NickTrop
Veteran
Actually, this is more of a question.
I don't own a Leica but own several fixed lens rangefinders. Yesterday, I got a roll back from the lab. Small prints - 6x4s, of Ilford FP4+, which I developed in Rodinal 1:50, taken with the Yashica GSN. I sent out for the prints (I do my own enlarging, but making small 35mm prints in volume is no fun...)
This is the first time I used this camera, developer, film combo. In fact, it was the first time I ever used Rodinal or FP4+ (I shot mostly MF, with a preference toward HP5+ in D76 or DDX, and only started shooting 35 a lot more over the last year or so. Tired of lugging MF camera gear around.)
Wow... what a great film/developer combo especially in terms of sharpness. Just beautiful...
So, my question/observation is...
How much really better is Leica gear from an "end product" perspective than my $40 GSN??? I simply don't see how /any/ lens/camera combo would produce better results in 35mm than the refurbed (new POD, lightseals, cleaned rangefinder) $40 GSN off eBay. These pics were SHARP. (Rodinal really lives up to its reputation here). Most of the pics were taken outside at optimal apertures. One was taken indoors - a nice candid, probably f2-f2.8, and that even printed really well. Nice out-of-focus areas, but also surprisingly sharp.
I'm not trying to knock Leica - I want to see the last of the mohicans of film camera makers hang in there (thought I doubt I'll ever be an owner. There are at least 3 or 4 other cameras I put ahead of a Leica on the wish list like a Mamiya 6 to name one) but I simply don't see how these extremely expensive cameras could make that big a difference. Some questions:
1. Is lens performance beyond a certain standard overrated in terms of image quality?
2. Are things like film/developer combos underrated in terms of final image quality?
3. Is format underrated? My cheap $100 Kiev 60 with a $50 Zeiss Jena 80/2/.8 takes the best looking pics I've every made. Yes, there I can see a very noticable improvement over 35... but is a tiny "possible" incremental gain when working in 35 really worth all that dough?
4. Does anyone own both cameras that can address this?
Again, not Leica bashing... just trying to "get it".
I don't own a Leica but own several fixed lens rangefinders. Yesterday, I got a roll back from the lab. Small prints - 6x4s, of Ilford FP4+, which I developed in Rodinal 1:50, taken with the Yashica GSN. I sent out for the prints (I do my own enlarging, but making small 35mm prints in volume is no fun...)
This is the first time I used this camera, developer, film combo. In fact, it was the first time I ever used Rodinal or FP4+ (I shot mostly MF, with a preference toward HP5+ in D76 or DDX, and only started shooting 35 a lot more over the last year or so. Tired of lugging MF camera gear around.)
Wow... what a great film/developer combo especially in terms of sharpness. Just beautiful...
So, my question/observation is...
How much really better is Leica gear from an "end product" perspective than my $40 GSN??? I simply don't see how /any/ lens/camera combo would produce better results in 35mm than the refurbed (new POD, lightseals, cleaned rangefinder) $40 GSN off eBay. These pics were SHARP. (Rodinal really lives up to its reputation here). Most of the pics were taken outside at optimal apertures. One was taken indoors - a nice candid, probably f2-f2.8, and that even printed really well. Nice out-of-focus areas, but also surprisingly sharp.
I'm not trying to knock Leica - I want to see the last of the mohicans of film camera makers hang in there (thought I doubt I'll ever be an owner. There are at least 3 or 4 other cameras I put ahead of a Leica on the wish list like a Mamiya 6 to name one) but I simply don't see how these extremely expensive cameras could make that big a difference. Some questions:
1. Is lens performance beyond a certain standard overrated in terms of image quality?
2. Are things like film/developer combos underrated in terms of final image quality?
3. Is format underrated? My cheap $100 Kiev 60 with a $50 Zeiss Jena 80/2/.8 takes the best looking pics I've every made. Yes, there I can see a very noticable improvement over 35... but is a tiny "possible" incremental gain when working in 35 really worth all that dough?
4. Does anyone own both cameras that can address this?
Again, not Leica bashing... just trying to "get it".
Last edited:
RF-Addict
Well-known
It is hard to see any difference in a 4x6 photograph. Once you start enlarging those pictures and compare them to "modern" lenses you will see a difference.
IMHO the determining factor is NOT the body, but the lenses you would use. Leica, Zeiss Ikon or Voigtlaender all make bodies that can produce stunning images, the difference is in the glass. I would bet that if you used the same lens on any of these cameras you could not tell the difference - the camera is just a light tight box that opens a shutter briefly.
IMHO the determining factor is NOT the body, but the lenses you would use. Leica, Zeiss Ikon or Voigtlaender all make bodies that can produce stunning images, the difference is in the glass. I would bet that if you used the same lens on any of these cameras you could not tell the difference - the camera is just a light tight box that opens a shutter briefly.
NickTrop
Veteran
Mmmm... yeah. Agree with the "light tight box" assessment. And, of course, I know that larger images would show more flaws. And, yes, I am sure these higher end stuff is certainly fine.
But I did look at these prints under a loupe. I genuinely don't see how these pictures - some of them, could have been improved upon especially in terms of sharpness. Contrast was fine. I could clearly read tiny lettering even on small objects in these small prints.
Not that I doubt you, but I genuinely don't see how they could have been much better (not talking composition or anything...) without moving up to medium format where there might be noticeably better microcontrast.
But I did look at these prints under a loupe. I genuinely don't see how these pictures - some of them, could have been improved upon especially in terms of sharpness. Contrast was fine. I could clearly read tiny lettering even on small objects in these small prints.
Not that I doubt you, but I genuinely don't see how they could have been much better (not talking composition or anything...) without moving up to medium format where there might be noticeably better microcontrast.
Last edited:
wpb
Well-known
There is nothing "to get". The GSN, and Yashica for that matter as a whole, made fully competent cameras capable of outstanding results. Without side by side comparisons you'll never see the difference in almost any modern lenses in the same format, and even side by side the differences are often very small.
It is like cars... driving a Toyota Camry down the road a 60 mph you think to yourself, "Why would anyone pay $60,000 for a Mercedes? Could it be that much better?" And it is just as valid an argument. At 60 mph the difference is very small. Push both cars to their maximum and then the differences become more clear. If driving is your passion you don't apologize for driving an expensive car.
Same for cameras... in 95% of my shooting the GSN would get the job done, but I can't apologize for owning a Leica. I don't use a Leica for everything (and I did own a Mimiya 6 for years, awesome camera) but when I choose it as the right tool for the job I leave the house with no excuse for not producing good pictures (even in dismal conditions, photographically speaking), I am the weak link in the imaging chain.
It is like cars... driving a Toyota Camry down the road a 60 mph you think to yourself, "Why would anyone pay $60,000 for a Mercedes? Could it be that much better?" And it is just as valid an argument. At 60 mph the difference is very small. Push both cars to their maximum and then the differences become more clear. If driving is your passion you don't apologize for driving an expensive car.
Same for cameras... in 95% of my shooting the GSN would get the job done, but I can't apologize for owning a Leica. I don't use a Leica for everything (and I did own a Mimiya 6 for years, awesome camera) but when I choose it as the right tool for the job I leave the house with no excuse for not producing good pictures (even in dismal conditions, photographically speaking), I am the weak link in the imaging chain.
Avotius
Some guy
If I could take the lens off the gsn and stick it on a leica I would, that said past 15 inches I was not all that impressed with the quality, modern lenses are much sharper, and some of them have just as much character as the little gsn lens. That said I love my gsn, but I needed some things from my camera that the gsn didnt provide so I moved to a bessa r2a. Its smaller and the veiwfinder is a hell of a lot better but I prefer the size of the gsn. That said I am slowly building my way up to a leica. Why? Because of a number of things I need to know and do with my shooting style and the fact that sometimes I want a 35mm and sometimes I want a 50.
