Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,497   Posts: 1,571,466   Online: 1158
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Leica Glass

  1. #11
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Wayne

    If you have any specific questions about Leica stuff, feel free to PM me.
    I've used it to make a living for almost 40 years.

    Don
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  2. #12
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachlan Young
    AFAIK it is the same as the R4 - it was the electronics etc that were different - though there is a story that Leitz bought Minolta zooms, rejected 85% of them, and completely stripped them down and rebuilt them in order that they could be badged 'Made in Germany'.

    Hope this helps,

    Lachlan

    Shame on all of you.

    Leica and Minolta go way back.

    Leica used the chassis and shutter from the XD11, installed a new mirror box, and went from there.

    Some Leica zooms were made by Minolta to Leica specs... like Rollei making Zeiss designs, or Kyocera making Zeiss.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  3. #13
    Lachlan Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    606
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    Leica and Minolta go way back.
    Just out of interest was there ever any 'cross-pollination' between Leitz and Minolta with regard to enlarger lenses - I am specifically thinking of the 50mm f4.5?

    All help much appreciated,

    Lachlan

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Wayne,
    I believe you're talking about the article in Photo Techniques comparing the 16.7 megapixel Canon, the 10 MP Leica DMR and the Olympus 5 MP.
    For those who didn't read it, the Cannon and Leica were almost dead heat, with the Canon being slightly better. The Olympus, at 5MP, was an also ran.

    The best combination of all was the Canon mounted with Leica lenses. (does that mean the DMR was worse than it appeared, saved only by Leica lenses?). Comparison photos were posted showing a much sharper picture with the Canon used with Leica lens instead of the "L" Canon lens.

    Unfortunately, the authors don't mention specific lenses used, though they are pictured with zooms. All their testing seems geared toward resolution as determining the winner.

    I have no axes to grind here as I own some Canon, Leica and Zeiss lenses. The two sharpest lenses I own are a 35mm Summicron ASPH for my Leica M and a 135 f2 "L" lens for my Canon 7NE. They are breathtaking in terms of resolution and contrast.

    However, neither of these lenses have ever made me say "Oh, wow!" the way three of my "softer" lenses have... the 50mm Summilux for the Leica M, the 80mm Summilux for the Leica R, and the 80mm f2 for my Contax 645.

    I think digital photography evaluations over-emphasize resolution as the single most important criterion for picture quality. Anyone with a good portrait lens knows better.
    Take care,
    Tom

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    I currently use some older Leitz M-series lenses. They're excellent. I'm sure I never use them to their full potential.

    I think the "glow" thing is not specific to Leica although I've read that the design philosophy of Leitz was one of the reasons their lenses had a certain look. I have some photos done with old manual focus Nikkors that have that look. A lot of it has to do with the film, developer and printing as much as the lens involved.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,273
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    Wayne,
    I believe you're talking about the article in Photo Techniques comparing the 16.7 megapixel Canon, the 10 MP Leica DMR and the Olympus 5 MP.
    For those who didn't read it, the Cannon and Leica were almost dead heat, with the Canon being slightly better. The Olympus, at 5MP, was an also ran.

    Tom
    Yes this is in kind of response to that article, which btw I posted a thread in the Gray Area Forum about. It is an interesting article to read.

    My question I guess is, if in capable hands does the Leica glass show improvements in prints, and I think that is answered in Helens repsonse when she noted shadow contrast, but I also believe it goes beyond that.

  7. #17
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    Unfortunately, the authors don't mention specific lenses used, though they are pictured with zooms. All their testing seems geared toward resolution as determining the winner.
    Tom,

    In the epilogue (p. 46) where Dubovoy pays more specific attention to comparison of lens quality between the Canon L and Leica R lenses on the same Canon (digital) body, the author takes into account "sharpness", lens abberations, lens distortion, contrast, color saturation, color accuracy, bokeh, and what he calls an "appealing look" that includes a "brilliant, clean" "three dimensionality". So he's going on more than just resolution. He even numbers his points of comparison in the text, at seven.

    He did, however, leave out "a certain je ne sais quoi".

    Lee

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    g'day
    this all very interesting, but what does it benefit to have the 'best' if the photographer cannot 'see' or compose an interesting image
    these differences are so subtle it may be more advantageous to actually go and take images by utilising the available equipment to 'its' best rather than talk up its assets

  9. #19
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath
    g'day
    this all very interesting, but what does it benefit to have the 'best' if the photographer cannot 'see' or compose an interesting image
    these differences are so subtle it may be more advantageous to actually go and take images by utilising the available equipment to 'its' best rather than talk up its assets
    I agree 100% Ray, the equipment don't matter if the eye ain't seeing! that was what I was trying to get at in my post..

    Dave

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath
    g'day
    this all very interesting, but what does it benefit to have the 'best' if the photographer cannot 'see' or compose an interesting image
    these differences are so subtle it may be more advantageous to actually go and take images by utilising the available equipment to 'its' best rather than talk up its assets
    There are many contributing factors that make up a good photograph.

    Wayne's question was specifically about a technical, rather than compositional, aspect of photography. I'm sure Wayne and I and everyone else understand the "seeing" part as the most important requirement. I'm also sure that the people contributing to this thread actually spend lots of time "utilising the available equipment".

    BTW, the differences we're discussing aren't very subtle, at all. They are easily discernable in a 5x7 print.

    Take care,
    Tom

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin