What makes this M stuff so special?

[jed1]

Then I was completely wrong about you too William.

[al_kaplan1]

With more women excercizing and into sports I suspect we'll get used to those arms and shoulders. Check out the Williams sisters of tennis fame! Marc, nice shot! Thanks for sharing it with us.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Hey Buddy Al Feng; The Noctilux of current design ( F1.0 )arrived on the market in 1976; it is an OLD design . My 50mm F1.4 SC Nikkor (mulitcoated) was purchased in 1973; brand new; off a waiting list from Olden Camera. There is only 3 years apart is these two lenses of mine; the NON-multicoated Noctilux has vastly better flare resistance than the muliticoated Nikkor SC lens. 3 years is a way different time span than 30 years; so I guess you now earn the luddites award tonight.<BR><BR><i>"In low light work I have found the M3 to be hand holdable 1 or 2 shutter speeds slower than the SLR's. This is not emotion; but fact.</i>

Unfortunately I have not found this to be true<BR><BR><BR>Im sorry that you have shaky hands; which will mask the true effectiveness of a rangefinder. <BR><BR>Do you shoot guns? <BR><BR>The techniques of shooting guns at targets also crosses over to cameras. <BR><BR>My friend says my muzzle loading pistol "wont hit the broad side of a barn" ; but he ate his words when I hit a tree 150 feet away with it on first shot. It has only a 6 " barrel. <BR><BR>Having been shooting photos for well over 40 years; I find it quite sad the lack of understanding of getting a sharp photo. <BR><BR>Re <i>Unfortunately I have not found this to be true. When you get into the realm of 1/8 and below, it's your own, natural, biological shaking that comes into play - and your natural tremor doesn't go away just because you're using a Leica. It's like a surgeon saying that his hand is steadier with a German-made scalpel - sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? What I will give the M, is that due to lack of finder blackout, I can follow moving subjects better when I'm panning. But please stop perpetuating the myth that the lack of a mirror is such a HUGE factor in determining whether your picture will come out sharp or not. It simply isn't, and it takes only common sense to figure that part out. </i><BR><BR>The above is Al's opinion; in his world; not mine. I have shot too many photos a slow speeds with Leica and Nikon equipment; and at least for ME ; LEICA has a MUCH better success ratio at 1/8 or 1/15 second handheld than Nikon equipment. Shooting accuracy varies better users; one should explore lower shutter speeds; and learn ones limits. As with shooting a gun; this requires some actual practice; it it not a myth; but people do vary in the natural ability to shoot guns and cameras. Instead of argueing about performance one should shoot ONES OWN actual photos at slow speeds; and check ones sharpness. WE did this in the early 1960's at a photo club; it seems real weird that our class of a dozen people could get sharper photos with a leafshutter rangefinders than a slr 40 years ago; and today it is "debunked" as an urban legend.

[fotografz]

Jed,

IMO, it is not paranoid to question the source of any input, good

or bad. To just accept anyones' comments as gospel is to lack

discrimination. It is to say, that your words should be my style. I

look at peoples' comments and weigh them against the

aggregate of what their photographic objectives appear to be.

The only source of that for me here on the web is their work.

If someone like say,Vuk, likes or dislikes one of my images, I

take it to heart, because I know his work and admire his

portrayal of people, especially women.

 

 

From your post and reply, you seem to make surface

judgements of peoples' appearances, like all people should be

portrayed in some fairy tale of your making. I suspect that your

work is based on the princple of "minipulate the moment", where

mine is "record the moment". Both valid approaches, but

inherently different. BTW, I've engaged in both approaches, but

now strive to accomplish the latter as the former is all to

common a wedding approach. The characteristics of the Leica

M is a helpful tool to that end.

 

The woman portrayed in the picture wasn't the point of my post,

but you made it the issue. So, I'll tell you something about her.

She is in fact an athlete, a self-proclaimed "jock" and proud of it.

