is
very very subtle. no everyone can see the differences. think i'm really
picky about this. i tend to look at my slides over and over again you
see, and more times i look at them, the more things i pick up from the
images. this is how i try to correct my mistakes, improve on my strong
points, learn how different composition and prespective affect the feel
of the image.
Kay Wee ANG
why i'm considering getting Leica gears. if possible, please point out
to me where have i, in my previous post, said that I'm switching to
Leica because Leica is sharper.
apparent sharpness can be achieved by contrast and resolution. in
general, from what i've read, Nikon lenses have higher contrast but
lower resolution and Leica lenses have lower contrast but higher
resolution.
I love my Nikon gears too, i don't think that the Leica 35mm system is
better than the Nikon 35mm system. They are only DIFFERENT (image wise).
Only me... wrote:
>
> As my above posting said, the sharpness of the lens can have no effect
> at the shooting stage. It has nothing to do with feel, or any other hands
> on experience. It will not help you get your feelings onto film at all.
> Only talent can do that.
>
Colyn
>
>
>You're confusing photographic talent with photographic skill.
>
business too long to confuse the two..
>
>A person need not have any formal skills to have photographic talent.
>
be artisticly talented..
>And anybody who can pick up a camera and produce outstanding photos
>has photographic talent.
>
>
Colyn
<dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with you there, but the original poster was saying that the
>sharpness of he lens will help him convey his feelings to film, not the
>"feel" of the equipment.
>
>
>
>
Some people tend to confuse lens sharpness with the ability to produce
good photos but a artisticly done photo combines both sharpness and a
little out of focus.... In order for him to convey his feelings, he
has to combine the two..
Only me...
Asher Langton wrote in message <36ac2e34...@news2.cts.com>...
>
>I think you missed the previous posts in this dialogue. My reply
>referred to someone's claim that their friend had to photographic
>talent, yet shot excellent photos.
That's the nature of Usenet I'm afraid. It takes but one person to miss
a salient point from a post, and the whole thread takes on a new twist.
David.
JSenko4398
It happens nothing We can do about that..
.......anyway in case you smoke try different cigarettes !!!!!!!!!!
JSenko4398
I just want to put two cents in Several years ago I bought Canon EOS-1N with
28-70/2.8L,
70-200/2.8L and later I added 300/2.8L with both Canon extenders.I thought I
owned the best !!!.....till one day on my trip to Arizona a friend of mine lent
me his Contax 167MT with 28-85/3.4 lens and Hassy500 w/80/2.8 lens. When I
came back from the"desert" and compared slides between Canon and Zeiss lenses
that was the end for Canon......People choose equipment which in terms of price
a performance suits best for them....I will always
admit that the Japanese optics are well made with excelent image quality but I
also believe that there is a difference in terms of image quality between
Zeiss/Leica and the rest........
Jan
Asher Langton
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 03:15:42 GMT, as...@cts.com (Asher Langton) wrote:
> >
>>
>>You're confusing photographic talent with photographic skill.
>>
>Actually no, I am not confusing talent and skills.. I've been in the
>business too long to confuse the two..
>>
>>A person need not have any formal skills to have photographic talent.
>>
>I agree to a point.. In order to have photographic talent, you need to
>be artisticly talented..
I think they're roughly the same thing. When you add skill to talent,
then you have a truly good photographer.
>>
>>And anybody who can pick up a camera and produce outstanding photos
>>has photographic talent.
>>
>>
>Actually it's artistic talent..
I think we agree on the point, though we may differ on the semantics.
LIGHTCHASR
element in a lens' bokeh, then Colyn Goodson says that curvature of field may
be. Why, then, the fact that curvature of field and spherical abberation (they
are NOT the same thing) are virtually non existant near the optical axis (the
center of the frame) of ANY lens. DO Zeiss and Leica lenses have poor bokeh in
the center of the frame? No they don't. What affects bokeh the most is the
shape of the aperture blades, their location in the optical system, and the
thickness of the blades. For example, thicker blades create more diffraction
which causes the edge of the out of focus highlights to render more softly.
And please, nobody take the bait about the Germans designing abberations
into their lenses. Deliberately engineering spherical abberation into a lens,
for example, would sacrifice contrast, resolution and color fidelity. What you
will notice if you compare lenses, is that often the Germans tend to use
thicker and fewer elements. That helps give them the snappy high contrast at
the expense of resolution look that so many photographers love.
What I find interesting is that so many like to worship their expensive
hardware, not thinking that while a Zeiss might render images beautifully on
Kodachrome 64, they might not work as well with some other films. Two summers
ago. I rented a small Zeiss system and put it up against my Canon EF primes. I
loved the look of the Zeiss Kodachromes compared to my Canons, but felt that
the high contrast Zeiss lenses lost too much detail in some situations on
certain films that the Canons handled well. Also, the Canons seemed a little
flatter under low light.
Going back to bokeh. It isn't that important for the type of photography
that I do. I personally feel that it is in the eye of the beholder. All of my
Canon primes (100mm Macro; 85 f/2.8; 50 f/1.4; 24 f/2.8) produce pleasing
highlights, while one zoom (28-105) is a little choppy. The Sigma 70-300 APO
lens I have (in the basement in a box!) has horrible bokeh. It really jumps out
at me.
I know that Canon has said in product literature that they have been
directing more attention at bokeh in recent years since so many photographers
look for it. I wonder if any of the Zeiss/Leitz snobs have used the newest,
best Japanese lenses. I doubt that they could >consistently< identify the
Germans and the Japanese by looking at photos made with both, under various
conditions and with various styles.
RedD...@aol.com
"Only me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> So those who have skill, as opposed to talent need to use a Leica? A
> Canon, or a Nikon won't do it for them will it? This is nonsense. People
> think of Leicas like they do Mercedes or Porche. Oooh, it's German and
> expensive (drool). Give me a Lexus any day. This German exotica isn't
> quite so exotic over here in Europe, and it's funny isn't it, you don't get
> this Leicamania either. We use Mercedes 190 and 200 as taxis over here :-)
> You think of them as luxury cars. It's all a case of what seems desirable
> at the time. Right now, over there, Leicas are desirable, and to those who
> desire them, there's no better thing in the world. Good luck to you as well
> (no sarcasm intended). However, I still don't want one ;-)
>
> David.
I didn't hear anyone say that. I think there are two possible photographic
effects with leicas as opposed to some other camera. 1. Leica DOES leave
in some aberrations which do affect the image. Can you see them in the
negative? I think so, but it's pretty subtle and you'd probably have to have
taken pictures with the Nikon at identical position, time of day, film, etc.
2. The Leica "feels" different to use (as all cameras do). I for one very
much like the Leica M cameras because of how they feel to use. If you use
a camera you like and works well for you, you'll get better images believe
me. I also use a Minolta 600si and that's a great camera, but my nightmare
years with the 7xi greatly diminished my ability to get good images because
I was fighting with the camera rather than using it.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Neil Frankish
might wade in with some general points. There has been a lot of
discussion about the questionable optical superiority of Leica (or
Zeiss) glass - that they may be good, but Nikon, Cannon etc are equally
as good, or if not, any leica superiority is not detectable to the naked
eye in a finished print or slide. That the people that own Lieca lenses
are snobs that like to *think* they have the best lenses, but are
deluding themselves. Much of the debate is based upon the high cost of
Leica, that any superiority in sharpness, Bokeh, contrast or flare
suppression is not worth all that extra money. If leica were not so
expensive, there would probably be a less heated debate (or maybe not!
