Please show me ...

[BillRogers]

... a good example of a photo showing the Leica je ne sais quoi that I keep reading about. I'm not trolling or being argumentative; I want to see, to learn.

Surely someone has posted a good example on RFF. Better yet would be a side-by-side comparison.

I understand the ergonomics and advantages of a rangefinder camera, and I appreciate precision equipment. So, that's two out of three ...

Thanks to anyone who can show me the third part of the Leica mystique, the superior imagery, the Leica glow, whatever you want to call it.

Help me spend my money!

Bill Rogers
Johnstown, PA
Nikon D200/D70/18-200VR/12-24/multiple speedlights

 

[alexz]

je ne sais quoi - what is that ?
Some of us do nto speak more then 2-3 languages...at least for me onlty three are viable: English, Hebrew or Russian...

 

[jaapv]

I believe, in up-market English usage, this is a common expression, as I-don't-know-what sounds rather pedestrian. 😉

 

[rover]

Check in here

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/index.php

 

[BillRogers]

Yes, 'tis French for "a certain mysterious, indefinable quality." In my penultimate (next to last) paragraph, I spoke of the superior imagery, the Leica glow, whatever you want to call it. That was your cue in English.

OTOH, "Walk," "Don't Walk," and "Zebra Crossing" sound rather pedestrian.

Check the posted photos on RFF? (Bill slaps his forehead). Why didn't I think of that?

Are you guys finished having fun with me?

I was ... still am ... serious. A simple, side-by-side comparison of an image taken by (for instance) a top-of-the-line Nikon or Canon 35mm or digital SLR with pro glass, and a Leica M6 with the same film, or an M8 in the case of digital, with Leica glass. An engineering A/B test. A Pepsi challenge, if you recall that advert campaign.

Bill

 

[rover]

My friend, like in horse racing, the jockey makes a difference. You will find a number of amazing images taken with Leica, Cosina, Zeiss, old Nikon and Canon RF equipment just as you can find equally amazing images taken by a D Rebel at Flickr. In fact, the current issue of Lens Work magazine, the best photo magazine available in my eyes, features a portfolio taken with a DReb. Leica glass has a certain quality to it, as do old Sonnars and Super Takumars. I think you have to go and look for it. It is a subjective thing, you may see it, or you may not.

But, in the hands of the right person, any tool will excel.

 

[BillRogers]

I agree, Rover.

I agree, Rover.

Rover, I agree 100% with everything you have said, and you have said it well. But, you haven't told me anything I didn't already know. Thank you for the serious response; I'm still intrigued by the idea of a "Pepsi challenge," but I may be the only one.

 

[x-ray]

You can't show something that doesn't exist except in the mind.

 

[KoNickon]

There was a test in these pages of 85/90mm lenses by Leica, Konica, Minolta, Cosina (Voigtlander) not too long ago. Some folks thought the Leica images were clearly superior; others, like me, didn't think so and preferred the other lenses. One concern of the test was that the pictures weren't all exposed the same, and that could have influenced the result. But search for it -- there were extensive side by side comparisons and can help you see (or not) the qualities of the different lenses.

 

[jaapv]

Yes, 'tis French for "a certain mysterious, indefinable quality." In my penultimate (next to last) paragraph, I spoke of the superior imagery, the Leica glow, whatever you want to call it. That was your cue in English.

OTOH, "Walk," "Don't Walk," and "Zebra Crossing" sound rather pedestrian.

Check the posted photos on RFF? (Bill slaps his forehead). Why didn't I think of that?

Are you guys finished having fun with me?

I was ... still am ... serious. A simple, side-by-side comparison of an image taken by (for instance) a top-of-the-line Nikon or Canon 35mm or digital SLR with pro glass, and a Leica M6 with the same film, or an M8 in the case of digital, with Leica glass. An engineering A/B test. A Pepsi challenge, if you recall that advert campaign.

Bill

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1pe·des·tri·an
Pronunciation: p&-'des-trE-&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin pedestr-, pedester, literally, going on foot, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 : COMMONPLACE, UNIMAGINATIVE
2 a : going or performed on foot b : of, relating to, or designed for walking <a pedestrian mall>

I'll stop poknig fun now. 😛

 

[SteveM(PA)]

... a good example of a photo showing the Leica je ne sais quoi that I keep reading about. I'm not trolling or being argumentative; I want to see, to learn.

That assertion is rarely made on this site.