That said I would avoid the mamiya 6 like the flu, mine, both of them, were dogs. The bodies are stuck together with spit, but the lenses are decent.
That said I would avoid the mamiya 6 like the flu, mine, both of them, were dogs. The bodies are stuck together with spit, but the lenses are decent.
Dfin
Well-known
G`day Nick, I tend to agree for 95% of the time for 95% of photographers (my self included), a GSN will do the job. I have both an M3 from 1957 and various Yashicas from 1959 to 1970`s, and yes there is a difference. The Leica is far better built, the rangefinder patch is both clearer and larger, interchangable lenses, smaller but heavier and when you need that extra bit the M3/50`cron delivers. but if I`m going somewhere a bit dodgy I`ll take a Yashica and 95% of the time it`ll do the job. The camery/benz comparo is pretty valid, having worked on and driven both, for around town the camery will do, BUT start pushing it and the camery struggles and the Benz SHINES. Over 80kph the Benz really comes into it`s element, brakes, handling and safety. That is why Toyota builds L uxury, E xport, U S to compete with if not beat Mercedes Benz.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
This is a timely topic for me as I've been having similar thoughts regarding my R3A kit vs a couple of quality fixed lens RF cameras.
I'm finding that the 35mm lens stays on the body at least 80% of the time. I begin to wonder if a good Yashica Electro CC with a 35mm f1.8 would not replace my entire kit for my most common uses.
On the other hand the Yaschica gives up quite a bit to the Bessa in the body department. The manual controls are limited and the max shutter speed is only 1/250.
Still, two fixed FL rangefinders, one at 35mm, one around 50mm, would be a credible kit for the vast majority of my needs. The thing is there are times when I would kick myself for the lack of this or that minor capability that my Bessa would have over that fixed FL kit.
In the case of the Leica guys...well, that's just all about "overcompensation."
:angel: :angel: I'm KIDDING! :angel: :angel:
I'm finding that the 35mm lens stays on the body at least 80% of the time. I begin to wonder if a good Yashica Electro CC with a 35mm f1.8 would not replace my entire kit for my most common uses.
On the other hand the Yaschica gives up quite a bit to the Bessa in the body department. The manual controls are limited and the max shutter speed is only 1/250.
Still, two fixed FL rangefinders, one at 35mm, one around 50mm, would be a credible kit for the vast majority of my needs. The thing is there are times when I would kick myself for the lack of this or that minor capability that my Bessa would have over that fixed FL kit.
In the case of the Leica guys...well, that's just all about "overcompensation."
:angel: :angel: I'm KIDDING! :angel: :angel:
NickTrop
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:
Agree. I have a CC and I actually do this when I'm carrying a camera bag instead of just a camera. It's much faster and easier to simply shoot with a different camera than switch lenses. The Electro CC is a fine camera but I prefer the Konica S3 by the way. Like a silly foo' I've looked through the viewfinder and pointed at areas to see the difference between 38mm (S3) and 35mm (CC) and it really isn't that big of a deal. I could hardly see where the difference in focal length would matter. The S3 is easier to find, has a faster shutter speed (1/650), great lens (CC no slouch either), and is significantly smaller than the CC and meters up to 800 speed film (CC meters up to 400 asa).
Eh... that's always the case (...wish I had this camera or that lens).
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Thanks for your perspective, all. Appreciate it.
I guess I'm a bit of a format snob. I see big obvious gains from 135 to 6x6. If I'm somewhere and looking to take the best photos the gear I own is capable of, I shoot MF. But you might as well be shooting with a watermelon from a "cumbersomeness" point of view. As far as sharpness in 135, which is an obsession with lens-heads (of which I am one - albeit a frugal lenshead, a difficult thing to be), the biggest gain in sharpness I've seen in a black and white print was through the use of Rodinal as a developer than any variation in lenses. So, it begs the question (just talking about black and white) are things like what developer is used a bigger and also an "underrated" factor relative to what lens is used when it's "just" 35? When you're "shooting from the hip" - handheld, and going to diminish the max capability of whatever lens you're using anyway.
Given Oskar Barnack's ideal, I'm wondering if a MF rangefinder (though you do give up lens speed) doesn't meet this ideal best over Leica gear from a quality/portability ratio.
Good perspectives, thank you all. And again, I'm not bashing Leica or their owners, there is a reason - I'm sure, they're so revered.
I guess I'm a bit of a format snob. I see big obvious gains from 135 to 6x6. If I'm somewhere and looking to take the best photos the gear I own is capable of, I shoot MF. But you might as well be shooting with a watermelon from a "cumbersomeness" point of view. As far as sharpness in 135, which is an obsession with lens-heads (of which I am one - albeit a frugal lenshead, a difficult thing to be), the biggest gain in sharpness I've seen in a black and white print was through the use of Rodinal as a developer than any variation in lenses. So, it begs the question (just talking about black and white) are things like what developer is used a bigger and also an "underrated" factor relative to what lens is used when it's "just" 35? When you're "shooting from the hip" - handheld, and going to diminish the max capability of whatever lens you're using anyway.
Given Oskar Barnack's ideal, I'm wondering if a MF rangefinder (though you do give up lens speed) doesn't meet this ideal best over Leica gear from a quality/portability ratio.
Good perspectives, thank you all. And again, I'm not bashing Leica or their owners, there is a reason - I'm sure, they're so revered.
Last edited:
darrylasher
Member
Excellent question, and great discussion. I have never even touched a Leica, but I would love a chance to at least shoot with one. My guess (and only a guess) is that, even if the image quality is the same as my GSN (free from a friend who owns a used camera store!) the mechanical quality, robustness, and longevity of the Leica is better than the GSN. Of course, my GSN is over 30 years old, and works like new. But, GSNs were not as likely to be heavily used as a Leica. The Leica is certainly built to be used constantly, and endure being knocked around.
As you said: there is a reason they are so revered. People generally don't make up value out of thin air, for such a porlonged period of time.
However, I am SO satisified with my GSN that I would very likely keep buying those at garage sales than I would ever part with the cash needed to get a Leica. But... I do keep drooling over them!
As you said: there is a reason they are so revered. People generally don't make up value out of thin air, for such a porlonged period of time.
However, I am SO satisified with my GSN that I would very likely keep buying those at garage sales than I would ever part with the cash needed to get a Leica. But... I do keep drooling over them!
Wimpler
Established
I think it all depends on how mcuh film you shoot. If you would shoot 1000 pcitures a day, for example, you would want to use 35mm film to keep costs down. You would also want the best lenses you can get to get maximum quality on a small negative.
If you don't shoot much you can go with a medium format camera, with more expensive film/processing per shot but still great quality. And cheaper cameras/lenses.
When you say the lens speed of medium format cameras is slower, you should also consider you can get away with using faster film because when comparing to an enlargement to and identical size from 135, the MF print will show less grain.
For depth of field the slower lenses are not a problem, as the focal lengths with same field of view are larger as well.
If you don't shoot much you can go with a medium format camera, with more expensive film/processing per shot but still great quality. And cheaper cameras/lenses.
When you say the lens speed of medium format cameras is slower, you should also consider you can get away with using faster film because when comparing to an enlargement to and identical size from 135, the MF print will show less grain.
For depth of field the slower lenses are not a problem, as the focal lengths with same field of view are larger as well.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think a bit like clothes, some cameras are a good fit for the individual using them. My Fed 2 takes photos that please me immensly ... it feels right and when it's in my hands it's like wearing a favourite pair of jeans. My M7 is sophisticated and with the right lens is more than capable of taking the type of pics that I am not really capable of taking ... at this stage!