-Nikon V Cannon ad nauseam :) )
I would like to put to you the idea that Leica is not expensive, as a
consequence of the generally recognised superior build quality (I'm
talking M here, no experience of R). Divide the expected service life of
an M camera or lens by the purchase price and I expect (though I haven't
done the calculations) that the result would compare very favorably with
any other make. Furthermore, Leica holds its second hand value better
than other brands (i.e. divide difference in second hand and new prices
by age and make the same comparison).
Of course, I you like or need all the bells and whistles, then that is
an entirely different factor that must be considered.
I use both Leica M and Nikon and there is no question in my mind which
is the more robustly built. I'm sure my 50 summicron will still be going
strong decades from now. My 70-210 Nikon AF will probably be not (based
on similar usage). While lens design may move on in the decades to come
(if film can be improved - I think as far as sharpness only is
concerned, you need a slow film and tripod to see the best of any modern
lens), even older Leica lenses hold their own stopped down, so I expect
my current Leica lenses will still perform well in comparison to future
marvels by the time I croak.
Colyn
> Ok...so the guy at Princeton says that spherical abberation is the primary
>element in a lens' bokeh, then Colyn Goodson says that curvature of field may
>be.
>
>
>
Actually you misread my post.. I was not referring to curvature of
field as good bokeh, in fact I was not referring to bokeh period.. I
was saying that curvature of field is one reason I like some of the
older Leica lens.. To be honest, I still have no idea what bokeh is,
therefore I cannot make a statement pertaining to it......
LIGHTCHASR
all (probably the real reason I got rid of the OM1 to be honest ;-)). This
doesn't effect my photography though, it's just an idiosyncrasy I have.>>
This kind of thinking is a primary reason photographers aren't respected by
artists. DO you think Rembrandt cared what color the handles of his paint
brushes were? For sure he cared about the type of hair used in his brushes
since different materials created different results, but did he care about how
"cool" his equipment looked?
Matt
Asher Langton
><<My cameras have to be black, or not at
>all (probably the real reason I got rid of the OM1 to be honest ;-)). This
>doesn't effect my photography though, it's just an idiosyncrasy I have.>>
>
>This kind of thinking is a primary reason photographers aren't respected by
>artists.
No, it's not. The main reason some artists don't respect photography
as an art form is that they believe photographers merely capture an
image, while artists create an image.
>DO you think Rembrandt cared what color the handles of his paint
>brushes were?
How should I know? But FWIW, some of my artist friends seem to care
about the aesthetic appeal of *anything* they purchase.
> For sure he cared about the type of hair used in his brushes
>since different materials created different results, but did he care about how
>"cool" his equipment looked?
I don't think that a camera's appearance has anything to so with how I
would use it. I do, however, think that some cameras are more
aesthetically appealing and if everything else were equal, I'd go with
the coolest-looking camera. What's wrong with that?
Classic Photo
>No, it's not. The main reason some artists don't respect photography
>as an art form is that they believe photographers merely capture an
>image, while artists create an image.
Photographers paint with light. Very often the resultant image
can look very different from the actual subject. Sometimes on
purpose :)
Tomasz Kroczek
> >artists.
> as an art form is that they believe photographers merely capture an
> image, while artists create an image.
Photographers create image with their mind.
Painter has to create image with both his mind and his hands.
And a photograph not necessarily has to be a record of how did it look like...
:-)
Regards
--
Tomasz B. Kroczek
kroc...@priv.onet.pl
Neuman - Ruether
classi...@bellsouth.dotnyet (Classic Photo) wrote:
>In article <36b01010...@news2.cts.com>, as...@cts.com says...
>>No, it's not. The main reason some artists don't respect photography
>>as an art form is that they believe photographers merely capture an
>>image, while artists create an image.
>Photographers paint with light. Very often the resultant image
>can look very different from the actual subject. Sometimes on
>purpose :)
One can easily argue that in photography the
resultant image almost always looks very
different from the actual subject... ;-)
Photography is generally a very poor recording
medium (and even worse, since so many people
believe photographic "records" are accurate,
which they generally are not...).
David Ruether
rp...@cornell.edu
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether