What makes this M stuff so special?

At the risk of being flamed, I have to share an enthusiasm for this

little M camera and the glass it holds.

 

Try as I might, I cannot get the same results with other cameras.

I've been through Canon EOS and the best L lenses (24/1.4L,

35/1.4L 85/1.2L,135/2, all over rated IMO and that's after

shooting thousands of images with them); I have a Nikon now

with some damned fine prime lenses..not even close, (including

the 28/1.4 ASPH and 85/1.4); and Leica R (close, but no cigar);

and a Contax SLR (also close, but still lacking by a long shot); I

even tried a Contax G2 and all the lenses...which IMO were pitiful

in comparison.

 

NONE of them render light the way the M glass does. Frankly,

when I shoot a wedding my best looking work is ALWAYS from

the M. After a couple of years of this you start to wonder why the

Hell I'm lugging all this other gear to a wedding at all.

Suppliment it with a MF and 2 lenses for the formal stuff, and my

3 lens M Kit ( including 2 bodies) and be done with it.

 

I'm saying this because I just printed a wedding from last Sat.,

where I changed my usual 24 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH, 75/1.4 kit to

a 28/2 ASPH, 50/1.4, 90/AA kit to try them out. I especially wanted

to really shoot a lot with the 50/1.4 (that some folks think should

be changed to an APO). Plus, I felt I was getting to dependant on

the 35/1.4. Even off-the-cuff candids of ordinary situations took

on a sort of special look because of the wonderful way the 50

Lux renders light. I hope the web doesn't ruin the picture I

up-loaded with this post...the print litterly glows with light and the

subtile details are held crystal clear. It's just part of the wedding

story, and not a world beating image...but the rendering of light

takes it beyond just another picture for me. In an album, it all

adds up to something special for the couple.

 

Sorry for the gushing, but sometimes you just have to come out

and say what you see. Maybe it's all just a matter of taste...but

God these lenses consistantly provide beautiful renditions of

light...lens to lens, image to image.<div></div>

Hi Marc,

 

At my own risk of getting flamed.

 

I think it's great that you have a great love for your equipment and have found something that you love and enjoy using. But be careful also to be objective and not get too carried away. I am not saying you're imagining things, but here's my $0.02.

 

I do honestly fail to see what's so great about the image properties of that picture, if nothing else purely because of the fact that a JPEG is never going to do any black and white print, whether Leica or otherwise, any decent justice. Moreover it's not exactly the biggest JPEG in the world, and all your gorgeous detail is lost on something which has no more than 500 pixels in any direction.

 

Really objectively looking at the JPEG you should easily have been able to tell this already. Sure it's good to hope that the "web doesn't ruin the picture", but you can see the same picture on your screen and tell instantly if that special quality is retained or not.

 

Secondly, and this seems particularly rude of me, but be careful that your equipment doesn't blind you to your photo taking. It doesn't matter how amazing the quality of your light, the quality of your bokeh, the sharpness of the lens, if the photo isn't good in the first place. You haven't rendered the bridesmaid in a pleasing fashion at all and it looks as though she looks like a he. In which case a point and shoot might have taken a better picture as far as she is concerned.

 

Like I said, I'm not saying your lenses aren't great but that this isn't the best judge.

 

Good shooting and good luck finding clients. I struggle enough to convince them to go for good composition, I'd be truly blessed if my clients can appreciate Leica lenses as something special!

Jed, I appreciate the comments, and it's true that the web is no

place to truely render comparisons. As far as "she looking like a

he", this bridesmaid looks fabulous in this picture ...take my

word for it. You do what you can without passing judgment on

the looks of regular folks. Not everyone can be Movie Star

beautiful...so you do what you can without making them look like

someone else with tricks and PhotoShop minipulations.

 

This post is more focused on the light rendering qualities of the

M lenses. For example, I shot some other images with a

different camera, and the subtile detail tones on the top of the

lamp base disappeared when exposed exactly the same way as

this shot using the same film. The M camera/lens combo seem

to deliver more, on a more consistant basis, over the course of a

wedding shoot , at least for me.

Not ALL Leica lens hold that mystic quality. Aside from all the specs and numbers, the lens I'll never part with is the pre-ASPH 35mm Cron. For some reasons, I just consistently take better pictures with it. The other lens I own, although having great reviews, never produce that quality. Call it luck or whatever, but I seem to be always at the right place and time when I have the 35mm cron mounted.

I can't say the same for all the rest of the lens I own.

Oh, BTW Jed, I tried to take a peek at your photography to see

how valid your comments might be, and found nothing to view.

So, I do not know if your style is vastly different than mine

prefering perhaps a more stylized technique than the straight

candids I tend to shoot.

 

And your "Point-and-Shoot" comment was particularly insulting I

might add. But, as usual, the insults come from those with no

work of their own posted for review.

Marc--I think it's an excellent picture. The contrast between the lamp and the girls face is exceptional--whatever the gear.

its a great photo from what I can see here. I believe that a real life print would be astounding.

 

I got back a set of prints this past fall, taken with a IIIf and an old ELMAR 50 3.5, of a marsh I go to year round and have taken photos there with all kinds of cameras going back 20 years.

 

The marsh prints literally popped out of my hands, the breath left my lungs, and I scanned and resized and some kind soul remarked that it was a wonderfull photo, 100 per cent bokeh. I took the photo down, but put it back up recently. It doesnt look very well up on photo.net

 

Here is the link to that image: http://www.photo.net/photo/1283968

 

for those who feel the need to trash, go ahead.

 

 

It has come to my rock laden noggin, that there is practically no point in resizing and posting on photo.net.

 

Jed is a clown who doesnt bother to put on the big floppy shoes and the right makeup and big red nose.

 

This forum thing is a curious place.

 

Great photo, Mark. She looks lovely, timeless, and enchanting. Great work.

I certainly note a difference between my 35/1.4 and 75/1.4 compared to my previous Canon 28-70L and 50/1.4. Perhaps more of a qualitative character difference, a certain richness that pops out at ya. I have a Noctilux on order and look forward to seeing its own unique character. The 75 lux in particular seems to have the most distinct character of lenses I've shot with.

Lovely Marc! Simple moment, private. DOP beautiful, just the right metering, bokeh supple. Excellent.

best,

Jeffrey

p.s. What version Summilux are you using?(Marc)

 

best,

jeffrey

Bill -<P>

 

It's a lovely photo. And, no, the web doesn't do it justice - but I can visualize, I think, what it might look like in analog reality - as opposed to digital dementia. <P>

 

Speaking of which, the forums, including this one, do seem to fluctuate in their character and caliber and mood. On those days when things are looking sparse (let's say) here, we can always benefit by your presence in the Nikon forum (sorry for that, Tony).<P>

 

As far as the peculiar, beautious qualities of Leica glass goes, Marc: I'd say you're either preaching to the long-since-with-it, or to the hopelessly obstinate and willfully blind. The qualities themselves are apparent to all with eyes. (And, speaking of that: she is very nice indeed - even on the CRT.)

I always enjoy seeing your work Marc, and hearing what you have to say. Nice light and nice candid shot of a good subject, no doubt about it.

Marc, as a new convert to Leica from Nikon ,I too see it in my prints and I haven't even shot B&W yet. Seeing this post just confirms, to me,that Im not crazy,or suffering from equipmentitis.

Congratulations for another finely captured moment. I've also found the best images are the quick shots of people doing the unposed but "important" things. The lighting is great, particularly of her hair under her chin. I've used a noctilux which has given shots I believe impossible with other equipment. Again, the quality, the feel of this equipment combined with light passed through those lenses is a joy to behold. If I can ever figure out how to post I'll fire some in. I was linked earlier to an explanation but could'nt figure it out. Being in the "boonies" and of limited tech savy fouls me every time! Again congrats.

....funny thing,but the first thing i tough when i looked at you

photograph was " this girl looks like a guy",anyway,that is not

your fault,and i agree that this is a very nice casual

shot....congratulations!!

 

david lee

Marc, this is a beautiful shot. As usual, I suspect such leica bashings (though done in a 'nice' way) were from those who have never even tried leica and compared the results. It's best to ignore these people and use your time do more meaning shooting. :)

You know, David, it is funny - I thought the same thing. A guy. Or, rather, one of those hyper-feminine pre-op transexuals. Sex is amorphous. It's interesting that we look at this figure and see (as you do in many figures, especially female) both male and female - or Yin and Yang, if you prefer - characteristics, each pronounced, and a heightened sexuality that, altogether, suggests to us someone who is <I>like</I> a transexual - if only in that she appears to carry a heightened awareness of her sex.

I think it's underexposed a bit, and the resulting dark skin makes her look masculine. I see it sometimes in my own pictures, and always in classic Hollywood movies, that in B&W men have dark skin and women have light skin, and if the rule is broken things don't look quite right. The position of the arms also compresses the muscles adding to the effect, but mainly I think it's the exposure.

 

But as this thread isn't really about this picture but about the general quality of pictures made with Leicas, I'll add that I think the handling of the camera has a greater effect on the pictures than the quality of the glass. I see it clearly when I'm using a Leica M, I take different pictures from when I'm using an SLR. And with an SLR, AF or MF as well as motordrive or not makes a difference even if I put the exact same lens in front. Which option is best depends a lot on the situation.

I guess I'll have to get my eyes checked. I currently use Nikon FM2s with 28/2.8D, 35/2, and 50/1.4D, as well as M6s with 28/2.8M, 35/2M-ASPH, and 50/1.4M, and I don't see what the big deal is.

Al,<P>

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the "big deal" here - as I see it - is the bokeh, the highlights, the contrast, the micro-contrast, and the way the light is rendered (the tonal range, which is nice, probably has more to do with the film): which are nice in themselves, but together lend to the image a lot of depth and pop. You can see that here even on the CRT - so in the actual print it must be really pronounced. I don't get this with, for instance, my Nikkor 24/2.8 AIS - even though that's a great lens.

Al & Doug; as a Long term Nikon user since the F; and also a Leica M3 user; my take is that the Leica M is way easier to focus in dim lighting; and typically the Leica Glass is great wide open in a special way. I got my 50mm F1.4 SC Nikkor in the mid 1970's. In candid shots @1.4; I have gotten less keepers 30 years ago with my Nikon F/F2/NikkormatFtn @F1.4 ; Than my Leica M3 and Noctilux today.

...dark skin makes her look masculine... looks like a guy... transexual... heightened awareness of her sex....

 

What is it with you guys? Getting carried away, aren't we? You know one image alone can't describe someone. Talk about reading into an image! Let's just say she could probably kick your ass and leave it at that!

Well, guys, I see her with an old man's eyes, and she floats my boat, only entirely too many clothes. I shoot almost exclusively with Sensia and Astia. The slides look different to me when I shoot with the Leica gear versus the Nikon or Canon gear. The word I use to describe it is luminosity, but whatever the word, I definitely see a kind of glow. Now, let's discuss lens lust. Marc, do you think you could have made the same shot using a summicron instead of a summilux? Would you have gotten a different image with the noctilux?

Marc, nice picture. ;) Thanks for sharing.

 

Yes, what they say about the M lenses are all true. They have a very special quality no 35mm primes can come close.

 

I have been shooting 35asphcron and COntax 50 planar together under same conditions for a while now. In some dark scenes, the cron captured light the planar could only mimmick(sp?). The difference is clear especially wide opened. Cron at f/2 is like planar/5.6. if you get my idea.

 

But quality is one thing, sometimes I just shoot with the nearest camera around, not always with the best.;)

 

 

cheers

Marc:

 

"Bridesmaid primps & powders".

 

My first thought was that she was checking her text messages, but I'll take your word for it.

 

IMHO the 50 'lux is a lens much underrated by some, but I love it. Thanks for the pic.

 

Never crossed my mind it might be a bloke.