carta Posted December 21, 2014 Share #1 Posted December 21, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) i. Foreword Hi everybody - I know that this is a completely random comparison, these cameras are in different realms and is more of an apple-to-orange type juxtaposition. However, I happen to own both and have used both for a while, and just wanted to throw it out there - after all, they are the two top tier cameras from two top-knotch companies. Just simple words of what I think about both. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Can you tell which Camera this was taken by? ii. Size The Canon 1DX is pretty big. Some people say it's huge and weighs a ton, but quite honestly it isn't THAT bad. To be honest, initially I "felt" the Leica M240 to be heavier - I know this sounds strange, but the "denseness" of the camera is different. The 1DX, from its robust looks, screams out "I am a heavy duty camera!" so you kind of expect that - the Leica M240 on the other hand looks innocent and small, but is packed with metal parts. In any case, the Size doesn't really put me off from using the 1DX. When it's dangling from my neck/shoulders, the 1DX and Leica M240 doesn't feel that different. Maybe it's just me, and probably it is just me. The only thing is that I have to carry a backpack to store lenses and what-not when I carry the 1DX around, and with the Leica M maybe just a small shoulderbag will be good enough. However when I am doing serious photography I always carry a tripod around, so in the end I get pretty "geared up" with both cameras. Sometimes I just carry both with different focal lengths. Usually Leica with a wide angle lens, Canon with a standard/zoom for me ii. Sneakiness This is pretty much the same with size, but it's something people talk a lot about the Leica. "The Leica is small and stealthy, it doesn't stand out, great for street photography" I have a friend who has a black-painted Leica M240, a black noctilux, and a ND filter for her street photography. All-black and stealthy, she laughs, but not really sure if she is being serious or just joking around. This is simply my experience - but whether it was in the crowdes streets of Tokyo or the rather unsafe neighborhoods of Uzbekistan, never had I had people stare or point at me for using a 1DX or similar size camera (like a Canon 20D with battery grip). Nor had I met burglars or people trying to tear my camera off from my neck. And (although not as a photographer) my job is to visit rather untidy areas along with PKOs. Maybe I was lucky. Maybe the people around me happened to be super nice people. However, I never really benefited from a "stealthiness" of a camera. In my opinion, people don't really care about you as you think they care about you. Yes, in places where there is guerilla warfare going on, I had to refrain from using my camera or had to black-tape my camera to ensure there were no reflections, but other than that, I don't think people really care if you point a huge 200mm lens at them. Some people say you just want to get the "natural looks" of people who aren't noticing the camera. I guess that is true, but to be honest, a good photographer should be able to know the appropriate timing to point a camera at somebody so that he/she isn't surprised. Again, maybe I was just lucky in the past. iii. Easiness The 1DX is, in my opinion, the greatest point-and-shoot camera. No, honestly, you don't need to think. Just set it to Av or Tv or whatever you want, point, autofocus, click. You have an image. I have been using the rangefinder focusing for quite some time, but I still find AF easier, even in the dark or those hard situations. I have met people who said they can manual focus faster than the ultrasonic motor of the DSLRs, but quite frankly I doubt it. Yes, maybe a while ago, but these days AF lenses are FAST. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely LOVE rangefinder focusing. Hell, that is why I use my Leica M240 more than my 1DX - because I "enjoy" the process of photography. However, when I am in a situation where I absolutely "need" an image - I go with my 1DX. Maybe not for the more artistic senses, but it gets the job done. Also the added grip of the 1DX allows for easier portrait-orientation photos. iv. Image Quality I don't count pixels, I honestly think even 5 megapixels is enough when I only print regular post-card sized photos. Don't want to debate that here, but (apart from those signature Leica Lens looks) I sometimes can't remember whether I took this one by a Leica or a Canon. Call me blind or stupid or whatever, but in my opinion they both do a great job at taking clean, nice photos, and that's really what I care about. Yes, if you pay attention the color rendition from each is different, most major camera companies have a distinct "look" to their photos. But I think (my opinion, really) that is only if you pay attention. I take my photos and show them/sell them to people who don't really care what camera I took it with. All they care is whether the picture is nice and pretty and what-not. That