Now a Believer!

[paul_darman1]

After 34 years of SLR photography, I finally decided to try Leica. Most of my

images now are of my 2-year old son and wife of 13 years, environmental

portraiture. So after reading lots of posts and varied info, thought we'd try

available light with an M6 and 50mm Summicron f2.0 I ran the first roll

through this week.

 

I was absolutely blown away with the image quality. I posted one, "Jackson

Waking" in my workspace, though the 72dpi web saved jpg does not do it full

justice, needless to say. The original print has more contrast and vivid color

then I'd ever seen in an available light image. (The posted image was taken at

15/th of a second at f2.0, with Fuji 400 Press Color Negative). The detail in

his face and the other in focus areas was unbelievable. I have been a skeptic

for many years, and was kind of skeptical even up to getting the prints back

yesterday. But after just one roll and limited experimentation, I am duly

impressed with the on-film performance.

 

I also picked up a 90mm f2 Asph last week, and will experiment with that this

week if we have some nice light here in the Shenandoah Valley.

 

Will I trade in my other cameras? No. Jackson will be in school plays and

play sports and other child stuff as he grows up, and I will still have my

180mm 2.8 Nikkor AIS or 200m Minolta APO AF in hand for those events. For

trips to the Clarke County fair and exposure to cotton candy, ice cream, or

doggie spit other cameras will assume those risks. But there IS something to

this Leica thing. My wife saw it immediately as well.<div></div>

[el_fang]

Before you join the ranks of the Leica Fundamentalist Movement, be sure to do a comparison with the same exact picture situation and the same film. You'll find that there isn't much difference between the $900 50/2 Summicron and any given <$100 50/1.8 lens of recent vintage from any manufacturer. Also, take the lab out of the equation: shoot slide film. Print film is hit-or-miss, even at the same lab, and Fuji Press 400 in particular is known for its contrast and color saturation. It also scans very well - so I think you should be able to make a FAR better scan than the one you posted.

[robert meier]

Oh, but there is a difference. This was shot with a 50/2 Summicron.<div></div>

[el_fang]

Here's a thread that shows what a scan from Press/Superia 400 should look like:

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007RHh" target="_blank">first week with a rangefinder (56k be warned)</a>

 

<p>The Nokton in particular is a very nice lens. I purchased one to replace my unimpressive 50/1.4-M Summilux (current) which I owned briefly after a few years of experience with the current 50/2-M Summicron (both built-in hood version and "penultimate" tabbed version). The Nokton gives the sharp look of the Summicron-M but it's almost a stop faster and a third the price. Nice used examples of the Nokton go for around $275 or so, a bargain IMO.

[Spearhead]

From what I can see, the first photo shows that you can get a soft image with any lens. The second shows that it's possible to expose or print poorly with any lens, with severe hot spots. Nothing shows any "magical" qualities about the lens in either shot. This isn't a comment on the content of the shots, btw.

 

It's necessary to either have lots of experience with a variety of lenses and an extended period of time with a specific lens, always using the same taking and processing conditions, or highly controlled testing, which takes a fair amount of time and knowledge.

 

In my experience, based on a number of shows of my work (printed identically, I might add, regardless of camera), many people can immediately tell the difference between 35mm and medium format, but no-one has ever commented on the difference between 35mm lenses. I've even shown prints made with a Leica lens next to prints made with a $50 fixed lens rangefinder and never had a comment.

[h._p.]

I do so hate to agree with Al of all people <grin> but he is absolutely right in this case. There may, and I stress 'may', be a qualitative difference between Leica lenses and those from Nikon or Canon, say, but I rather think you'd need a tripod, very slow film and a very big enlargement indeed to see it.

 

What the Leica as a whole does is to affect the way you take pictures, compared with a SLR. I find I use lower shutter speeds and wider apertures for some subjects because the design of the camera encourages that. I also find that the Leica encourages me to take more spontaneous shots than I would with a SLR. The direct viewfinder in particular makes me more aware of the subject than my SLR viewfinders. With the Leica, I look at the scene, not the composition.

 

I'm afraid that people who have spent a lot of money on these things may be inclined to eulogise because they feel they have to justify the purchase. In my psychology course, we learned to call this 'cognitive disonance', a fancy term for self justification. But why bother? Leicas are nice toys, enjoy....<div></div>

[Spearhead]

<i>may be inclined to eulogise because they feel they have to justify the purchase. </i><p>

 

Are you sure that's what you mean? "proselytize" seems like it would work better in this case.

[b30307]

Ditch the Nikon and especially the Minolta. If you can afford the M6, you can afford to

shoot w/ it all the time. Besides, eventually you'll get tired of toting those " tanks" once

you get use to your rangefinder. OR, ... you can try the poor boy route...... I'm a camera

salesman @ athe last Mom & Pop shop in Atlanta, GA. I can't afford Leica's myself, ( tho'

I've shot w/ many), - so I bought a Voigtlander Bessa R, $250. I've also got a Leitz

Summmaron 35 f/3.5 w/ correct FOOKH lens hood, ($200), - a late 1950's Nikkor H-C

50mm w/ homemade metal hood, ($85) and a early 50's Leitz Elmar 90mm f/4 w/ FIKUS

hood, ($150). The Voigtlander has framelines for all three lenses. It has a very similar

meter, a viewfinder of equal brightness, (very !) and a solid, modern Japanese shutter.

The Bessa is not as quiet as your M6, nor does it have the build quality - but it's the equal

or better of your Nikon, and better than any Minolta. BTW, they also make a deluxe

model, - the Bessa R2; which has the Leica M mount instead of Leica screw mount. Have

fun.

[keith_merrill]

Congrats on the leica Paul and more to the point, congrats on liking it so much. I too have recently started shooting a leica along with shooting a pentax slr outfit and can tell the difference with the leica shots. I can't say its a jump in quality, one being the better lens all around, but I can see a different look. The leica lens (a 50mm collapsible cron) shows a soft glow around highlights that my pentax 50f1.7 does not have. I think the pentax is the sharper of the two, but I do like the cron look, I find it makes people look a bit better, kind of softening them up a bit.

 

I didn't spend a whole lot of money on my m3 with this lens, mostly because the pawn shop had no idea what he had, and in hindsight, I would spend a bit more if it came down to it. Its a whole different kind of shooting and the camera is much more inconspicuous when I am shooting the M3. The noise of my MX mirror slapping does have people noticing me, but with the m3, most times people can't hear it going off. I do agree with Jeff though, if you want a significant jump in image quality, shoot medium format. There is no substitute for a larger neg. In car speak this would equate to "there is no replacement for displacement."

[grant_.]

the pix above make me believe you paid way too much for a camera....

[james_.1]

NAY I SAY NAYYYYYYYY!!!!!! LISTEN TO ME! YOU'RE WRONG AND I'LL TELL YOU WHYYYYYYYYYY!!!! ; )

[hans_beckert]

What took you so long? I have owned Leica since I was 21!

[__jon__]

>Jeff Spirer (www.spirer.com) Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, feb 22, 2004; 02:17 p.m.

 

>Are you sure that's what you mean? "proselytize" seems like it would work better in this case.

 

You will know the answer to that in a couple of years--depending on if Leica can sell high-end digital...

[__jon__]

>grant , feb 22, 2004; 02:27 p.m.

 

>the pix above make me believe you paid way too much for a camera....

 

Great way to encourage a Leica newbie...

[grant_.]

leica newbie...? whats that mean...

[kevin m.]

It's <i>Leica Virgin</i> but not quite as catchy.

[paul_darman1]

I doubt there is any print scan I can perform at 72dpi that can capture the

nuances we're trying to explain. That's the hard part. So no, I did not agonize

over the scan nor manipulate it, it is a pretty fast print scan on a canoscan flat

bed, pure and simple.

 

Harvey, at 47 I am well beyond the need to seek justification from people for

the things I do, except for two people - my wife, and my Dad.

 

Per some of the posters, I did take the lab/film out of equation to a first

approximation, as the roll of film went through a Minolta 7 for 10 shots before

being rewound and put into the Leica. So I have several pictures of my son on

the same roll, ergo processed identically, except shot with f 1.4 Minolta lens,

which has always been good performer in my hands. Nevertheless, in all the

time I have used it, it has never (nor 1.4 Nikkor AIS) matched what we saw on

the prints yesterday. And my wife is an accomplished image specialist, retired

from Federal Service, who certainly knows her way around image scanning

and image analysis. She saw it too, BTW.

 

I have put a roll of Ektachrome VS in the M6 and will shoot half of it in the M6

with the 90mm f2, then rewind it and put it in FE2 to compare against 85mm f2

AIS nikkor, and finally rewind and shoot the last few frames on Canon A1 so I

can use 85mm 1.8 FD (breech lock) also one of my top performers. Hopefully

in a week or so we will have some film scans to send up of all three lenses off

the same film/developer.

 

I know people can be die hard supporters/detractors of one brand over

another, so I do not get into those threads. I am pleased with the Minolta

glass, going back to Rokkor-X MD days, and have specimens in Canon FD,

Nikon AIS, and Olympus Zuiko (100mm f 2.8) that all give outstanding results.

 

But I was very impressed with round 1 for the 50mm f2, as something

markedly better then what I've used before - and we have some nice glass

here.

[kevin m.]

"You'll find that there isn't much difference between the $900

50/2 Summicron and any given <$100 50/1.8 lens of recent

vintage from any manufacturer."

 

Sounds like you've joined the ranks of the fundamentalist Leica

bashers. Shooting wide open, the difference between the

Summicron and a Canon EF 50, say, is easily apparent with 400

speed film and a 4x6 print. Whether the difference is one your

eyes can see, or your wallet can afford, is another matter.

[Uhooru]

You won't see the difference on a web scan between your Summacron and most digicams or anything else, unless you have a good scanner, know know how to use it and post process it, you won't get the quality. I do believe you when you say you can see the difference in your actual print. If its as you say, then don't worry about what people say here. Who knows what motivates the arrogance, maybe somebody shat upon their cornflakes this morning.

[grant_.]

the film is the real technology here....most films cant come close to resolving what any lens can really produce......unless were talking 4x5 and up....which is practically a real life contact neg...

<br>

<br>

:D

[ilkka_nissila]

You guys are too hard on Paul. The scan isn't very good, and even if it were good, it wouldn't show the difference. However, well-made glossy 4x6 prints are plenty big enough to tell the difference in image quality of my AF Nikkor f/1.4D at f/1.4 and f/2.8 - at f/1.4 the lens gives very modest sharpness and contrast, and at f/2.8 it gives excellent image quality at that size. I'm sure that the Leica lenses are superior at wide apertures, there certainly is room for that. 35 mm film can easily show the differences in image quality at wide and medium apertures. However, these lenses *at their best apertures* are capable of much more than what typical colour films can render.

 

Of course, the variability of the quality of vision of the observes varies even more than lenses and formats. And those who can't see well (at least the photo.netters) are so afraid to admit it that they have to spend their time bashing the purchase decisions of those that do see.

[stephen_jones4]

I wonder what the point of blind people hanging around a leica forum to slag off beautiful pictures is.

[gee-bug]

Here's a new <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-02-22.shtml">Sunday Morning Photgrapher</a> article on lens quality and ratings.

[stephen_jones4]

"From what I can see, the first photo shows that you can get a soft image with any lens. The second shows that it's possible to expose or print poorly with any lens, with severe hot spots. Nothing shows any "magical" qualities about the lens in either shot. This isn't a comment on the content of the shots, btw."

 

What?! Are you allowed to post to this forum when your high on angry-envy drugs? Isn't this supposed to be a forum for people whose eyes/cortex can appreciate leica lenses? Aren't people getting tired of Nikon/Canon/Mamiya users who hang around a Leica forum solely to piss on our parade?

Should I be hanging around the Cuban Cigar Forum yelling at the membership that cigars taste just like cigarettes? Give me strength...

 

 

Anyway, I think the skin tones on the above iffy scan are beautiful: if nobody else cares about beauty... well... gosh, that makes me really rather cross.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

Paul: In spite of what some of these nay-sayers are telling you, the difference is something you observed first hand and no one can take that from you. It really irritates me to hear folks talk about something they�ve never tried as if they were experts on the subject. My introduction to photography at about 12 years old was with a Leica M3; I've since used Nikon and Leica intermittently over the years. To this day I can view slides through a loupe I tell you which were shot with a Nikon and which were shot with a Leica. The truth is you�ve discovered gold and you�ll never look at film the same way again. Welcome to the Leica family.