Please show me ...

It's that damn naked emporer again

It's that damn naked emporer again

Bill:
Faith has different levels. At one end it's wishful religion (Descarte's 'will to believe') at the far side from that it's faith in skill and mastery, whether that be tools or craft.

Similie is the closest that I can come to explaining Leica 'glow', 'mystique', or fanaticism.

I am a guitar player of many years, and I can tell you that there are more opportunites for expression for a skilled player from a better instrument. To me, a good guitar has it's own rythym, feel, speed, and response. Certain songs live in that instrument.

A well made all manual rangefinder camera has the same attributes. One 'plays' it and it requires a certain amount of skill to master.

If one doesn't have the experience, or has not mastered the Leica tool, it's like trying to explain the sex act to children, or the difference between a Les Paul and a Stratocaster to a non guitar player.

The reality is this: the package known as 'Leica' was there at the very beginning of 35mm photography, and after MANY years, has flowered into a special medium in it's own right.

Comparing it to other 35mm tools may be fun conjecture, but in the end it will be apples vs. oranges.
 
Magus, you are so dramatic! 🙂

As Raid's lens tests have demonstrated, all lenses are pretty good, and different lens types have different signatures.

I have 2 photos, one taken with a Summar the other taken with a Tessar. I think it's pretty easy to say which is which.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=5981

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13408

These signatures may be used by people to state a preference. Big deal, let them believe what they wish.
 
Frank,
I can clearly see a difference but which is which? To me the first photo (dog only) looks like it was taken with a defective lens, all mushy, low contrast, washed out details. The second looks hyper-sharp, maybe even painfully sharp - all detail with no soul. I guess I don't like the qualities of either one. 🙁

Regards,
Ira
 
Oh dear, there is that scanning bugaboo again. It's enough to make you go all digital, isn't it? How about a comparison of the two lenses using a digital RF, if you have one, of the same subject, not different subjects. Could you do that for us?

Thanks,
Ira
 
Hope I don't get flamed - as seems to happen nowadays whenever I post anything positive 🙁
Anyway, no comparative shot from me, I don't have any. But I hope the "Leica Glow" of the Summilux 75 comes through on a web-image. In print this night shot is really 3-D.

nacht.jpg
 
I remember your shot from an earlier posting jaapv. VERY nice. Even in a lower res, online version such as this it still has a wonderful 3D quality to it. There seem to be some odd horizontal and vertical lines in it coming from the various light sources that are, perhaps, just scanning anomolies. Regardless, it's an amazing shot.

-Randy
 
50 summilux (2nd version)
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=12154&ppuser=489

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=11803&ppuser=489

50 summitar
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=21485&ppuser=489

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=21486&ppuser=489

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=23637&ppuser=489


35/2 asph.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=53227&ppuser=489

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=50627&ppuser=489

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=48811&ppuser=489

I am one of the poor saps that see a difference, mostly in older lenses and mostly shot wide open. I also see the benefit of the newer asph. lenses, highly corrrected and all that BS.
When I am interested in a lens I look for good examples on the web, funny, they always seem to lead back here 😉

film choice, exposure, technique, scanning all play a part in what you see so the best thing is to get one and see for yourself

If you cannot see the difference then save your money and buy another brand, each lens has it's own footprint, it's a big world with many choices, mine is not yours and vice versa...

good luck
Todd
 
Recently found in our gallery

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=53286&cat=all&limit=last14

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=53274&cat=all&limit=last14

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=53247&cat=all&limit=last14

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=53181&cat=all&limit=last14

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=53042&cat=all&limit=last14

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=53017&cat=all&limit=last14

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=52975&cat=all&limit=last14

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=52850&cat=all&limit=last14

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=52810&cat=all&limit=last14

And I know this is somewhere in our gallery

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdbrekke/350518505/in/set-72157594457124114/
 
Todd.Hanz said:
film choice, exposure, technique, scanning all play a part in what you see so the best thing is to get one and see for yourself
Click to expand...
Very important point you brought up, Todd. Personally, I really do not put much stock on low res images on my monitor. The pictures don't only look different when I use a different computer, but you also have to take into account the differences in post-processing. Just too many variables. I just know what I like, and stick with whatever equipment to achieve that.

Perhaps there may be a difference for people who look at large wet prints. And certainly before the days of photoshop, this would have mattered more. I have not seen enough enlargements to comment one way or another. However, for me at least, I do notice a difference when I use my EL Nikkor lens on my enlarger, or my Focotar. Not good or bad (both are excellent), just a little bit of a difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After a slow start, this thread has proven to be a warm welcome to RFF. Thanks to everyone who responded.

I haven't had a chance to browse through most of the example photos, but I am eagerly anticipating doing so this weekend.

Jaap's photo does indeed have a 3-D look to it. It comes through quite well on my monitor. To that issue, I have been surprised at how much detail and finesse can be appreciated on a 720x480 image at 72 dpi. In theory, this should not be true.

This week I've taken my first RF photos in 30 years, using my "new" Zorki-c. I posted the Zorki photos alongside Nikon D200 photos on my website. Since I was using the D200 as an exposure meter, I decided to take photos as well.

These are not "brag" shots by any means. We have had overcast weather most of the week. These are just test photos I took while walking around my back yard. I wanted to see how well the Zorki worked, if indeed it would work at all. I am pleasantly surprised.

See http://www.br-digiphoto.com/0701Zorki
 
Hey Bill, thanks for sharing your shots. It may have seemed like a slow start, but I think you drew out some excellent conversation. Better than the same old Leica is better than....... This lens does this best......

Stick around and and be sure to tune back in for Magus' comments. We have a lot of knowledgeable people here, and he you will find is one of the most passionate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom