One last film camera (Canon L vs. Leitz glass)

[joel_sackett]

I want to buy what will probably be my last film camera body. I

already have some Canon L glass, but only because I use a 10D for

some work. I have no Canon film body. So, cutting to the chase, a

Canon 1V vs. an M7. I already have M6's and lenses and H'blad gear.

The 1V would give me 100% finder, auto everything and is very solid.

But it's all about the glass; Canon L vs. Leitz. I make large

prints. Will I see the difference? Anybody been down this road?

[el_fang]

Master photographer James Nachtwey had a show at the ICP in Manhattan a few years ago where some poster-sized prints from his "sub-par" Canon L glass were shown. Granted I was paying far more attention to the content in his work than stupid irrelevant details like "bokeh" and other Leica-wanker fantasies, but the prints looked fine to me.

[douglas k.]

Go with the future, not the past. And you'll likely not notice any difference in the imaging quality of the glass. There's a reason why you see so many white lenses among the press corps.

[doug herr]

Follow the press photographer herd and buy the Canon, or choose what's best for you... which might be the Canon.

[jimdesu]

If any of that L glass is image-stabilizing, I'd go with that. You'll benefit from that for your prints more than minor contrast differences.

[peter_white2]

WAIT JUST A MINUTE!!!!!!

 

You have Canon L glass, You have Leica M glass. And you're asking others whether you will see a difference between the two.

 

YOU ALREADY OWN THE TWO!!

 

HELLO!!

 

Here's a suggestion. Go to any camera store that has a Canon film body in stock. Take a picture with a Canon lens you already own. Take out the film. Put it into the Leica you already own, wind on the film more than normal and take another picture.

 

Compare the two pictures. ;-)

[ben z]

Joel, since you "already have...H'blad gear", the fact you say "I make large prints" leaves me puzzled that you can still say "it's all about the glass; Canon L vs. Leitz." But if you really want to find out the true answer to this question, rather than trolling an internet Leica forum populated by Leica lovers and Leica bashers, since you "already have some Canon L glass" and "already have M6's and lenses" why not just borrow, rent or buy with 14-day return, any EOS film body and make some tests of your own?

[andy m.]

There choice between the camera systems you list is much more fundamental than pure optical quality. You own a 10D and an M6. What do you prefer to use?

 

I would be amazed if you could demonstrate a significant optical difference between the two systems; the differences lie elsewhere. The choice is a combination of personal preference, and the best tool for your type of photography (which is?), IMO.

[lee_shively]

If you don't see the difference between the Leica lenses and the Canon lenses you now own, you aren't going to see any difference based on the camera body. Oh, wait. Right...you don't own a Canon film body. Why not just buy or borrow an EOS Rebel. Stick an EF-L lens on it and shoot a roll or two. Compare. Even if you have to buy one, it's a cheap experiment. Personally, I doubt you see enough difference to matter. I would make my choice for a film body based on which would be more useful to me.

[steve_mcallister]

>>Follow the press photographer herd and buy the Canon<<

 

Naaahhhh, don't do that, what do they know, they only make there living at it. Follow some old goat with a Leica fetish, yeah, that's where the smart money's riding.

[max_fun]

How about... sell off all your Canon gear, get a R8 and a couple of Leica R lenses and the Digital Module R once it becomes available?

 

Just a thought :)

[peter_white2]

Better still, if you're making large prints, get a 4x5.

 

A 4x5 with the cheapest piece of doggy doo lens will give you far better prints than any Leica or Canon can.

 

There's no substitute for square inches.

[steve_mcallister]

This clown knows all about LF, he's just here trying to start a cockfight: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005hrt

[doug herr]

I wonder if Steve <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008cqc">"Easter Bunny"</A> McAllister knows much besides putdowns.

[steve_mcallister]

He knows the bleating sound of an old goat with a Leica fetish.

[doug herr]

Steve <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008cqc">"Easter Bunny"</A> McAllister wrote: "<I>Moooo...."</I>

[doug herr]

Thank you Mr. Bunny, you've answered my question.

[fotografz]

Joel, I use the Canon EOS 1V and Leica Ms. I think there is a difference in the optical

signature of the 2 lens systems. Which you like better is up to you. And if you use wide

angle lenses there's definitely a difference in distortion, and in some cases chromatic

aberration favoring the rangefinder lenses. However the main difference you'll see is AF so

fast the image virtually liquifies into focus at lightening bolt speed ... and will do it on a

black cat in a coal mine at midnight.

[neil_swanson]

I recently bought an EOS 1n RS (fixed mirror) on eBay. I have one lens, the

85 1.8 USM. I also have a LensBaby for the EOS.

 

The 85 even though not an L lens is very very good. Not at its best at 1.8

hardly terrible but IMO just as good or better than a 75 'lux at 1.4) but the

biggest difference between the L and M glass is as Marc said, signature.

 

The Canon lens does resolve very fine details and it does so very well but

with a different look to an M lens. Better? No just different.

 

To bad the L wide lens are so freakin huge and the alternative wide Canon

lens seem so cheap and don't have USM in most cases which is a reason to

own Canon AF lens in the first place.

[neil_swanson]

This is from the 85 1.8 on TX. I've made a 12x18" print on my 2200 Epson

and the detail around the eyes, eye lashes etc is very very good. It is shot at

1.8 1/60th. FWIW the same shot with a 75 'lux @1.4 would not be as sharp,

the latest 90 2.8 Elmarit would be sharper @2.8, but the Canon and the 'Lux

get really good @2.8. So there's another question. Either way the Canon is

a very good lens.<div></div>

[joel_sackett]

From accusations to name calling and very informed answers, such a diverse group of photographers and responses. There are different optical signatures of good glass. In 35mm, especially at larger print sizes, it can matter. I don't think shooting comparisons outside a camera store for a few frames works for me. I was asking those who have 'lived' with both groups of lenses for their observations. Thanks especially Mark Williams and Neil Swanson for your insights.

[neil_swanson]

One more observation maybe you can relate to, others can I'm sure. Shoot a Dual Range Summicron and a current Summicron and the difference I see is very much like my EOS 85 vs the current 90 2.8 Elmarit.

 

The current summicron (or my tabless '70's 'cron) has more "snap" for lack of a better word but the DR, while it has less "snap" it has great resolution and lots of fine detail.

 

The Canon seems to me like DR summicron while the M glass is like, well it is like M glass.

[nee_sung]

I lived with both systems for about 18 months.

 

I had the EOS 1v + 28-70/2.8 L and the flash.

 

I had M6 + R5 and sundry lenses.

 

From here on it's strictly personal opinion:

 

I didn't like the look of the Canon lens. It was very sharp, contrasty and colour was well saturated. But I just didn't like the look.

 

I shot both negative and slide film. They looked great, until you put them side by side with the Leica images.

 

I used the EOS for about 6 months. And then I started to use it less and less. Towards the end I only used it when I wanted to look professional (I'm an amateur).

 

The greatest satisfaction I got from it was the look on an old colleague's face, who thought I would do poorly when I started my own business, and he wouldn't recognise a Leica.

 

After 6 months of not using it even once, I sold the whole ensemble of body+lens+flash.

 

p.s. The weight was also an issue for me.

[peter_mcdonough3]

I had the 50mm f/1.2L and got excellent results from it. It was sharp and snappy. That said, I have found the Leica lenses I have, especially the 75mm Summilux, smoother, sharper and better in the highlights and shadows. The Canon was a fine lens but in my opinion the Leica lenses are more what I want in a lens.

Happy Shooting.

[lmz]

Keep both systems.

 

Use Leica M for wide angles upto 50mm.

 

Use EOS system for long shots with their long AF lenses such as the fantastic 135mmF2L, 200F1.8L and 300F2.8L, and when superior flash technology is a must.