Comment on the why of Leica

[peter_mann3]

I value my Leica equipment highly. It is important to me for two

reasons. First, I admire its functionality and mechanical

perfection, and its true photographers handling. Second (or first

if you prefer) I am aware of its technical capacity to record an

incredible amount of image detail on a tiny scrap of plastic. This

detail, in turn, can enable a photographer to make astoundingly

detailed large prints, often the equivalent of larger film formats

and cameras.

 

But here is my problem, my point of inquiry. To achieve the

difference between the true potential of the Leica tradition, and

the common image produced by hundreds of other cameras, I believe

only the highest level of darkroom or other reproductive skills are

required.

 

So, question: How many of you Leica users honestly feel they have

taken the Leica perfection to its highest, or near highest, level.

Have you really seen the difference? Have you used enlarging

lenses, or scanners, or professional printers, in a way that makes

the Leica negative really show its stuff? Or do you, like many of

us, just theorize or depend on the promotional literature and the

opinion of others, to make the judgement.

 

How many of you actually know, first hand, the difference between

the Leica and the rest?

[frank granovski]

1st question: never with any camera. 2nd Question: yes (it's the lenses coupled with the rangefinder---the lens sits closer; non of that awful mirror slap nonsense).

[terry_rory]

"...other reproductive skills are required"

 

Indeed.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Not me. I soup my own film, but my scanning skills suck. Certainly doesn't do my loverly 28/2 justice. Pretty lazy in the scanning dept so far. I'll tackle scanning skills head on someday.

 

I snagged a Leica because I could afford one. For my original desire - a 2 or 3 lens fairly portable 35mm kit - my original Bessa R was probably just fine. But I got the Leica lust and went for it. Glad I did. Wonderful camera and lenses.

 

Don't sweat it. You don't have to deserve your possessions. Instead, we are all blessed to have them, or maybe by them, as it were. That's how I think of it. Should they inspire from time to time, all the better. More blessings.

 

Scott

[Allen Herbert]

Maybe you should post some photos to show us all the benefits. Or, is this just another wind up post?

 

Trevor posted some very nice photos with his new Leica lens.I must admit i was impressed.

[charles_stobbs3]

Stick to transparencies and visit your opthamologist frequently.

[Allen Herbert]

If nothing else it's amusing.A fun post.

[aizan_sasayama]

the best is the enemy of the good.

[tod_hart]

I've made some images with my M2 that seem to just jump off the print, but I wouldn't say I'm necessarily using it at its highest level of perfection.

 

Maybe that's why Holgas are popular among some photographers. Lots easier to come closer to achieving their "true potential". Otherwise you're forced to admit the biggest limiting factor is the user behind the camera.

[Allen Herbert]

Actually i've got a very special adapter, it screws on the end of any lens, and creates Leica quality.

 

No, i'm not joking; eat your hearts out you sad lot. So there.

[jason]

It is a difficult question! I have done many years of professional work plus my own insatiable appetite for more photos!Some years ago, I had to sort thru many years of slides and prints. In a short space of time, I could actually glance at a slide and know it was a "Leica image". It seemed to have way more details and better color.The difference between my Nikon-F and Pentax was in favour of the Leica in general.Certain against the light photos were in the province of the Pentax Super-Takumars. Many Leica images were ruined by flare.

My Leica M-3 is also my most serviced and repaired camera. I think the Nikon-F is built as well as a Leica.True the "Photomic-head" is doubtful and cannot be repaired.It did last longer than the crummy cds-meter supplied with my M-3.When I complained, I was told Leica had'nt made it(Metrawatt).Sadly it was priced by Leica. After sales service? way better at The Japanese in my old home country. Size of prints.I have had many prints made to 4'x 6'(feet).Here the Leica was simply outstanding. In order to achieve what is really easy for larger formats,6x6;6x7:6x9:4x5" one has to take certain effective procedures.A tripod often! Care with apertures and depth of field.Remove filters for large prints.Filter your chemicals.Make sure the darkroom is clean and not prone to static dust.

The beauty for me about the Leica is how little gear I need for a photo-shoot! One or at most two lenses.The 50mm my favorite followed by the 35mm.I do use teles, the 135mm.I preferred the 90mm.Sadly someone else wanted it quite desperately! The thief won!

Enough now! Get out there and take photos.

[Allen Herbert]

Get out there and take photos.

 

What a good idea. And post some so we can all share.

[peter_white2]

The same procedures that make it possible to get good results with prints larger than 5x7 with a Leica also make it possible to make good prints in even larger sizes from 6x9 film and then again from 4x5 and 8x10 film. To suggest that a Leica can somehow magically make up for all that missing film surface is a pathetic joke. And anyone suggesting that a Leica can somehow equal the results from medium format or larger has either never seen a medium format negative or wasn't paying attention when he did.

 

Let's get real, people.

[Troll]

I think you're in the wrong forum. you want LUG.

[skeeter]

it's spelled ophthalmologist

[andrew_hall1]

>I think you're in the wrong forum. you want LUG.

 

I thought so too, but this is fast becoming LUG2.

[hil3]

Different take:

 

I bought a Leica because I could afford it. I made my kit choices (after the decision to buy Leica was made), in large part due to the collective wisdom of this forum. Owning Leicas (for 4 years now) has kept me here looking at other people's work and reading opinions and techniques and visiting other photography sites. I have become more interested in photography and sought to improve my work in large part because of the quality of some of the work I see here and on other photo.net forums.

 

I've become a lot better at framing, exposure, developing, scanning, using PS, and printing, also. Have I achieved my best work yet? I hope that is never true. Is it because of the Leicas? Maybe, maybe not.

 

Do I use the stuff at the highest potential? No way. I like 35mm because it is portable. Can't stand tripods. I wanted a compact, mechanical rangefinder that would work as well as possible hand-held. No medium format or large format for me. I don't have those aspirations.

 

So I guess this is a thank you of sorts to all of you lurkers out there.

[al_kaplan1]

With the M bodies? The older screw mount bodies? Reliability has been my number one reason for choosing them. I still regularly use an 85/2 Nikkor, and would most likely still be using a 19/3.5 Canon if it hadn't been stolen. So my 90/2.8 Elmarit sees little use, and my 21/3.4 Super Angulon? That's a Schneider design, not Leitz.

[billsr]

With all due respect to the resolving power of Leica optics, my old twinlens with 120 film will consistently produce sharper, bigger, eye popping prints than my Leica or any other 35mm rig. In spite of this, I just love my Leica and it has nothing to do with my reproductive prowess! ;^) Best regards, Bill

[al_kaplan1]

No argument there, Bill. I still have a couple of TLR's plus a Veriwide 100. Nothing beats a larger negative!

[rj]

"So, question: How many of you Leica users honestly feel they have taken the Leica perfection to its highest, or near highest, level. Have you really seen the difference?"

 

I don't know how to answer the first question. My leica has been a pretty good camera that I tend to take with me and I shoot with it. What is perfection and what is the highest level? I have already taken some pretty good shots with my leica simply because I like to shoot with it and I seem to work well with rangfinders. This whole idea of perfection in photography is such a wasted time suck. Make due with the tools you have and shoot what you want.

 

Leica aint no large format camera and I have never seen a 35mm negative rival a contact print nor a traditional print from a large format camera. I shoot 4x5, 645 and 35mm and I can always tell the difference with enlargements from each format, no matter what camera make I was using. The difference isn't print size related, but rather tone related. The smaller the negative, the transitions from tones becomes more abrupt and blockier(for lack of better terms).

 

Just an afterthought: owning and using a leica shouldn't mean I have to justify some theoretical limit of perfection and every shot has to scream "shot with a leica." If a leica owner never pushed the envelope on your perfecton scale, why is that a terrible thing and why should he or she have to answer to all these accusations of "leica poser?" Seriously, if you want to be a perfectionist in imagine, sit the darn camera on a tripod and use a cable release, don't forget the lens hood and the asa 50 film.

[__jon__]

>>Andrew Hall , mar 05, 2005; 09:24 p.m.

 

>I think you're in the wrong forum. you want LUG.

 

>>I thought so too, but this is fast becoming LUG2.

 

Try the forum on Leica's website--makes the LUG seem reasonable.

[jim_a]

>>How many of you actually know, first hand, the difference between the Leica and the rest?<<<P>

 

I can say I do. <P>

 

About twenty years ago I was taking a documentary photo class in college. At the time I was using Nikons with a 24/2.8 and 35/2 Nikkor lenses on the wide end. I managed to save enough money to buy a Leica M2 and a new 35/2 Summicron. I think I paid around $700 for that lens and still vividly remember opening the box for the first time and thinking, "Gee, that was a lot of money for a TINY lens!"

<P>

The first few weeks of my project I carried the M2 with 35 and my Nikon F2A with the 24. When I finally souped and printing 11x14's from the first few weeks I was amazed at how much sharper the prints were from the Leica lens. The Nikon images looked OK but when you put them up against the Nikkors there was no contest.

<P>

Here are two images from that first lens that convinced me Leica glass truly was better than the Nikkors in my bag. It may be hard to tell from these web images, but here they are...

<P>

<a href="http://www.jimarnold.net/galleries/short_north/pages/playing_pool.htm">This image was made with the Nikkor 24</a>. I was

disappointed at how soft the image was around the edges. It was shot wide open. In contrast I made

<a href="http://www.jimarnold.net/galleries/short_north/pages/telling_the_untold.htm">this image with the 35 Summicron</a> wide open. I remember being amazed at how sharp this image was, even in that tiny sign on the wall in the lower right portion of the image, the words were sharp and readable.

<P>

Apples to Apples...

[el_fang]

<i>"I am aware of its technical capacity to record an incredible amount of image detail on a tiny scrap of plastic. This detail, in turn, can enable a photographer to make astoundingly detailed large prints, often the equivalent of larger film formats and cameras."</i>

<p>This kind of ignorance just continues to amaze me. "Often the equivalent of larger film formats and cameras"? Give me a break.

<p><i>"Have you really seen the difference? Have you used enlarging lenses, or scanners, or professional printers, in a way that makes the Leica negative really show its stuff?"</i>

<p>Between the latest generation lenses of equivalent focal length and aperture? Not in 35mm. On the other hand, I easily see a difference between my 6x6 negs and 35mm negs.

[andrew_hall1]

>Apples to Apples...

 

A 24/2.8 SLR lens and a 35/2 rangefinder lens. What exactly were the equivalent specs apart from the film format?