She swims, bikes, and works out with a trainer. She (unlike you)

is comfortable with her looks, and happens to love this image of

her doing something uncharacteristically feminine. She was as

uncomfortable in that dress as you are with people who do not fit

your seemingly antiquated idea of beauty. It's the 21st century

Jed, get with the program. Not all women aspire to be "Barbie",

nor do they all wish to be portrayed as such. To ignore that is to

be insensitive of them as subjects and to force an artificial ideal

of your own making.

[stephen_jones4]

I can't stop myself from chipping in once more... I think you actually can tell quite a bit from this web scan - that the lens copes very well in difficult lighting situations - where's the halo flare that I've had with a 50 eos? The tones are very smooth, too.

[el_fang]

<i>Hey Al, you ever heard the Lincoln quote about it being easier to attract flies with honey rather than vinegar?</i>

 

<p>No, I'm just surprised that so many people let emotions get in the way of common sense and objectivity. But I can see why. After all, when the equipment cost so much money, and gives no better performance then stuff costing 1/10 as much, there is a psychological need for justification of some kind...

[travis1]

rather than spend time arguing about the need to justify a particular system, why don't we spend more time producing the goods? ;)

 

I guess parties from both sides have made their points. Basically, does it change anything?

 

ANd I am of the opinion that one shoots with what one is comfortable with. And we don't need to stuff our opinions repeatedly down other's throat. If you cannot see the light, then you can't, some others can, why argue? ;)

 

cheers.

[eliot]

Al Feng requests that the discussion be more factual and less emotional. I switched to Leica long ago (high school) and found the imaging qualities of Leica M lenses to special, just a Gestalt, not a fact-based judgement. However, if you want more objective data, you can look at the photodo.com website and compare the MTF curves for the Leica M 50/1.4 Summilux with the 50/1.4 AF-D Nikkor. Both received the same overall rating of 4.2 (which is some kind of generic weighted average that gives undue weight to smaller apertures). But look at the ACTUAL DATA.

 

You can see that at F/1.4 the Leica lens (which datas to the 1960s in design) is SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than the Nikkor at the center and over most of the field. This improved contrast performance ought to translate into better image quality at full aperture. No, all 50s are not equal.

[el_fang]

<i>Hey Buddy Al Feng; The Noctilux of current design ( F1.0 )arrived on the market in 1976; it is an OLD design . My 50mm F1.4 SC Nikkor (mulitcoated) was purchased in 1973; brand new; off a waiting list from Olden Camera. There is only 3 years apart is these two lenses of mine; the NON-multicoated Noctilux has vastly better flare resistance than the muliticoated Nikkor SC lens. 3 years is a way different time span than 30 years; so I guess you now earn the luddites award tonight.</i>

 

<p>Ooops, "buddy", I didn't know your Noctilux is a sample from 1976, my mistake. I was assuming that you had a modern Noctilux with modern multicoatings (I owned one for a while in 1998, and didn't find anything exceptional with it other than f/1 - my $250 AF-D Nikkor 50/1.4 kicked the Noctilux at f/1.4 in both sharpness and flare resistance).

 

<p>By the way, you must let us know where you got your special Noctilux - my sample, built in 1997 with modern multicoatings, flared so badly that I immediately saw why Leica strongly advises against putting a filter in front of it. It is one reason why I sold it and compromised with a 50/1.4M.

 

<p><i>Im sorry that you have shaky hands; which will mask the true effectiveness of a rangefinder.</i>

 

<p>Actually, I don't - I am a successful surgeon, and one of my mainstay procedures is carotid endarterectomy. Believe me, I have steady hands. But I am also human, which I suspect that you think you're not.

 

<p><i>Do you shoot guns? </i>

 

<p>Now I see why you "see" things that don't exist - you definitely have a problem with your eyesight. Go back to my post, squint your eyes, and read it again.

 

<p><i>WE did this in the early 1960's at a photo club; it seems real weird that our class of a dozen people could get sharper photos with a leafshutter rangefinders than a slr 40 years ago; and today it is "debunked" as an urban legend.</i>

 

<p>There is nothing weird about it at all. SLR mirror dampening mechanisms have come a long way in the past 40 years. Anyone with any experience at all will tell you that the so-called "sharpness-killing" mirror vibration occurs on <b>downswing</b>, when the shutter has already opened and closed, rather than the upswing. This is true even with the notoriously rough Leica SLRs, of which I have experience with the R6.2 and R7.

 

<p>Crawl out of your time capsule once in a while and try to keep up.

[squareframe]

Al Feng presents a congent perspective on Leica, this forum, and the posted image. of course, he has the right to express his opinion and seems much more objective than those of you that are clearly exhibiting Leica lust or severly biased by your own investments. the truth is, from this side of the boat, is that the image lacks any endearing qualities. the subject is ashen, uncomfortable, and the lighting detracts from her presence. there are no optical qualities exhibited above and beyond those rendered by most any lens. without comparison, we could easily conjecture that a cheaper lens could do as well or better. and so, having an objective audience suggests that you should strip off your protective Leica-forum armor, and allow others to express their objective observations. otherwise, your gushing and submittal of what is an unremarkably bland image serves no purpose, offers no value, and distills to juvenile chest-beating.

[fotografz]

Another semi-insulting comment from yet another critic with

absolutely no images in his photo.net folder. There is a pattern

here...namely, those who can talk the talk, but don't seem to

walk the walk.

 

Jed, Daniel, what possible reason made you believe that I would

be the slightest bit intrested in your opinion? I did not ask for a

critique of the picture or the person in it. I expressed an opinion

concerning the unique rendering of light using Leica M lenses.

Feel free to disagree with that, as some others have.

 

But rest assured that your opinion of the image itself and the

person in it carries zero weight...especially since, as far as I

know, the photographic approach you subscribe to could simply

be awful...and something to be avoided at all costs rather than

be listened to. We'll never know, since there is nothing to look at

from either of you.

[el_fang]

<i>I can't stop myself from chipping in once more... I think you actually can tell quite a bit from this web scan - that the lens copes very well in difficult lighting situations - where's the halo flare that I've had with a 50 eos? The tones are very smooth, too.</i>

 

<p>You don't know that unless you're shooting your 50 eos in the exact same situation (in the same room, same position as Marc), a.k.a. a controlled experiment. Besides, I would hardly call this a difficult lighting situation. Yes, she's backlit, but if you want difficult, try shooting against the SUN (which most Leica M people probably wouldn't do due to the fear of burning a hole in a $10 shutter curtain that will cost $100 to replace).

[frank_bunnik]

Marc, I know you have the talent for good pictures, the one shown is a nice one and I can understand the girl likes her photo. As I said, to me she lookes a bit male (it's the face, not the arms or shoulder)

 

However, you make a statement about Leica glass. Some people agree and some disagree with you. Why so much anger towards those who disagree?

 

(I am also one who has posted no pictures by the way for the simple reason that I have no scanner. However, my friend has one so I will try to use his some day soon. You are welcome af my exhibition in June, however it is in the Netherlands.)

[gib]

you know what is fascinating is how people wrap themselves in the right to have an opinion and express their hostility, their anger, their lack of skill, their lack of perception particularly in the face of irony, Jed, and Daniel and Al, I dont know what to say to you guys, but Daniel's self portrait is a tugboat which is psychologically interesting and Al has dragged this thread over to an evaluation of Leica Lenses.

 

Marc, and anyone else in here who has common sense, balanced heart, and photographic skill, please remember that in almost cases what the comments say has so much more to do with the person expressing them than the sujbect they are opinioning about.

 

I am finding that this place is a waste of time....photo.net.

 

I suspect that the best thing it can do is devote itself to cat portraits.

 

and what does this say about me....just tired of seeing bs shovelled out as expertise, by those who cant risk putting a photo, which might allows others to pick up the old rusty ax......there's an old saying, critics are the ones who come down off the mountain after the battle and murder the wounded.

