B&W: Leica vs Nikon...or Old is Good?

n a recent thread, someone wanted to change to Leica cameras because he felt that B&W photographs taken with Leica lenses were ?better.? Other people chimed in talking about the ?special? look of old Leice lenses. I was taken to task for characterizig the discussion as ?riduculous? because I thought that such blanket statements about the properties of Leica lenses versus other lenses did not make sense. Indeed, I do not think that, as a general proposition, one can ?recognize? B&W pictures as talen by Leica lenses. Nor do I think that, again, as a general propostion, Leica lenses are better than other good lenses. What I do thibk is that certain lenses have properties that can be recognized (sometimes) in a photograph. And these properties may be the ?poorer? properties of the lens: flare, distortion, etc.

<p>

Below are two of my old photographs. The first is taken with a Leica IIIC and a Summitar-50 at f/5.6. It shows that this old lens is sharp at 5.6. The picture was taken in Kenya at Kidepo National Park on Tri-X.

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/639524&size=lg">

</center>

<p>

The second, which is one of my favorite photographs, was taken with a Nikon-F with a 105mm/2.5 lens, probably at f/4. It was taken in Ngorogoro Crater in Tanzia on Tri-X.

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/639532&size=lg">

</center>

<p>

I don?t think that one can ?recognize? the first picture as a Leica shot ot the second as a Nikon shot.

The picture-posting gremlin struck again. Here's the Leica picture:

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=639524&

size=lg">

</center>

<p>

...and here is the Nikon picture:

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=639532&

size=lg">

</center>

This has been said repeatedly, but seems to be repeatedly

disregarded. Lens comparisons on the web are, for the most

part, ridiculous. The subtlety of one lens versus another is often

evident in hard prints, but is almost always lost once the images

are reduced to 72 dpi... Why do we keep doing this? And does

anyone really take these images seriously?... I've personally

known several great photographers, & know a number of very

good ones--rarely does anyone of them give a damn about

these issues. The image -- IMAGE -- is all that matters. The lens

is a delivery device. The same great image taken w/ 20 different

lens would still be the same great image, given that there would

be subtle shadow/sharpness differences that almost no one

would pay attention to... Sorry to be cranky, but come on!

> And does anyone really take these images seriously?... I've

>personally known several great photographers, & know a number of

>very good ones--rarely does anyone of them give a damn

>about these issues. The image -- IMAGE -- is all that matters. The lens is a delivery

>device. The same great image taken w/ 20 different lens

>would still be the same great image, given that there would be subtle shadow/sharpness

>differences that almost no one would pay attention to...

>

<p>

But that is really my point

>Lens comparisons on the web are, for the most part, ridiculous.

<p>

But the recent set of Summmilux-75 pictures posted by Mike Dixon do

give an idea of the properties of that lens.

Mitch,

<p>

Those are great pictures! Frankly, I like the giraffe better than

the rhino. Whether it's the f stop difference or the exposure, there

is more crisp detail in the giraffe shot.

<p>

Beautiful pictures either way.

I think the differences are more apparent when the lenses are used

wide open. And the quality of a photographic image has much more to

do with at least a dozen other factors besides lens brand. Now, why

do the giraffes have great tonality, while the Rhino has too much

contrast? Is it the nature of the beasts? ;+)

Patrick is of course right. It would be impossible to tell the

difference beween two good quality lenses by means of an

electronically produced image. However in the "wet" it is quite

possible.

<p>

A professional photographer who saw two images of mine made with a

Leica III and a Summar immediately said, without knowing what camera

I used, those were taken with a Leica weren't they ?

<p>

He then went on to explain to the students around him about Leica

subtleties of tone against the Japanese method of building contrast

into their lenses to give illusions of sharpness. I was impressed by

his spontaneous comment. I could probably tell a Leica picture if it

was alongside a picture taken with a Jap lens but I would be hard

pressed to pass judgement on just seeing one picture.

>Both of these photos would be better in chrome.

<p>

You're simply wrong, particularly about the rhino picture. Both prints

have beautiful gradation.

Mitch, it is really a matter of taste; I think wildlife subjects are

better presented in chrome. As with many things, there are

exceptions, but not here. I won't argue any points over

which lens is better, because obviously different lenses are not

being compared against the same subject, at the same time and with

the same film and post-exposure processing. Comments about which

lens is better based on what you have posted cannot be meaningful.

Both photos are well-composed. There may be a full ten zones of

tonal gradation in your rhino post, but monochrome here just doesn't

make this image stand out. No offense, but you asked.

Yes, we're arguing over esthetics; but I think it's difficult to prove

that wildlife subjects are generally better in color. Look at

_Wild_Beasts_ by Nicols Bruant (Chronicle Books), recently re-issued as

a paperback. Wonder wildlife pictures from East Africa in B&W. Here is

a picture that only works in color, tahen with the Leica IIC and

Summitar-50 lens at f/8 on Kodachrome. {I'm not sure the colors will

come through properly on a jpeg file.]