is my goal - to provide my customers what they want. When you screw with colors, it becomes hard to tell which was taken by which. v. Conclusion Yes, this was a silly comparision. You might have thought I was dissing Leica the whole time. I however, still use the Leica M240 more than my Canon 1DX. It is because I enjoy the process it takes to get a photo in the M240. I like the rangefinder. I like the focus tabs. I like the framelines. I like the split-image. I like the shutter sound. It's all about "like" and not about "what is better" here. Honestly, if I were to suggest a camera to a person who simply needs good photos, but hates photography, I will suggest a DSLR. It's easier, straightforward, affordable, and available everywhere. I know a guy who drives a Ferrari, but he lives in Tokyo where everybody uses public transportations and bicycles and the streets are really narrow. He uses it to go to his nearby convenience store, 5 minutes away. I asked him: "Why in the world are you driving a Ferrari if the max you can drive it is at 30mph?" He answered: "Well, I like Ferraris. They look cool, they sound cool, I love its engine, I love its controls, and well, it's a Ferrari." I thought he was a complete idiot, but then again, once I really look at myself, I might be an idiot using a fully manual camera in 2014. Come on, you have all this technology lying aroound, and why in the world will you use a more painstaking process? I guess my answer will be "I like Leicas. It's a Leica." 10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Can you tell which Camera this was taken by? ii. Size The Canon 1DX is pretty big. Some people say it's huge and weighs a ton, but quite honestly it isn't THAT bad. To be honest, initially I "felt" the Leica M240 to be heavier - I know this sounds strange, but the "denseness" of the camera is different. The 1DX, from its robust looks, screams out "I am a heavy duty camera!" so you kind of expect that - the Leica M240 on the other hand looks innocent and small, but is packed with metal parts. In any case, the Size doesn't really put me off from using the 1DX. When it's dangling from my neck/shoulders, the 1DX and Leica M240 doesn't feel that different. Maybe it's just me, and probably it is just me. The only thing is that I have to carry a backpack to store lenses and what-not when I carry the 1DX around, and with the Leica M maybe just a small shoulderbag will be good enough. However when I am doing serious photography I always carry a tripod around, so in the end I get pretty "geared up" with both cameras. Sometimes I just carry both with different focal lengths. Usually Leica with a wide angle lens, Canon with a standard/zoom for me ii. Sneakiness This is pretty much the same with size, but it's something people talk a lot about the Leica. "The Leica is small and stealthy, it doesn't stand out, great for street photography" I have a friend who has a black-painted Leica M240, a black noctilux, and a ND filter for her street photography. All-black and stealthy, she laughs, but not really sure if she is being serious or just joking around. This is simply my experience - but whether it was in the crowdes streets of Tokyo or the rather unsafe neighborhoods of Uzbekistan, never had I had people stare or point at me for using a 1DX or similar size camera (like a Canon 20D with battery grip). Nor had I met burglars or people trying to tear my camera off from my neck. And (although not as a photographer) my job is to visit rather untidy areas along with PKOs. Maybe I was lucky. Maybe the people around me happened to be super nice people. However, I never really benefited from a "stealthiness" of a camera. In my opinion, people don't really care about you as you think they care about you. Yes, in places where there is guerilla warfare going on, I had to refrain from using my camera or had to black-tape my camera to ensure there were no reflections, but other than that, I don't think people really care if you point a huge 200mm lens at them. Some people say you just want to get the "natural looks" of people who aren't noticing the camera. I guess that is true, but to be honest, a good photographer should be able to know the appropriate timing to point a camera at somebody so that he/she isn't surprised. Again, maybe I was just lucky in the past. iii. Easiness The 1DX is, in my opinion, the greatest point-and-shoot camera. No, honestly, you don't need to think. Just set it to Av or Tv or whatever you want, point, autofocus, click. You have an image. I have been using the rangefinder focusing for quite some time, but I still find AF easier, even in the dark or those hard situations. I have met people who said they can manual focus faster than the ultrasonic motor of the DSLRs, but quite frankly I doubt it. Yes, maybe a while ago, but these days AF lenses are FAST. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely LOVE rangefinder focusing. Hell, that is why I use my Leica M240 more than my 1DX - because I "enjoy" the process of photography. However, when I am in a situation where I absolutely "need" an image - I go with my 1DX. Maybe not for the more artistic senses, but it gets the job done. Also the added grip of the 1DX allows for easier portrait-orientation photos. iv. Image Quality I don't count pixels, I honestly think even 5 megapixels is enough when I only print regular post-card sized photos. Don't want to debate that here, but (apart from those signature Leica Lens looks) I sometimes can't remember whether I took this one by a Leica or a Canon. Call me blind or stupid or whatever, but in my opinion they both do a great job at taking clean, nice photos, and that's really what I care about. Yes, if you pay attention the color rendition from each is different, most major camera companies have a distinct "look" to their photos. But I think (my opinion, really) that is only if you pay attention. I take my photos and show them/sell them to people who don't really care what camera I took it with. All they care is whether the picture is nice and pretty and what-not. That is my goal - to provide my customers what they want. When you screw with colors, it becomes hard to tell which was taken by which. v. Conclusion Yes, this was a silly comparision. You might have thought I was dissing Leica the whole time. I however, still use the Leica M240 more than my Canon 1DX. It is because I enjoy the process it takes to get a photo in the M240. I like the rangefinder. I like the focus tabs. I like the framelines. I like the split-image. I like the shutter sound. It's all about "like" and not about "what is better" here. Honestly, if I were to suggest a camera to a person who simply needs good photos, but hates photography, I will suggest a DSLR. It's easier, straightforward, affordable, and available everywhere. I know a guy who drives a Ferrari, but he lives in Tokyo where everybody uses public transportations and bicycles and the streets are really narrow. He uses it to go to his nearby convenience store, 5 minutes away. I asked him: "Why in the world are you driving a Ferrari if the max you can drive it is at 30mph?" He answered: "Well, I like Ferraris. They look cool, they sound cool, I love its engine, I love its controls, and well, it's a Ferrari." I thought he was a complete idiot, but then again, once I really look at myself, I might be an idiot using a fully manual camera in 2014. Come on, you have all this technology lying aroound, and why in the world will you use a more painstaking process? I guess my answer will be "I like Leicas. It's a Leica." ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/238758-leica-m240-vs-canon-1dx-a-silly-review-from-certain-angles/?do=findComment&comment=2732262'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Hi carta, Take a look here Leica M240 vs Canon 1DX - A Silly Review from Certain Angles. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CheshireCat Posted December 21, 2014 Share #2 Posted December 21, 2014 "Nor had I met burglars or people trying to tear my camera off from my neck." Hard to run fast with the weight of the 1Dx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 21, 2014 Share #3 Posted December 21, 2014 i. Come on, you have all this technology lying aroound, and why in the world will you use a more painstaking process? I really like your post. I can't tell if it is tongue and cheek or what. I like that. Fun post. But, to answer your question of why we use it; because the Leica M240 produces a print that is hard to create with any other camera. Leica understands photography. Cheers and happy new year, Rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 21, 2014 Share #4 Posted December 21, 2014 iThe 1DX is, in my opinion, the greatest point-and-shoot camera.No, honestly, you don't need to think. Just set it to Av or Tv or whatever you want, point, autofocus, click. You have an image. From the above shouldn't your conclusion actually be: The D1X - the unthinking photographer's camera the M240 - the thinking photographer's camera (I have a 1DS3 so I know where you are coming from)? To my way of thinking another tongue in cheek way of classifying the REAL difference is not in terms of images/image 'quality' (both are exceptionally good) but in terms of Billingham Bag required - Canon 1D series system = 550, Leica M system = Hadley Pro. Having tried the former for many years, and having had the resulting back problems to prove it, I'm more likely to go for the Hadley Pro approach myself these days;). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted December 21, 2014 Share #5 Posted December 21, 2014 Leica can't accurately claim it's the highest-resolution digital camera. They can't claim it's the most compact FF either. If they're smart they won't even bring up the subject of brand reliability record It's not even the most expensive digital either. Really the only unique selling point of the M240 is the optomechanical rangefinder, and to listen to half the people who buy them prefer live view. For me the Leica is a force of habit. 