Joop van Heijgen
Established
J J Kapsberger said:
The Leica SLR cameras and specially lenses have the same quality as the M cameras and lenses!
Leica speaks about their M and R system that you can use together without difference in 'image' quality and character!
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
KoNickon said:
But didn't he do just that in favor of the VC 35 f/1.2? There's no Voigtlaender info on his site tonight (it appears his site is in the midst of an upgrade) so I can't be sure. But I distinctly recall that his test of the VC 35 f/.1.2 (or perhaps it was another lens), while finding that it doesn't resolve quite as well as does the Leica competitor, nevertheless concludes by putting the performance of that lens into proper perspective. Namely, as it's a lens mostly used in hand-held available light photo situations, any lack of resolving power wouldn't be noticed.
I'm sorry to disagree, but I've found Puts' VC articles to be supportive of Cosina's lenses. He's given praise where praise is due. He admits that the Heliar 50 f/3.5 is a stronger performer than the Elmar 50 f/2.8. Although he favors the Elmarit-M 90 f/2.8 and the APO-ASPH Summicron 90 over the APO Lanthar 90 f/3.5, he points out that only those two lenses in that that FL exceed the Lanthar's performance. Finally, he favors the ASPH Nokton 50 f/1.5 over the penultimate version of the Summilux 50.
I'll read his articles again. I sure hope I'm not wrong here. If so, I'll certainly allow myself to stand corrected. But I must say that his treatment of CV stuff, even if it does show bias, is a lot fairer, more even handed and just plain more mature than many an RFF user's treatment of him on this forum.
Last edited:
Bingley
Veteran
"Sorry, didn't mean to come across as an a**hole. It is funny, though -- it seems like rangefinder cameras tend to use the 25mm focal length (Leica being a notable exception), while SLRs more typically use 24mm. In practice there's no discernable difference."
No offense taken. Wasn't it the late Sen. Everitt Dirkson who said, "A millimeter here, a millimeter there... pretty soon you're talking REAL focal length!"? No, wait, it was money...
No offense taken. Wasn't it the late Sen. Everitt Dirkson who said, "A millimeter here, a millimeter there... pretty soon you're talking REAL focal length!"? No, wait, it was money...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No soup for you!Bingley said:
Bingley
Veteran
'guess not. At least, not while the thunderbolts are flying. Gads Zeus!
ZeissFan
Veteran
KoNickon said:
Exactly. It's like pointing out the speed difference between f/1.5 and f/1.4. No discernable difference, especially when you take into account variations in actual vs. real aperture and actual vs. real shutter speeds.
ZeissFan
Veteran
The general criticism is that no matter how a lens tests, the Leica optic often is pronounced to be the superior product for intangible, unscientific reasons -- even after laying out numerical evidence that would show otherwise.
I've never met him, and I have no bone to pick with him. And his knowledge of Leica gear and optics is far superior to my own.
I've never met him, and I have no bone to pick with him. And his knowledge of Leica gear and optics is far superior to my own.
Athena
Well-known
Huh?varjag said:Magus, let us not stretch analogies too farWriting never presumed graphite (fairly modern invention). Nor any part in "photography" specifies whether quantum change registers in silver halide (film) or gallium arsenide (digital).
I see where these sentiments are coming from (being film guy myself), but IMHO all this bitter film-digital talk is focusing too much on details. Photography isn't really about either.
Graphite is a natural mineral - not a man-made invention.
Do you realize that if you apply the correct pronouciation of my slutty sister's name, Aphrodite, to the word Graphite you get - Graffiti!
richard_l
Well-known
Yeah, but the priorities of the average RFFer arex-ray said:
1. Camera. A Leica if possible, because they are impressive. ZI, if the Leica is not affordable.
2. Lens. Anything is okay, provided it is very fast (i.e., big) and fits on the Leica. A German-looking name like Voigtländer, Zeiss, or Leica is preferable.
3. The Photographer. His/her most important task is to make enough money to buy the gear.
Richard
trittium
Well-known
I want me some summarit lenses, now
Bavaricus
Established
richard_l said:
Are you a average RFFer ...
And yes, a Leica ist the most expensive - and impressive - film holder ever!
richard_l
Well-known
Not quite. I'm prejudiced in favor of Leica cameras and Leitz/Leica lenses, but I'm more interested in image quality than speed, and the aesthetics of the image are more important than the technical quality.Bavaricus said:
Are you a average RFFer ...
And yes, a Leica ist the most expensive - and impressive - film holder ever!
Besides Leicas, I love the wonderful Rollei 35 (of which I have both a Tessar and a Sonnar version) and the versatile Nikon FM2.
Richard
Bavaricus
Established
richard_l said:
Turtle
Veteran
Popflash has the new Summarits listed and rather than worrying about their prices (which are not too bad: and note he has USA prices on for teh Summarits and may later offer grey versions cheaper) I am miffed that the Zeiss 21 4.5 ZM is still more than the 2.8!!!!
I also bet the Summarits are great lenses so it will be interesting whether lots of those who rush out to buy the V expensive crons and luxes 'because they are the best...(but secretly just have to have Leica because of assumed superiority)' will end up breathing a huge sigh of relief now that they can have the right badge for half the price (while sacrificing some performance (at least on aperture if nothing else).
As for natural defense of one brand or concept over another, it is naturally easier to be objective when you have a variety of kit or have had extensive experience with it. A lot of Leicaphiles have had little experience with much else as they are Leicaphiles first (or gear heads who then elevate to Leica) and photographers second. Any kit used before Leica gets relgated to bad memories once the light has been discovered....
A real gearhead is not fussed by brand but blind fondling, smells, textures and heft (bigger = better unless exceedingly small (preferably microscopic) which is also good! Leicaphiles are therefore gearheads second and photographers third perhaps?
I own Leica and love the kit, but please......
As for the argument that Leica magic is the blending of parameters....ALL are measurable and I am quite sure other manufacturers could measure that blend very quickly and replicate it with their own manufacturing processes (price and feasibility being another factor). ...and remember, Leica magic is so many different things depending on the lens and the person doing the commentary. Some even profess super dooper magic about a lens only for another to say, óh no this lens has no Lieca magic at all'. In older lenses it is glow and newer ones 3 dimensionality and others sparkle! Can a Zeiss lens have magic and if so what would you call it? If a zeiss lens had a similar look to a Leica lens widely regarded as having magic would this mean both lenses had a form of generic magic or that Zeiss in fact posessed Leica magic? If a Zeiss lens had a look and that lens was followed by a Leica lens which had a similar look later determined to be Leica magic, would this mean the Ziess lens had Leica magic first or would the magic of the subsequent Leica lens have to be referred to a Zeiss magic?
I think some sort of magic protocol and naming/reference procedure ought to be determined before this gets out of hand.
I also bet the Summarits are great lenses so it will be interesting whether lots of those who rush out to buy the V expensive crons and luxes 'because they are the best...(but secretly just have to have Leica because of assumed superiority)' will end up breathing a huge sigh of relief now that they can have the right badge for half the price (while sacrificing some performance (at least on aperture if nothing else).
As for natural defense of one brand or concept over another, it is naturally easier to be objective when you have a variety of kit or have had extensive experience with it. A lot of Leicaphiles have had little experience with much else as they are Leicaphiles first (or gear heads who then elevate to Leica) and photographers second. Any kit used before Leica gets relgated to bad memories once the light has been discovered....
A real gearhead is not fussed by brand but blind fondling, smells, textures and heft (bigger = better unless exceedingly small (preferably microscopic) which is also good! Leicaphiles are therefore gearheads second and photographers third perhaps?
I own Leica and love the kit, but please......
As for the argument that Leica magic is the blending of parameters....ALL are measurable and I am quite sure other manufacturers could measure that blend very quickly and replicate it with their own manufacturing processes (price and feasibility being another factor). ...and remember, Leica magic is so many different things depending on the lens and the person doing the commentary. Some even profess super dooper magic about a lens only for another to say, óh no this lens has no Lieca magic at all'. In older lenses it is glow and newer ones 3 dimensionality and others sparkle! Can a Zeiss lens have magic and if so what would you call it? If a zeiss lens had a similar look to a Leica lens widely regarded as having magic would this mean both lenses had a form of generic magic or that Zeiss in fact posessed Leica magic? If a Zeiss lens had a look and that lens was followed by a Leica lens which had a similar look later determined to be Leica magic, would this mean the Ziess lens had Leica magic first or would the magic of the subsequent Leica lens have to be referred to a Zeiss magic?
I think some sort of magic protocol and naming/reference procedure ought to be determined before this gets out of hand.
x-ray
Veteran
richard_l said:
From looking at some of the average RFF'ers work they would better spend some of that money learning how to use that equipment. I guess it's all about having that Leica hanging around their neck and not about the photograph. Don't get me wrong because there are some very fine photographers that I would call average RFF'ers but above average in skill. If equipment is the thing then that's what it is but I see the final image as the most important and I don't mean the image of me carrying a Leica.
V
varjag
Guest
Sure, gallium arsenide and and silver halides also can be found in natureAthena said:
Paul T.
Veteran
x-ray said:
this is an affliction towards which most people are prone. I remember teaching my nephews to play guitar, and helping them find a couple of good instruments. A year later I found their playing hadn't progressed - instead, they'd bought a couple of new guitars.
Of course, I've made the same mistake with cameras and lenses.
Sparrow
Veteran
varjag said:Sure, gallium arsenide and and silver halides also can be found in nature
And Kryptonite;
now whose special powers need weakening?
Nachkebia
Well-known
Sometimes I want to sell all my equipment and keep one body with one lens
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Actually, I'd held to the strange view that some of us who take photographs that don't make the cut were hanging around RFF in the very hope of learning some things about how to better use the equipment (to take better photos, say). Or even what equipment to use to help obtain the results we're after. It being difficult to take a photograph without a camera, and all. And if equipment doesn't matter then why RF cameras at all? Why not use an SLR with its kit zoom? That easily covers the focal length range where most RF photography is done, in one simple inexpensive package. Or why not a little digicam, most of which would easily cover the same field-of-view range?x-ray said:
I don't think my Hexar RF (my most-used camera) makes the cut as a fashion statement. Perhaps that's why I carry it in the hand rather than around the neck - staying one step ahead of the fashion police. While I do have a Leica as well, I suspect my old DS M3 isn't that fashionable (no red dot! what was I thinking?), and many of my other cameras (yes, I have GAS) are even less so - there are parts of town you could probably get beat up for carrying a ghastly red XA2.x-ray said:
Yet I do use these cameras to take photos, even if they're not especially good ones. Partly just to take photos, because I enjoy doing that and to help me learn to take better ones (trying to get closer to my vague ideas of what I'd like those photos to look like). Partly trying to learn what works for me in a practical sense (the XA or mju-II in my pocket often being more useful than the Hexar RF at home) and partly to learn what produces the photos I'm after - what lenses produce results I like or am trying to achieve, and under what circumstances.
I even talk about some of that on RFF, in gear-related discussions either asking questions (because I don't know the answers) or passing on my opinions on what I've discovered so far.
And maybe some of us talk about some of these things because we're trying to figure out how to achieve the final image we're after or trying to get a view of. And maybe some of us also talk about fine mechanical things because we get some enjoyment out of that as well. There's nothing wrong with that either. I'm not even sure there's anything wrong with people using their cameras as a fashion statement, if that floats their boat. (And especially if their servicable cast-offs might be picked up cheaply.)x-ray said:
...Mike
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.