As for the GSN ... I have one, used it a couple of times and never really connected with it. It didn't fit me and I'm not sure why ... I'm not sure that I really like aperture control cameras and the M7 has the same effect on me as the Yashica. I am not as confident of the results with the camera making the exposure descisions for me in spite of the fact that my judgement tends to miss the target often when I shoot ... I frequently underexpose, but I know I'll learn.
My M2 has wonderful build quality, and though costing a lot more, gives me the same sensations I get from my Fed albeit at a much higher premium. If I had to choose a camera that would be my one and only it would be the M2 ... I could probably take every bit as good a photograph with the GSN but I wouldn't enjoy the process as much! Not to mention sharpness is not my ultimate goal in an image.
As for the GSN ... I have one, used it a couple of times and never really connected with it. It didn't fit me and I'm not sure why ... I'm not sure that I really like aperture control cameras and the M7 has the same effect on me as the Yashica. I am not as confident of the results with the camera making the exposure descisions for me in spite of the fact that my judgement tends to miss the target often when I shoot ... I frequently underexpose, but I know I'll learn.
My M2 has wonderful build quality, and though costing a lot more, gives me the same sensations I get from my Fed albeit at a much higher premium. If I had to choose a camera that would be my one and only it would be the M2 ... I could probably take every bit as good a photograph with the GSN but I wouldn't enjoy the process as much! Not to mention sharpness is not my ultimate goal in an image.
Last edited:
Iskra 2
Kodachrome Rules!
I like my Jupiter 8 better than the Yashinon on my Electro GT...... and some say the Leica equivalent to the J8 is better. And then there are sooo.... many nice different Leica/other lenses.
Of course the Electro's low light metering is better than Leica's. Regards. Peace.:angel:
..... and I almost forgot, the Electro is quieter.
Of course the Electro's low light metering is better than Leica's.
Regards. Peace.:angel:..... and I almost forgot, the Electro is quieter.
Last edited:
Jeremy Z
Well-known
Good thread.
Comparing modern Leica glass to 30 year-old Yashica glass isn't fair, really. Compare 30 year-old Yashica glass to 30 year-old Leica glass is more Leic it. (hehe)
The short of it, IMO, is that the Yashica is clearly the superior low-light performer. Although the Leica glass is better wide open than the Yashica, the vibration of the leaf shutter in the Leica ruins it, especially handheld. The Yashicas have in-lens leaf shutters, which have zero net vibration. They can do 30 second exposures, 1/15s handheld. (some argue that they can go even slower)
However, the Leica glass has better optical design, first and foremost being the superior coatings. (more contrast & less flare) Leica build quality is also better, though the Yashica is no slouch.
The main advantage to the Leica is the manual exposure capability. The Lynxes have that, but they also have even more primitive lens coatings. Yashica gave up on manual exposure way too early, which is their Achilles Heel. Electros would be the honey of the value-priced RFs if only they had metered manual exposure.
Overall, I would say that Leicas are 10-15% better than Yashicas. When you consider that they cost 6200% more, it is a tough argument to make.
Now, it comes down to relative wealth. I couldn't see spending $55k on a Benz, but that is because I am relatively too poor to really consider it. (unless I make it my life's passion) To someone who earns 4X as much as I do (as do many Leica owners here, I bet) it would be just like me buying the Camry.
So if you have to struggle to buy the Leica and are already happy with the Yashica, I think you would be very disappointed by the diminishing returns. You would have to REALLY like the mechanical bits, optial bits, and overall experience of Leica ownership.
I borrowed a Leica from the camera shop I worked for years ago, and went out and shot a roll at lunch. I was nervous the whole time. Technically, the pictures were quite good, but no better than I could have taken with my Nikon FM2 and Nikkor glass. (at least at 4x6 size) They were sharp, showed no distortion, and were nice & contrasty, just like my Nikon shots of that era.
I agree that with film cameras, the camera is mostly a light-tight box. However, there is a tactile satisfaction that goes with using a precision camera, so I can kind of appreciate the guys who spend every dime to acquire a Leica, then put cheap Russian glass on it. (or even decent Japanese glass)
To me, the happy medium would be an interchangeable lens Canon rangefinder with Canon glass. (but then you lose the smooth, quiet leaf shutter)
Bottom Line: Find a local RFFer, meet up with him, and ask if you can shoot a roll with his Leica. Duplicate the shots with your Yashica. Duplicate the development & printing process. See for yourself. If you can't find a willing Leica owner, which I bet you could, offer to send a roll of film to one, and ask him to take some test pix for you. (ex. standard brick wall, front-lit, 50mm, from 20 ft. away, etc)
Or maybe ask in the General forum if anyone has tried it. I bet they have...
I would also pose this question to Herbert Keppler or Jason Schneider of Popular Photography, and I bet they would eat it up; maybe even write an article about it.
Comparing modern Leica glass to 30 year-old Yashica glass isn't fair, really. Compare 30 year-old Yashica glass to 30 year-old Leica glass is more Leic it. (hehe)
The short of it, IMO, is that the Yashica is clearly the superior low-light performer. Although the Leica glass is better wide open than the Yashica, the vibration of the leaf shutter in the Leica ruins it, especially handheld. The Yashicas have in-lens leaf shutters, which have zero net vibration. They can do 30 second exposures, 1/15s handheld. (some argue that they can go even slower)
However, the Leica glass has better optical design, first and foremost being the superior coatings. (more contrast & less flare) Leica build quality is also better, though the Yashica is no slouch.
The main advantage to the Leica is the manual exposure capability. The Lynxes have that, but they also have even more primitive lens coatings. Yashica gave up on manual exposure way too early, which is their Achilles Heel. Electros would be the honey of the value-priced RFs if only they had metered manual exposure.
Overall, I would say that Leicas are 10-15% better than Yashicas. When you consider that they cost 6200% more, it is a tough argument to make.
Now, it comes down to relative wealth. I couldn't see spending $55k on a Benz, but that is because I am relatively too poor to really consider it. (unless I make it my life's passion) To someone who earns 4X as much as I do (as do many Leica owners here, I bet) it would be just like me buying the Camry.
So if you have to struggle to buy the Leica and are already happy with the Yashica, I think you would be very disappointed by the diminishing returns. You would have to REALLY like the mechanical bits, optial bits, and overall experience of Leica ownership.
I borrowed a Leica from the camera shop I worked for years ago, and went out and shot a roll at lunch. I was nervous the whole time. Technically, the pictures were quite good, but no better than I could have taken with my Nikon FM2 and Nikkor glass. (at least at 4x6 size) They were sharp, showed no distortion, and were nice & contrasty, just like my Nikon shots of that era.
I agree that with film cameras, the camera is mostly a light-tight box. However, there is a tactile satisfaction that goes with using a precision camera, so I can kind of appreciate the guys who spend every dime to acquire a Leica, then put cheap Russian glass on it. (or even decent Japanese glass)
To me, the happy medium would be an interchangeable lens Canon rangefinder with Canon glass. (but then you lose the smooth, quiet leaf shutter)
Bottom Line: Find a local RFFer, meet up with him, and ask if you can shoot a roll with his Leica. Duplicate the shots with your Yashica. Duplicate the development & printing process. See for yourself. If you can't find a willing Leica owner, which I bet you could, offer to send a roll of film to one, and ask him to take some test pix for you. (ex. standard brick wall, front-lit, 50mm, from 20 ft. away, etc)
Or maybe ask in the General forum if anyone has tried it. I bet they have...
I would also pose this question to Herbert Keppler or Jason Schneider of Popular Photography, and I bet they would eat it up; maybe even write an article about it.