45+ years and the layout of a Leica M is pretty much part of my DNA by now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted December 21, 2014 Share #6 Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) But, to answer your question of why we use it; because the Leica M240 produces a print that is hard to create with any other camera. Leica understands photography. Really? I have prints from my M240, X100T, an older X-Pro1, A7S and A7R laying around, and honestly, I can't see any difference in the prints, except the difference in content of course... Sure, there are differences in out-of-focus areas, but that's simply because one picture was made at a shallower aperture than the other. The only obvious difference I actually see is that the Fuji X-Trans sensors prints at 6400 ISO consistently beat all the other cameras except the A7S in print quality at that high iso. The M240 prints at ISO 6400 is noticeably more splotchy and digital looking than the Fuji's and the Sony A7S. I'm actually using the X100T more than any other camera these days. It's a phenomenal camera. The auto-white balance is so friggin' good - I never ever have to correct an image, even if it was made outside, indoors, outside in darkness, or whatever... It's always spot on. What a relief compared to my M240 where I feel that almost every single image requires color correction! Thanks to the OP for posting a refreshing viewpoint. I do love Leica's, and using the manual process of a Leica, but I feel that the Leica cameras and also some of the Leica lenses are horribly overrated by the majority of Leica users in todays market. Edited December 21, 2014 by indergaard Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 21, 2014 Share #7 Posted December 21, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Really? I have prints from my M240, X100T, an older X-Pro1, A7S and A7R laying around, and honestly, I can't see any difference in the prints, except the difference in content of course... Sure, there are differences in out-of-focus areas, but that's simply because one picture was made at a shallower aperture than the other. The only obvious difference I actually see is that the Fuji X-Trans sensors prints at 6400 ISO consistently beat all the other cameras except the A7S in print quality at that high iso. The M240 prints at ISO 6400 is noticeably more splotchy and digital looking than the Fuji's and the Sony A7S. I'm actually using the X100T more than any other camera these days. It's a phenomenal camera. The auto-white balance is so friggin' good - I never ever have to correct an image, even if it was made outside, indoors, outside in darkness, or whatever... It's always spot on. What a relief compared to my M240 where I feel that almost every single image requires color correction! Thanks to the OP for posting a refreshing viewpoint. I do love Leica's, and using the manual process of a Leica, but I feel that the Leica cameras and also some of the Leica lenses are horribly overrated by the majority of Leica users in todays market. My eyes or my taste seems different than yours. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted December 21, 2014 Share #8 Posted December 21, 2014 My eyes or my taste seems different than yours. That's good. Difference is good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 21, 2014 Share #9 Posted December 21, 2014 .... Thanks to the OP for posting a refreshing viewpoint. I do love Leica's, and using the manual process of a Leica, but I feel that the Leica cameras and also some of the Leica lenses are horribly overrated by the majority of Leica users in todays market. So I assume you dont use Leica lenses on your M? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted December 21, 2014 Share #10 Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) So I assume you dont use Leica lenses on your M? I currently use a 35 Lux FLE, 50 Lux ASPH and a Zeiss Biogon ZM 25/2.8. I sold the Noctilux 0.95 that I had, as well as a Summicron 50/2.0 and a Summicron 35 "King of bokeh". To my eyes, there is nothing really that special about the rendering of my current lenses. If I compare the 50 Lux ASPH to the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm for example, the by far biggest noticeable difference is the 5mm difference in focal length, then the field curvature that the Lux suffers and the supreme flat field focus of the FE 55mm, as well as it's supreme edge and extreme edge sharpness even wide open, and then the half stop difference in the out-of-focus areas. The light transmission of the FE 55mm is also better it seems, as I consistently get the same shutter speeds with the FE 55mm at f/1.8 as I get with the Summilux 50mm at f/1.4 - at the exact same exposure, on the same camera. So it seems the t-stop is better on the FE than on the Lux. This is just one comparison. Not very technical, but still an observation after comparing a myriad of different lenses and cameras. Handling the Lux is nicer, of course. It's smaller, though noticeable heavier. It's got real mechanical focus instead of focus-by-wire. It doesn't have AF though, which sometimes is nice, especially on the A7S in very low light, where AF works brilliantly and much better and faster than the rangefinder (for me). Using the M is not much different from any other camera either, be it a OVF or an EVF. Just open your left eye, and you will see outside the framelines.... The M240 and lenses are by far the heaviest camera equipment I currently own... That's why I often tend to use the X100T... I don't even notice it around my neck, and it's a joy to handle, and due to the leaf shutter it's completely silent. A lovely camera. Edited December 21, 2014 by indergaard Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 21, 2014 Share #11 Posted December 21, 2014 I currently use a 35 Lux FLE, 50 Lux ASPH and a Zeiss Biogon ZM 25/2.8.I sold the Noctilux 0.95 that I had, as well as a Summicron 50/2.0 and a Summicron 35 "King of bokeh". To my eyes, there is nothing really that special about the rendering of my current lenses. If I compare the 50 Lux ASPH to the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm for example, the by far biggest noticeable difference is the 5mm difference in focal length, then the field curvature that the Lux suffers and the supreme flat field focus of the FE 55mm, as well as it's supreme edge and extreme edge sharpness even wide open, and then the half stop difference in the out-of-focus areas. The light transmission of the FE 55mm is also better it seems, as I consistently get the same shutter speeds with the FE 55mm at f/1.8 as I get with the Summilux 50mm at f/1.4 - at the exact same exposure, on the same camera. So it seems the t-stop is better on the FE than on the Lux. This is just one comparison. Not very technical, but still an observation after comparing a myriad of different lenses and cameras. Handling the Lux is nicer, of course. It's smaller, though noticeable heavier. It's got real mechanical focus instead of focus-by-wire. It doesn't have AF though, which sometimes is nice, especially on the A7S in very low light, where AF works brilliantly and much better and faster than the rangefinder (for me). Using the M is not much different from any other camera either, be it a OVF or an EVF. Just open your left eye, and you will see outside the framelines.... The M240 and lenses are by far the heaviest camera equipment I currently own... That's why I often tend to use the X100T... I don't even notice it around my neck, and it's a joy to handle, and due to the leaf shutter it's completely silent. A lovely camera. But why do you still own those Leica lenses? You believe they are overrated, and you even prefer other cameras bodys because they are lighter. Why in hell do you spend so much money for the Leica equipment? I also own both and I prefer overall IQ from the Leica and shooting but sometimes want AF or zoom or tele-thats why I also have the Sony. I am not saying one is better than the other...I just wonder why you spend so much money if you prefer the IQ and handling of the Fuji and Sony? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 21, 2014 Share #12 Posted December 21, 2014 Using the M is not much different from any other camera either,...... Bit like cars then, they all go from A to B...... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 22, 2014 Share #13 Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) Really? I have prints from my M240, X100T, an older X-Pro1, A7S and A7R laying around, and honestly, I can't see any difference in the prints, except the difference in content of course... Sure, there are differences in out-of-focus areas, but that's simply because one picture was made at a shallower aperture than the other. The only obvious difference I actually see is that the Fuji X-Trans sensors prints at 6400 ISO consistently beat all the other cameras except the A7S in print quality at that high iso. The M240 prints at ISO 6400 is noticeably more splotchy and digital looking than the Fuji's and the Sony A7S. I'm actually using the X100T more than any other camera these days. It's a phenomenal camera. The auto-white balance is so friggin' good - I never ever have to correct an image, even if it was made outside, indoors, outside in darkness, or whatever... It's always spot on. What a relief compared to my M240 where I feel that almost every single image requires color correction! Thanks to the OP for posting a refreshing viewpoint. I do love Leica's, and using the manual process of a Leica, but I feel that the Leica cameras and also some of the Leica lenses are horribly overrated by the majority of Leica users in todays market. Naw, it all has to do with what makes a great print. Great lenses create great photographs. Great camera helps the photographer create what he wants. !4 bit files give much better files to manipulate in PP to make prints. Sony is 12 bit and that is a huge difference in tonal range! I've been printing the last two weekends and the files from the M240 are just so great to work with. Sony is fine, but not great. The M240mfiles are so reliable and have so much latitude (for printing I'm talking about). The Canon 1Dx is great as well. But, the Leica lenses make the