What makes this M stuff so special?

[sheridan]

Marc. A nice image from a "fashionably" underrated lens and

focal length.IMO opinion there is nothing wrong with a 50 'Lux.

F1.4 is a working aperture.Low flare,low coma,(none at f2) and

neutral colour rendering are other characteristics.True, it's not an

f1,but this lens doesn't sport the vignetting nor the

bulk.<p>Marc,Your image holds detail well in shadows as well

as in highlights.<p>Years ago when I met Bill Pierce of Nuts &

Bolts fame, he was sporting a 'Lux 50 on his M3. He liked the

lens wide open especially for black & whites.<p>Who knows?

One day the "50" might come back into fashion.

[el_fang]

<i>my take is that the Leica M is way easier to focus in dim lighting;</i>

 

<p>That's IF your subject is static, so that you have the luxury of time to center it on your focusing patch and then recompose. Most of the time my subject is moving. In this case I find my FM2N (with K3 screen installed) MUCH easier to focus than my M6.

 

<p><i> and typically the Leica Glass is great wide open in a special way.</i>

 

<p>Exactly what "special way" is this? I have never seen any consistent difference between good Leica optics and good Nikkors, and I have never met anyone able to describe in objective terms what the "special way" is. Let's stay factual and keep emotions from interfering with objectivity shall we?

 

<p><i>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.</i>

 

<p>30 years? In that case I hope the improvement is due to learning and experience, rather than a "snap your fingers and voila" magical spell that anyone with a decent credit line can purchase.

[travis1]

to quote Marc :"let's just agree to disagree"...shall we ;)

[el_fang]

<i>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.</i>

 

<p>I can say this about my Leica lenses AND my Nikkors. I still don't see what the big deal is.

 

<p><i>You can see that here even on the CRT - so in the actual print it must be really pronounced.</i>

 

<p>Actually, no, I don't see it on the CRT. Looks like a fairly well-balanced scan to me, nothing exceptional.

 

<p><i>I don't get this with, for instance, my Nikkor 24/2.8 AIS - even though that's a great lens.</i>

 

<p>Then you'd better get your lens checked out. There is such a thing as sample-to-sample variation, although I've experienced it rarely with Nikkors, and more with Leicas than I care to mention.

[frank_bunnik]

A nice picture, although my first thought was "taken at a transvestite show". She does look like a male imo.

 

Concerning the difference between Leica and other optics. If you have just paid 2000 US dollar for a "German" lens while the Japanese variant costs about 400 US dollar, then I am sure that you will want to see a difference. And yes, I used a Leica M (M5) but the difference in modern optics was not so big (if there was a difference at all) that it justified paying about 4 times more for the Leica name. My only older lens by the way was a 2.8 90mm (the longer version) from the early 1970's. It was absolutely nothing special, good in sunny weather but it sucked big time during overcast weather.

[chip l.]

Amazing how the power of suggestion is. When I firts looked at the image I saw a lovely candid of a bridesmaid. After the comments I wonder...

 

Either way it is a great image.

 

 

On lens quality. Over the years I have owned Minolta, Canon, Nikon, and now Leica. Before Leica I never saw much of difference in lens quality. As I got older I did, and my Nikon kit had zooms for convience, and primes for quality. Then I saw an image done with one of the Lieca P&S's. There was a depth in the 4x6 that I never saw from even my SLR's. A buddy allowed me to shoot with his M3 and 70 and 80's vintage Leica glass. I saw what many were talking about in terms of the Leica "qualities". I am now hooked. After reading Erwin Puts site, I now understand why. Sharpness and contrast are small parts of the quality of a lens. I now know that it the way that Leica records micro-contrast.

 

In the end it really boils down to what I have told customers when I sold camera gear. I was always asked what the sharpest lens was. I ended up telling them that the sharpest lens depends on what they see in the final image. For those of us that moved to Leica for the glass, we see the differnce. And even if those that see or buy our images can't, we know that there is something special there.

 

Happy snaps

 

Chip

[kelly_flanigan1]

Al; I use the sports series G screens for rapid focusing with my F and F2. The Noctilux at F1.4 has ALOT less flare than my Auto Nikkor SC 50mm F1.4; which is multicoated. This is not emotion; but the result of the Germans selectively coating each element to make a flare-resistant lens. 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 have shot enough resolution test charts; and actual real life photos; and like the superior light light ability of the Leica products. I usually dont shoot much photos at F1.0 and 1/15 second of moving objects. This would be like using my Nikon stuff at 1/8 second @F1.4; which is real real dicey at best. A series of shots with my Leica/Noct versus Nikon/50mm F1.4 ; at the shutter speeds mentioned above is clearly a no contest. There is an order of magnitude more clearer/sharper/better shots witht he Leica/Noct combo. When the smaller Nikon FM series came out in response to the "small SLR camera trend started by the Olympus OM-1" ; it was first viewed as a sub Nikon camera; ie like a Nikkormat. The screen changing procedure was not liked at first by many pros. My friends FM jammed alot; one was always being repaired. With the initial FM growing pains all forgotten; it is good to see the FM has a good following. The FM might be more hand-holdable at slow shutter speeds than my F/F2 or Nikkormats; I never used them much because the lack of specialized sports screens; and other reasons; reliablity.

[djphoto]

Marc Williams wrote:

 

"Frankly, when I shoot a wedding my best looking work is ALWAYS from the M. Supplement it with a MF and 2 lenses for the formal stuff...and be done with it."

 

Marc, do you mean you're going to dump your digital cameras and return entirely to film photography for weddings?

[christopher_a._junker]

Nice picture. Weddings are tough because there always seems to be a lot going on and you want to capture it all. Male or female is irrelevant IMO, but I'd like to see some other images if Marc shot more than one of this subject. The last wedding I shot resulted in a high percentage of rejects due to lighting problems, but certain ones with a 50 Lux @ 1.4 on Fuji 400 had a glow that weren't on anything else I saw in the pro's album. I am curious as to how many weddings Marc shoots in B/W, or is it just for the candids.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

Marc.

 

I see <b>precisely</b> what you mean, even in that tiny JPEG.

[fotografz]

Dave, I've been seriously considering moving back to more film

simply because I am tired of processing hundreds of digital

wedding images myself. I'll continue shooting MF digital

because the Kodak Proback software is so good and easy to

use, and the quanity of images at that format are more

managable.

[jay_.]

You guys must have some really hot women in your stables, if you think this one looks like a guy. Marc, if she's not a he, give me her number, for the next time I'm up in Detroit ;>)

[kevin m.]

Nice shot, Marc. Good detail in the shadows considering the difficult lighting.

 

You normally use a 35/75 Summilux combo, right? Did you find the 28/50 combo gave you better results or was it any easier to work with?

It seems the 28 would be a more flexible focal length indoors, but then you give up a stop to the Summilux 35. Always a compromise!

 

FWIW, I cast my vote with those who say the subject looks a bit man-ish. With those shoulders, I'd bet she lifts weights.

[cd thacker]

My guess is, a lifelong competitive swimmer (if you've never dated a competitive swimmer, you owe it to yourself to get in the pool) - you can tell by the way that feminine fat is structured around those shoulders and lats, and by the muscles in her upper arms. There is sexy . . . and then there is <I>profound</I> - the Eternal Feminine, if you will: in this latter category are found those figures who exude the essence of femininity, but also many characteristics - attitude, physical elements - that are traditionally associated with the male. In other words, such women manifest within their universal Yin, certain aspects of Yang. This probably accounts for the ancient cult of the Great Mother, the White Goddess, and so on. This is the little secret that "feminism" has quite accidentally allowed us to stumble onto. <P>

 

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that the woman in the picture looks, obviously, like a full-on woman - but a particularly appealing one, who manifests something profound and quite beyond herself.<P>

 

Glass-wise, if I saw this in a blind sight test (so to speak), I think I'd know it was taken with a Leica lens.

[cd thacker]

The point made earlier about transexuals stems from the fact that <I>those</I> figures are sometimes doing a burlesque of the Eternal Feminine; when that burlesque is done with sensitivity and an understanding of universal energies, these figures can appear, just like males playing women in certain Japanese theater, as exemplars of the form - even if only from a distance.

[albert knapp md]

A beautiful photograph. I am an M7 user as well and am

impressed that you were able to get the exposure down... Were

you in AE and then recomposed?

[ray .]

Which is greater (and more like quicksand)- the mystique of a woman or the mystique of Leica glass?

 

Frankly, I don't have enough experience comparing Leica and Nikon to really know, but I just made an image shot with a Nikon 24/2.8 that's a mind blower as regards to glow and light. My suspicion is it's the light in the actual scene that makes these shots more than anything else.

[el_fang]

<i>The Noctilux at F1.4 has ALOT less flare than my Auto Nikkor SC 50mm F1.4; which is multicoated.</i>

 

<p>You're comparing a 30 year old lens with a modern one. I suppose it might be news to some luddites that technology DOES change, especially over a span of three decades.

 

<p><i>This is not emotion; but the result of the Germans selectively coating each element to make a flare-resistant lens.</i>

 

<p>So the Japanese don't do this nowadays? I didn't know that - perhaps I am hallucinating when I see green and purple reflections off my Nikkors?

 

<p><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>

 

<p>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.

 

<p><i>and like the superior light light ability of the Leica products. I usually dont shoot much photos at F1.0 and 1/15 second of moving objects. This would be like using my Nikon stuff at 1/8 second @F1.4; which is real real dicey at best.</i>

 

<p>I used to find the 1/8 and below realm dicey as well. I trained for a while in competitive target shooting, and applied what I learned to low-light photography. Now I am equally consistent with both my Nikon and Leica systems. I'm sorry to wake you up to the fact that it's technique, not "magical" German equipment, that translates to better pictures.

 

<p><i>A series of shots with my Leica/Noct versus Nikon/50mm F1.4 ; at the shutter speeds mentioned above is clearly a no contest. There is an order of magnitude more clearer/sharper/better shots witht he Leica/Noct combo.</i>

 

<p>Not surprising... again, you're comparing a 30 year old lens with a modern design. Let's try to be at least semi-fair here and compare apples to oranges instead of apples to bowling balls.