 

[ferider]

Hi Bill,

welcome.

My personal quest for the holy grail @ RFF over the last two years has
been to try to identify photographer and/or equipment from photos
posted here.

It has been much easier to identify the photographer (for many photos
of a bit more than a hand-full of RFF members, including Todd, Gabriel,
RayPA, ray_g, x-ray, RichSilver, some of Raid's photos (when he doesn't
do tests 🙂 ), Alkis, SteveM, and others) than the lens a picture
was taken with (for pictures that I like). Recognizing the camera
is impossible.

For the recognition of the lens, I am sometimes lucky identifying some
lens designs (classic Sonnar designs among others, obviously), and
some classic lenses (some Nikkors, the Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1.5,
the Leitz Summarit, and others), but except for two lenses,
I fail to recognize modern Leitz lenses, including the two most used
Leitz ones, the 35 and 50 Summicrons - at least when compared to
similar designs like the 35/2 classic Canon or the Zuiko 50/1.8.
The two lenses I recognize wide open are the 50 Noctilux and Summilux.
Even there, I have a hard time recognizing which version was used, etc.
A part of the problem might be (1) the fact that on-line photos are shown in low resolution -
we do not share prints and only rarely high resolution pictures;
(2) a lot of a lens' character is hidden behind how a photo is
processed. (3) while I have used myself a lot of different classic
lenses, I have not _myself_ used many modern Leitz lenses. (4) a good
photographer will try to avoid situations in which a lens flares or
defocuses, etc, which is when the lens is recognizable. And (5),
at f4 and up, most lenses (except for FOV) look identical to me.

So under the bottom line, for the use of modern lenses and on-line
posts, it is much easier to recognize a photographer than
the equipment.

But others are better than me. Where is Alex ?

Roland.

 

[40oz]

see raid's 50mm lens test (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32155) for a side by side comparison of many diferent lenses, not just Leica. There is more to a "quality" lens than just sharpness IMHO, and sometimes the strength of a lens is only apparent in certain circumstances, much as some lenses are great for the most part but suffer from excessive flare or edge distortion or whatever. Not every lens is the same, which I found hard to believe and surprising to see when I started to really pay attention.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

... a good example of a photo showing the Leica je ne sais quoi that I keep reading about

The first thing to realize is that there is no such thing 🙂

Hand the latest Leica MP3 with the 50 lux-asph to a monkey, and you will still only get portraits of bananas 😉

welcome to the forum

 

[markinlondon]

The first thing to realize is that there is no such thing 🙂

Hand the latest Leica MP3 with the 50 lux-asph to a monkey, and you will still only get portraits of bananas 😉

welcome to the forum

But an infinite number of monkeys would be able to recreate the entire HCB portfolio 🙂

 

[rover]

Ultimately I think it is easier to find images that appeal to you, posted in a gallery, taken in the real world, not a clinical comparison, and then to find out/evaluate the specifics of that image that appeal to you. Do you see 100 images taken with a particular lens that you like? If so, perhaps that is a lens you should seek out for yourself. Or perhaps the photographer, genre, lighting....that attract you.

 

[Rafael]

Hand the latest Leica MP3 with the 50 lux-asph to a monkey, and you will still only get portraits of bananas 😉

Hey, shooting food is one of the most difficult assignments that I have ever undertaken!😀

 

[back alley]

a certain mysterious, indefinable quality...aka marketing.

 

[Ben Z]

I understand the ergonomics and advantages of a rangefinder camera, and I appreciate precision equipment. So, that's two out of three ...

Bill, I've been a Leica user for going on 50 years, and my opinion is, that's two out of two 😉

 

[venchka]

Very true

Very true

... Not every lens is the same, which I found hard to believe and surprising to see when I started to really pay attention.

This is very true. However, there are almost no really "bad" lenses. Certainly not from the half dozen or more brands most often encountered in the market place. I have owned dozens of lenses and I can honestly say that I have only bought one lens that I am now convinced had a defect in it the day I bought it new. I know this now because I have seen numerous samples by other folks with the same lens and their photos are good. I keep the lens as a reminder to make sure a new purchase is not flawed.

As everyone else has said, it's the operator that makes great photos. The "Super Duper Giant 6 Lens Shootout" was something done by Popular Photography.

BTW, you can search the galleries by lens name, film type, etc. If you have nothing better to do for about a week type 35mm Summicron in the search thingie here.

It's about how a person sees. It ain't about the equipment. 😎