Leica M system hard to beat. I hope Leica makes a M240 MM. I can't imagine what it would be like to work with that tonal range in print. Rick p.s By the way, my M240 is so beat up now. This camera is the most reliable camera I have owned. Edited December 22, 2014 by RickLeica Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted December 22, 2014 Share #14 Posted December 22, 2014 But why do you still own those Leica lenses? You believe they are overrated, and you even prefer other cameras bodys because they are lighter. Why in hell do you spend so much money for the Leica equipment? I also own both and I prefer overall IQ from the Leica and shooting but sometimes want AF or zoom or tele-thats why I also have the Sony. I am not saying one is better than the other...I just wonder why you spend so much money if you prefer the IQ and handling of the Fuji and Sony? Because I like to use Leica's? Because I like the manual operation of the body and lenses? My point is, Leica cameras and lenses nowadays, IQ-wise, aren't better than the competition. They might be different, but not better. Some cheaper alternatives are even better IQ-wise. The alternatives all have one thing in common though, they are automatic and built more with technology in mind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 22, 2014 Share #15 Posted December 22, 2014 Because I like to use Leica's? Because I like the manual operation of the body and lenses? My point is, Leica cameras and lenses nowadays, IQ-wise, aren't better than the competition. They might be different, but not better. Some cheaper alternatives are even better IQ-wise. The alternatives all have one thing in common though, they are automatic and built more with technology in mind. WE do forget that taking photographs should be an enjoyable experience, and some of us enjoy using Leica rangefinders....... But I would take issue with you on the lenses. you cannot determine a lens's performance simply in terms of the vague 'image quality' tag. Leica lenses generally have little distortion (important to me not so important to others, and yes I know you can de-distort in software) and other characteristics which some of us enjoy becoming familiar with. I have both the Leica 50/1.4 aspheric and Canon's 50/1.4. The Canon is a perfectly usable lens but its an 'impersonal' AF lens with a very utiltarian manual focus and very straight 'image quality' - it simply delivers quite acceptable performance in a no nosense way. But of the two I will always reach for the Summilux if I have the choice. Its just such a pleasure to use and delivers 'better' (for me) images as a consequence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carta Posted December 22, 2014 Author Share #16 Posted December 22, 2014 WE do forget that taking photographs should be an enjoyable experience, and some of us enjoy using Leica rangefinders....... But I would take issue with you on the lenses. you cannot determine a lens's performance simply in terms of the vague 'image quality' tag. Leica lenses generally have little distortion (important to me not so important to others, and yes I know you can de-distort in software) and other characteristics which some of us enjoy becoming familiar with. I have both the Leica 50/1.4 aspheric and Canon's 50/1.4. The Canon is a perfectly usable lens but its an 'impersonal' AF lens with a very utiltarian manual focus and very straight 'image quality' - it simply delivers quite acceptable performance in a no nosense way. But of the two I will always reach for the Summilux if I have the choice. Its just such a pleasure to use and delivers 'better' (for me) images as a consequence. I am by no means trying to mock you, but let me throw this out there: There is a reality show in Japan that challenges people who claim "they know the real stuff". Can you tell the difference between cheap Chili wine and 5,000 dollar premium wine? Can you tell the difference between cheap alligator meat and premium Kobe beef? Can you tell the difference between a 5-year old doodle and a million dollar Picasso? Can you tell the difference between a short movie clip directed by an amateur and one by an award winning movie difector? Can you tell the difference between a cheap violin and a Stradivarius? . . . and so on. Only about half the people get it right. Yes, it's a TV show and it may be staged. Yes, Leica lenses certainly do have distinct looks. . . . or do they? I, too, am an owner of multiple Leica lenses and have purchased the ever-so-expensive Noctilux 0.95. It's because I enjoy it, I enjoy the process. I know that is what's important. However, are AF lenses so "no-nonsense" and without character? Do Leica lenses REALLY have that character we're all talking about? . . . can you really tell? Of couse some of us can, they will nail it 100% and can say with confidence which is which, and truly appreciate it. But probably not all of us. Sometimes I think to myself. . . Do I appreciate the Lens, or do I appreciate the Leica logo? Not trying to mock any of you, but please - think about it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 22, 2014 Share #17 Posted December 22, 2014 ...However, are AF lenses so "no-nonsense" and without character? Do Leica lenses REALLY have that character we're all talking about? . . . can you really tell? ... I may not be able to tell, but ask my wife. She does not take photographs, but ever since I started using Leicas, she thinks my older pictures visibly subpar. She also started wondering why so many photographs by other people are so flat or blurry. And no, she does not think I'm in the same class with any of the good photographers we all know from the books or the exhibitions, and she can tell "image quality" from "good pictures". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 22, 2014 Share #18 Posted December 22, 2014 Not trying to mock any of you, but please - think about it. You miss my point. No, often its really not possible to tell what equipment an image was taken on. Sometimes it is when you have used or even emphasised a lens's specific characteristics so that they are very evident (the old f/3.4 Super-Angulon has a very distinctive look for example). But its more about appreciating how you take the image and getting everything right so that you yourself use the lens's characteristics to produce an image as you anticipate it should look. I get a great deal of satisfaction in using my Leica manual focus rangefinder cameras with my M lenses and achieving exactly what I want, in a way that I enjoy. And as a result the images are, to me, better. Sure I shoot on Canon too, but the whole process is very different and whilst it yields perfectly acceptable results, they are rarely as satisfying to take (and often take more effort to produce precisely as I anticipate I want them). I tend to use the Canons for very specific applications for which they are far better suited than the M and they are capable of extraordinarily good results. And I would also suggest that some people can tell the difference between the items you list. 'Educating' your eye/brain system to appreciate nuances is well worth doing but does require more effort than some are prepared to make. That said, I have no desire to take part in any reality show for any reason whatsoever....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted December 22, 2014 Share #19 Posted December 22, 2014 Because I like to use Leica's? Because I like the manual operation of the body and lenses? My point is, Leica cameras and lenses nowadays, IQ-wise, aren't better than the competition. They might be different, but not better. Some cheaper alternatives are even better IQ-wise. The alternatives all have one thing in common though, they are automatic and built more with technology in mind. If you are going to make that claim, how about backing it up with some objective proof? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carta Posted December 22, 2014 Author Share #20 Posted December 22, 2014 You miss my point. No, often its really not possible to tell what equipment an image was taken on. Sometimes it is when you have used or even emphasised a lens's specific characteristics so that they are very evident (the old f/3.4 Super-Angulon has a very distinctive look for example). But its more about appreciating how you take the image and getting everything right so that you yourself use the lens's characteristics to produce an image as you anticipate it should look. I get a great deal of satisfaction in using my Leica manual focus rangefinder cameras with my M lenses and achieving exactly what I want, in a way that I enjoy. And as a result the images are, to me, better. Sure I shoot on Canon too, but the whole process is very different and whilst it yields perfectly acceptable results, they are rarely as satisfying to take (and often take more effort to produce precisely as I anticipate I want them). I tend to use the Canons for very specific applications for which they are far better suited than the M and they are capable of extraordinarily good results. And I would also suggest that some people can tell the difference between the items you list. 'Educating' your eye/brain system to appreciate nuances is well worth doing but does require more effort than some are prepared to make. That said, I have no desire to take part in any reality show for any reason whatsoever....... I completely understand. I, too, LOVE the process from the bottom of my heart, and do believe that passion and love for the process and satisfaction yields great results. I simply wanted to throw it out there because I know there are some people (yes, not all) that appreciate something for its brand or price. Not saying that is wrong, but cettainly something worth contemplating about. And yes I have no doubt some people can really tell the difference. My best friend in fact is a professional wine sommelier, and can taste multiple wines apart. However that doesn't mean everybody is capable of that. Again, being able to taste wines isn't the only factor for being great at dining or cooking or whatever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.