?
?
x-ray said:
Sorry to burst some bubbles and I know some of you will think I'mm full of BS but Leica hasn't has any superiority since the mid 50's to early 60's. If any company really had a superiority tjhen every pro would use them. In the 50's when the Nikon SP came out Leica met their competition. When the Nikon F came out the competition kicked their a$$. There was such a mass exodous from leica they hardly knew what hit them. By the mid 70's Leica was only a small part of the pro kit. By the 80's Canon with the F1 and Nikon owned the market.
I respect your views because they come from experience, but I would like to point out that
a. Clients do not insist on Nikon or Canon or Pentax or Olympus, any more than they would insist on Leica.
Why?
Because for them, it's the composition, concept, creative direction, decisive moment, etc. that matters.
If they have to deliver a car brochure, they need someone who knows how to shoot cars. Whether he uses Nikon or Canon, who cares? That's the photographers' problem-- the client just wants the pictures.
So this is not a point which should be used to disparage Leica (or Nikon or Canon or Pentax or Olympus for that matter)
b. Why did pros choose Nikon and Canon?
It's obvious isn't it? Nikon and Canon got it. Leica didn't. SLR's I mean. Once SLR's became practical, incorporated autofocus, zoom lenses, motor drives, multipoint metering, weather sealing, etc. it just made them the best all-around tools for professional work.
Of course, one could argue that for street photography, theatre photography, etc. Leica was the better tool. But if you have only one camera bag, how many cameras can you carry?
35 mm SLR, regardless of brand, was the tool of choice for the pro photographer.
Again, this does not mean Leica was worse than Nikon or Canon from a quality perspective. But certainly 35 mm SLR was better than 35 mm RF from a general usability perspective.
While we can use this to disparage Leica as a camera manufacturer, I think it would be unfair, as no other non-Japanese manufacturer (Contax, etc.) could match Nikon or Canon or Pentax or Olympus for SLR's.
c. As for whether Leica lenses are better than Canon/Nikon lenses, I think the objective thing to do would be to run tests on an optical bench and see for yourself. However, what is true is that lab results may not equate real-world results, camera shake is the great leveller.
But if shooting wide-open is important to you, I would suggest that the Leica lenses are potentially better, simply because the lenses are better corrected and the lack of mirror slap lab may result in less fuzzy shots esp at low speeds. However, if you're not enlarging to 20x30", if the picture is to be printed in a newspaper, then it probably doesn't matter.
d. I agree one should not choose lenses based on Internet reviews. Neither should one choose lenses based on photodo ratings. But if one cannot test lenses over an extended period of time before buying, then the next best thing is to learn to read the MTF curves, understand the optical design to see where the compromises, understand what is important (not just resolution, but also size, weight, build quality, ease of use), try to examine factors such as flare, vignetting, distortion, bokeh, etc. from other peoples' shots.
As Dante Stella says, most lenses are better than most photographers. Frankly, for most shots up to 8x10, almost any lens designed after the 70s will produce a decent printable picture. But we always want more than that, if possible.