 

<p><i>My friends FM jammed alot; one was always being repaired. With the initial FM growing pains all forgotten; it is good to see the FM has a good following.</i>

 

<p>Sounds like my M6s. Every camera has growing pains, it's the nature of technology. The difference, however, is that Nikon quickly irons them out, while Leica continues to use its customers for QC. I have no doubt that Nikon still makes mistakes (witness the F100 fiasco), but given the volume of sales, it's nowhere near the bad reputation that Leica has. In fact, my FM2Ns, all four of them, have never given me a single problem, true to their legendary reputation for reliability. On the other hand, I've had at least one problem with every Leica body I've ever owned (2 R6.2s, 1 R7, 4 M6s) ranging from jammed wind levers and disconnected mirrors to complete DOA, new in box. The ONLY problem-free Leica body I've owned was an M2, but I only had it for 6 months. And I work my Nikons a LOT harder than my Leicas, shooting my FM2Ns every day.

 

<p>The reasons why I continue to use Leicas are because I can afford them, they're fun, they give me results as good as my Nikons, and they're QUIET, which sometimes that counts for something (and at least it can be objectively measured and compared). But when I have to get a picture to put bread on the table, I haul out my FM2Ns... I don't trust my Leicas. That said, I think they both make wonderful pictures, assuming I'm working properly, and in my past going-on-5-years of experience with shooting them side-by-side, I can't say with any honesty that one is any better than the other in terms of results.

 

<p>The realization that I have arrived at, which is understandably difficult for most people to accept, is that the biggest limitation is ME. It takes good ol' hard work to improve your photography, which is unforunately not as easy as throwing money at equipment.

[el_fang]

<i>My suspicion is it's the light in the actual scene that makes these shots more than anything else.</i>

<p><b>BINGO.</b>

[kevin m.]

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

[stephen_jones4]

Marc,

Thanks for this post. It needs courage to say these things with so many people determined to ridicule anyone who values or even recognises these subtle differences. I shot a wedding half eos and half leica m a while ago, and the differencees in the rendition of light were very clear to me (the purchasers of the pics probably didn't notice). Anyway, good for you for trying to stand up to the knockers.

It's all in the last 5% as my leica colleague says. Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it when most people would be happy with a d30 and 28-90 image (printed at 200dpi on an old Epson)... still, it makes me happy.

[stephen_jones4]

BTW, I thought the top image was very nice, and obviously of a very pretty girl. I wonder what could motivate anyone to say otherwise? Maybe a monitor that is out of focus? A pair of glasses that need replacing? Ho ho.

[jed1]

> 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.

 

That's because I don't regularly frequent photo.net. Frankly, my original comments have completely nothing to do with my photographic ability. I only urged you to be objective, and specifically said that I was NOT claiming that you were imagining things.

 

I also point out that there is nothing to be seen in a 500pixel JPEG. Anybody care to deny that?

 

Third, I point out that she has been rendered to look like a he. This has nothing to do with looking like a movie star, but it's down to the photographer having portrayed the subject in an unflattering manner. I am not criticising the lack of beauty of the subject, but that the photograph did not portray the subject in a flattering manner. Was I imagining this? Certainly the people I spoke to agreed with my impression, and other comments here have backed this up. I'm sorry if this puts you in difficulty for having been the photographer, but as I've already pointed out, other people have expressed the same view.

 

So why call my photography into question?

 

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

 

Compared to what I posted, and in light of William Gibson's comments, you call ME insulting? Excuse me?

 

I'm sorry for trying to ask people to be objective. In no way at all in my original post did I rubbish Leica. I point out TWICE (at least) that I am not discrediting Leica, and merely saying that this 500 pixel JPEG isn't the best judge of how good Leica can be.

 

Like I said in the original post that I have, as expected, since been slimed for, I'm glad you've found something you enjoy shooting with and good for you. I didn't at any stage try to look for other pictures you've taken to see if you knew what you were talking about (this is the only picture of yours I've ever seen to the best of my knowledge anyway). I don't see the need for that, and someone who does that is just being paranoid.

 

Yes I agree with the person who said you were brave to post this in the face of the naysayers. So someone spare a thought for the poor guy who disagreed with you and felt the wrath of the legions of Leica fans. And I didn't even disagree (go on, tell me how I did) just merely that you couldn't tell either way from a 500 pixel JPEG.

 

Let's do a reality check guys, there really isn't a need to get defensive when there's nothing to defend against.

[gib]

I was completely wrong about you Jed

[ray .]

Jed, you have a right to your opinion like anyone else, and I don't believe you offered it in any way but with honesty. However, if you don't know the subject and have never seen her or other pictures of her, how would you know Marc hasn't rendered her in a flattering way? On top of which we have a number of guys here virtually lusting after her, quite opposite to your assessment. Being a photographer or a good photographer might not be a prerequisite for offering a critique, but it sure doesn't hurt. That you're an infrequent visitor here doesn't prevent you from posting some pics. If you're going to throw at people the least you can do is step up to the plate and take a look at some pitches yourself.