erin.e Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 syuyi honda, Thats not taken with a Leica lens the quality is way too inferior. From the Su****** hint you give, any serious Leica devote can plainly deduce that the lens used is indeed the very poor quality japanese leica clone the Sucimoto f2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Mine was taken with a Nikon FM2, 50mm F1.4 lens with Tri-X film, so yes, an SLR :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syuji_honda Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 I just got back home from work. Thank you everybody for overwhelming response. I'm sorry for making some people very angry, upset and disgusted. Les Lammers and Trevor Hare got it right. Those are taken with Sumarrit 40mm f/2.4 at f/2.4 on Provia 100. I just got the scanner yesterday. Those are scanned by Nikon Coolscan V ED, "saved for web" on Photoshop, but no color/contrast correction or filtering. This is my first Leica camera and I think it's well worth the $899 price. Trevor's photos shows true potential of this camera. I thought Andy's photo was taken by digital camera because I thought the image is a little bit flat although it's a very nice shot. I think Leica lenses have great clarity and contrast, photos look more dynammic and real than other lenses. That's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syuji_honda Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 I forgot to mention. It's a LEICA CM point&shoot camera w/40mm Sumarrit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syuji_honda Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 Correction. SUMMARIT not Sumarrit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Well, that was humbling. Listen to me: "flattened perspective, must be a longer lens." Right. A 40mm. Let's have more tests like this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syuji_honda Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 To Rob F., I agree with your original response totally. "As much as we fuss about the virtues of our lenses, ad the differences among their signatures, it seems paradoxical that some folks get upset when asked to recognize any of them. It seems like a good exercise in sharpening our knowledge and observation skills." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Brad's response is a real gas. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Syuji, any flatness in my photo is most likely down to the way I processed it in PS (or didn't;-). The darkroom print I have of it isn't too flat, IMO. Cheers, A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Syuja, enjoy your camera and scanner. I agree, Trevor's cathedral shot is about as sharp and detailed as anything I have seen on the web from 35mm. Must be a very good lens, but the image has also obviously been nicely processed in camera, chemically and in computer too. Cheers, A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dolgachov Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 the more tests i'll take the more times i'll fail - i'm pretty sure about it. these two picture were pretty easy to guess, but i'm not an "eagle eye cherry" ;] as i said i can almost always see it the picture was shot by RF or SLR as well as 3Mb digicanons vs film leicas images have quite clear difference. all of this in my personal case mainly applies to people shots as long as i shoot people on the streets and got used to see the difference. if i have seen no difference i'd shoot with my old EOS 20D+50/1.4USM now but as long as i tried RF cameras, even Fed-3+Industar61, and then M3+cron'50, my 20D just collected the dust in the corner. a week ago i took 20D and gave it a try on the streets again. just after a break, to be objective. and again pictures have nothing in common with RF for my eye. so i just sold 20D and will continue with M3 only. i do not insist on my opinion applying to everyone, but for me the difference is quite clear, Gentlemen. it's hard to describe, but the pictures are just different. and remember - when i say "different" it doesn't mean "better". 99.9% is no 100% of good picture is always the shooter, not camera. if you have a talent you can shoot with buit-it phone camera. if you can't shoot good pictures - no leica or hasselblad would save you. as we all here no doubt know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_johnson Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 -o(OOO)o- It really is striking how well the high quality glass in Leica lens elements can resolve the very finest detail in resolution. Both this quality of equipment and the aesthetic skills of a true artist are required to capture the fundamental essence that lies within the subject. Very very few people could ever hope to portray the rubbish or trash in this special way. All the best with your photography journey ;) -o(OOO)o- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now