 

trying to make a good photo is tougher than most people believe, and this is a pretty great photo.....in my heart I knew those shoulders had to come out of more lengths in a pool than I got hairs on my head.

 

so put up or shut up -

[squareframe]

yes Marc, you didn't solicit commentary from the audience. in fact, you simply posted an image, gushed over your Leica lenses, dismissed the laws of Physics, and then took another toke on your water pipe apparently. I commented because I felt you unfairly criticized someone who simply offered up their objective comments which broke through your pipe dream.

 

if you are going to light-up and post uni-directionally, you should tell your audience that no commentary is desired. otherwise, afford your audience the courtesy of listening to their comments and understand that not everyone took a hit off the pipe.

 

I think it is acceptable to say that your posted image doesn't appear to exhibit the same rendered qualities that you have claimed in your post. I also think you should be more accepting of this, without the need to continually question your audience's credentials or motives when they don't agree with your assessment.

 

pass the pipe ...

[fotografz]

Frank, I do not have a problem with those who disagree about

the glass. Al expressed his opinion and I read it thoughtfully. In

fact, I ended my origional post with saying "maybe it's all just a

matter of taste".

 

That is a different matter than a "no show" spouting off insulting

comments. Common manners wouldn't kill these type of

people. This type of photography may not be their cup of tea, but

to hide behind the "skirt" of the web and stick your tongue out at

people is just about par for the course for "no show" types.

[kevin m.]

Al. A surgeon, eh? Maybe that's why your arguments - and they're not bad arguments! - are delivered with a degree of arrogance and insensitivity to things non-scientific that ultimately renders them ineffective. Maybe the degree of certainty needed to be a good surgeon leaves you with a blind spot for the things science is unable to measure?

 

If you read Marc's question, I think it's pretty clear that what he's asking can't be answered with data from an MTF chart. He says that, for whatever reason, the Leica M and its lenses deliver results he and his clients are happy with and that other cameras aren't able to provide and then asks why that is. I'll bet if you weren't so busy taking the piss you could figure it out in scientific terms, yourself. Perhaps it's something as simple as a combination of small factors that add up to a big difference in image quality: Lens, slightly better + body, easier to hold and quieter + no flash intrusion = better photographs. Or maybe there's another reason? Maybe he can see something you can't.

 

I have a friend who's an audio nut. While watching his house over the holidays a few years back, I swapped out his flashy speaker wires for some lamp cord from Radio Shack just to mess with him. Within minutes upon his return, and without seeing the new wires, he asked me what I had done to his stereo. I couldn't hear the difference, but he could. I have never ribbed him about it since.

[cd thacker]

<I>when the equipment cost so much money, and gives no better performance then stuff costing 1/10 as much, there is a psychological need for justification of some kind...</I> Al Feng<P>

 

Al, let me ask you a question. Actually, several questions.<P>

 

Do you really think - or expect us to believe - that all those legions of people in Japan, Europe, and around the rest of the world (we won't include here the axis of evil countries - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - because we know they are full of evil-doers); that afficionados of the characteristics of Leica lenses - people and groups of people - all around the world, are seeing things? are delusional? And that this mass delusion is the result of their having spent so much money for the gear?<P>

 

And why do they spend so much? Why did you, if the gear "gives no better performance then stuff costing 1/10 as much"? What does it say about a person, that they would freely pay for something <I>ten times more</I> than what it is worth, merely on account of what? social insecurity? status? egregious wastefulness? the need to belong (to what? a group of fools?)?<P>

 

Do you suppose it possible that in fact Leica glass does have distinct characteristics, that those characteristics aid in producing distinctive images, and that this, as much as the name, is what people pay a premium for? And that after many years of use, and much money spent, and some effort expended, you still yourself can't discern those characteristics - and are disatisfied somehow with the images you produce with your lenses? And that as a result, you feel the need to justify what you consider to be your lack of success in this endeavor, by casting aspersions on your gear? (We all know, after all, how important success and excellence are to the rare type who excells at being a surgeon.) That there is indeed, "a psychological need for justification of some kind...," but not perhaps the one you had in mind?