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=639982&

size=lg">

</center>

Correction: Leica IIIc. TAken on Independence Day at Gulu, Uganda in

1964.

Mitch,

<p>

I think you're wrong here. The giraffe picture is obviously better.

Just look at how the qualities of the Summitar have eloquently

presented the graceful stance of the giraffe. The rhino, in contrast,

is obviously arrogant and anti-social, and seems to exhibit the

qualities of HCB caught in the middle of a criticism of one of his

photographs - obviously Nikon qualities. (lol)

<p>

Seriously, I would agree that the qualities of a particular lens may

be unique, and may <i>sometimes</i> be discernable in the final print,

but sometimes not. Those subtleties don't always translate to

reduced-size Web presentations of the image, either.

<p>

At the risk of over-generalization, however, my impression is that

there is a difference in optical design philosophy that is apparent

between Leica and Nikon, to continue your comparison. Having shot

Nikons for close to 40 years, I've generally found that Nikon lenses

are either very precise in their character, or just plain bad. In

contrast, Leica lenses seem to have been designed with certain image

qualities or "character" in mind, so even the "bad" Leica lenses

produce "good" images. That "character" seems to translate to the

final image more often, or is at least more easily discerned than the

unvarnished precision of a good Nikon lens.

<p>

So, for illustrative purposes, is the following a Leica image, or a

Nikon image?

<p>

<center>

<img border=2

src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Bath/Faucet-drip1sepia.jpg">

</center>

I LOVE the picture or the Rhinoceros.I think it would have been

better with a Reid & Sigrist and a Tayllr & Hodson Lens.Ha Ha

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I'd say a Nikon ...

<p>

(Micro-Nikkor?)

<p>

I'm curious about that

rgds

Luca Fioretti

I'll tell you what that water faucet is! It's a 72dpi Jpeg.

The internet is the great equalizer. Most everything looks bad on

it. If we are to be reduced to "showing" on the web, then I'm

dumping all this wallet starving equipment and moving to a

digital Elph. Now there's a real camera that'll level all these web

competitions.

<i>So, for illustrative purposes, is the following a Leica image, or a

Nikon image?</i>

<p>

Definitely a Nikon image. The OOF handle on the left is giving me a

headache looking at it. Square bokeh.

Marc,

<p>

Actually, it's a 300dpi JPEG, not 72dpi. Remember, they're just

pixels, the display size of which is controlled by the resolution

setting of your monitor. DPI only affects printed output, and the size

of the input scan.

Otherwise, it's just data carried along in the header of the JPEG file.

it is certainly the case that you generally cannot put two photos

side by side and divine leica or nikon. there are too many variables

that determine the quality of an individual print. equally true,

however, is that over time certain lenses seem to give, on average,

better results than other lenses. if you shoot enuff photos, and

maintain documentation about those that make it into your portfolios,

i bet you will see that certain lenses account for a disproportionate

number of the keepers. for me, in 35mm (which admittedly is only

about ten percent of my production these days), leica seems to give

better results over time than other systems. i am sure this is due

in part to the greater focus accuracy of the rf in the focal

length/distnace range that suits it, but i also think the lenses have

a special quality.

The manager of the Sarbers Photo here in Albany California did a test

last year comparing some of his Leica M lenses to Contax G ones and I

got a chance to see the original 8X10 color prints from negs. Each

image was taken on a tripod, same settings and film, same developing,

etc. All of the images were very sharp--which of course was to be

expected. The ones taken with the Leica had a bit lower contrast, and

had noticeably more shadow detail. It's the only time I actually saw

a really accurate A/B test comparing two brands of lenses that

showed differences in a controlled way. By the way, I can't really

say which images were "better", but they were different.

My guess is that the faucet pix was taken with a Leica and scanned on

a Nikon scanner. Leica scanners really suck. Ever since they

started making them in Portugal the qc has tanked.

<p>

Older pre-ASPH Leica scanners were the cat's meow. Except for the

double stroke model which was very fussy.

<p>

Now that the Leica scanners have batteries, the world will surely end.

<p>

I'd scan everything with a Nikon if I owned one.

<p>

The real question is whether Ralph can guess the type of monitor I

use to look at the picture.

<p>

Answer--Optiquest.

<p>

But Ralph probably already knew, since he won't post to an inferior

monitor.

<p>

As GW Bush Sr. says--just wouldn't be prudent.

David: I had a heck of a time figuring out just the right HTML to be

able to display the image only on certain monitors, but I'm glad it

worked for you.

<p>

However, it <i>was</i> shot with a Nikon - a 60mm Micro Nikkor at

about f4 on a D1, in fact. Even my 50mm DR 'Cron wouldn't get close

enough to give me the perspective I wanted, so I resorted to the Nikon.

<p>

John: If I'm looking at the right thing, the square bokeh you mention

is a reflection of a window which just happens to have that shape.

I'll e-mail you some aspirin, however. ;-)