[Tony Rowlett]

<i>"I have a friend who's an audio nut. While watching his house over the holidays a few years back, I swapped out his flashy speaker wires for some lamp cord from Radio Shack just to mess with him. Within minutes upon his return, and without seeing the new wires, he asked me what I had done to his stereo. I couldn't hear the difference, but he could. I have never ribbed him about it since."</i>

<p>

ROTFLMAO!! This is just priceless! Kevin, you made my day.

[Allen Herbert]

we won't include here the axis of evil countries - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - because we know they are full of evil-doers);

 

Can i take the liberty of rephrasing that little statement for you Doug. Full of very nice people,however,run by evil doers); Sorry about that little correction;living in a Democracy i,m allowed free speech. Okay! i know it a cliche statement...but they are allowed as well!. Apart from that minor disagreement, i agree with everything you have just said.

[cd thacker]

Sorry if that was all a bit too personal - and definitely wordy - just got carried away.<P>

 

Speaking of which - and just to be clear, Marc, in case I wasn't earlier - I'd swim laps with your friend any day, if by some miraculous luck (for me) we found ourselves in the same water. I agree with Al - we'll get used to it - those of us who haven't yet.

[bobtodrick]

Hey Marc...I like the image! And I know exactly what you mean about Leica glass. I've owned extensive Nikon and Olympus systems and have been photogaphing for over 25 years and the only glass that equals the shot to shot consistency of quality was the 3.5 Planar on a TLR Rollei. I agree with whomever above made the statement that sometimes people are too quick to dismiss the magical qualites certain lenses have that cannot be measured by an MTF chart. Other lenses have it to be sure, but Leica definitely has a signature that is often wholly its own. As someone else also stated, many people buy Leica because of its prestige and scarcity, but if you think people like Salgado, Gibson, Erwit and scores of others fall into that category...your just plain deluded. As A final aside, I too, when I've posted an image always have a look at the people who comment. Good or bad comments, if the person never post images themselves, the comments are taken with a grain of salt. If the comments are nasty I tend to think the person a gutless half-wit.

[cd thacker]

Me, I'm a witless half-gut.

[el_fang]

<i>Why did you, if the gear "gives no better performance then stuff costing 1/10 as much"? What does it say about a person, that they would freely pay for something ten times more than what it is worth, merely on account of what? social insecurity? status? egregious wastefulness? the need to belong (to what? a group of fools?)?</i>

 

<p>That's actually an excellent point, but I did mention why I like Leicas... I can afford them, and I like using them, when they're not in for repairs. <b>The lenses are also very good, but no better than the best available from any of the major 35mm manufacturers.</b> I like the soft "click" of the rubberized cloth shutter. But hey, at least I'm willing to admit the truth as to why I like Leicas, instead of ascribing some kind of magical quality to them that simply doesn't exist.

 

<p>And, with threads such as these, sometimes I do feel like I belong to a group of fools...

 

<p><i>and are disatisfied somehow with the images you produce with your lenses? And that as a result, you feel the need to justify what you consider to be your lack of success in this endeavor, by casting aspersions on your gear?</i>

 

<p>Now you're reading WAY too far into my comments. I am very satisfied with the images I produce, and with the performance of my lenses, given that they are 35mm format. When I need better and I don't need to be mobile, I pull out the Hassy 503CW with 80/2.8CF, stick the sucker on top of a heavy tripod, and lock that massive mirror up before the shot. Horses for courses. But photographic equipment is photographic equipment, subject to the same laws of physics no matter what the brand. I simply see no reason to get emotional or fanatical about it.

[el_fang]

By the way, if ever there was a discussion that proves Leica users are a bunch of religious fanatics, this has got to be it. And there's even a picture on top to illustrate the point!