How does Leica glass compare to the rest of the world?

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now when it comes to choosing, that depends on your usage. I know photographers who shoot only in daylight, so bokeh isn't that important to them as in most of their pictures the depth of field is too wide to get any OOF that is noticeable. In that particular case, a Leica lens wouldn't really make a big difference.

 

 

Maybe this is why I'm not noticing these differences; 95% of my photos are taken in daylight (often early morning or late afternoon). I rarely shoot wide open. As to lens speed, while I've got an f/1.2 lens for my Nikon from ages ago, it never gets used - too big and heavy. For me, f/2 is plenty fast enough, especially on the Leica where a Nokton lens would seem (to me at least) too big for the camera. Maybe it's because of the type of photos that I take, that I don't notice this big difference?

 

(I'll check out that lens review this afternoon - I'm curious how Leica and Nikon compare in those tests.)

[MikeMyers]

I wanted to make a simple test, comparing my Leica and Nikon lenses. I decided to shoot a building not too far away from me, from my balcony. For the Leica, I decided to use what I now think of as a "normal" lens, my Leica f/1.4 Summilux on my M8.2. I've had this lens since the 1970's, so it's far from new, but it's in good shape. I set the camera to ISO 640, mostly because that's what I usually shoot at. I set the lens to f/8, and the camera set the shutter speed to 1/3000th. I shot in both DNG and fine JPG. Rather than use a cable release and tripod, I held the camera up against a door, so it couldn't move, and took a test shot. It's sort of a cloudy day, which is bad for bright colors, but good for even illumination.

 

To keep things similar, the Nikon photos were taken with a D2x camera, using the "kit" Nikon 18-70 lens that came as standard on my D70. I manually set the zoom to 35mm, then adjusted it a bit so it covered the same area as my Leica 35mm lens. I used manual exposure mode, setting the camera to f/8 and 1/3200th of a second for shutter, at ISO 640. Image size was set to "large" and jpg quality was set to "fine". When I compared the photos, I noticed that the Nikon image was darker than the Leica image, so I changed the exposure to 1/2500th still at f/8.

 

First Step:

The first thing I did, was to compare the 'JPEG' images from both cameras. I used a monitor screen that is oriented vertically, and filled the top half of the screen with Nikon, and the bottom half of the screen with Leica. This is something I tried a long time ago, and the results seemed to be the same – the Nikon image looked good, until I put the Leica image next to it. There's no doubt in my mind that the Leica image appeared to be sharper. Not only that, but there were several trees near the bottom of the image, and in the Leica shots, the trees were a lighter and brighter shade of green – much nicer than the dark green from the Nikon. Looking out the window, the Leica colors were more like the way I see it with my eyes.

 

Second Step:

Next step was to view both images at 100%. This was a bit of a surprise, something I don't understand. When viewed at 100% the Nikon image looked good, but not extremely sharp. It looked like what I've gotten used to over the years, when looking at digital images at 100%. I looked like it needed to be brightened up, and to have sharpness added. The Leica image looked about the same, maybe a tiny bit sharper, but it also showed some of the effects from when someone applies too much sharpening to an image. It was hard for me to say which one was really sharper. The Nikon image looked "more natural", and the Leica image looked like someone had messed it up with digital editing. I don't really think either image was sharper than the other, but the Nikon image looked like it was straight from the camera, and the Leica image looked like it had been sharpened a bit too much (although all the image settings in the menu were set to "standard").

 

I then went back to viewing the two small (screen size) images simultaneously, and again, the Leica image appeared to be a bit sharper. As far as I can tell, those same things that made the Leica image look worse at 100% actually worked when the image was seen in a more normal size – all of which left me very confused. Whatever Leica is doing to the image seems to make it look "better" when seen taking up most of a monitor screen, but also makes the image look worse when seen at 100%.

 

Third Step

Knowing that Leica cameras aren't all that great with JPG images, I installed a copy of Capture One software on this PC so I could look at the Leica DNG image for comparison. First I tried viewing the image seeing it the same size on my screen as I had been using to look at the Nikon and Leica 'jpg' images, and what I saw looked absolutely identical to the jpg Leica image I took. Sharpness and coloration were identical. Then I tried viewing it at 100%, and I was completely shocked! The image I saw on my screen was so much better than the jpg image that I'd have sworn the jpg was out of focus – but both were taken with one click of the camera! When viewed at 100%, the Leica image looks as sharp on my screen as anything I've ever seen. I've never, ever, been able to get anything this sharp at 100%... I was very impressed, but also a bit confused.

 

 

Last Step

After seeing how much better the DNG Leica image was than the Leica JPG at 100%, I tried the same thing with the Nikon. I created a Nikon NEF image which I converted to 'JPG'. As I see it, the Nikon NEF is slightly (but just barely) better than the Nikon JPG.

 

Summary

I'm very confused right now. I thought I was going to compare lenses, but now I think I'm more so comparing sensors and software.

 

· The Leica image when photographed as a JPG is fine, unless you realize how much you're losing by shooting in that mode.

 

· The Nikon 'jpg' looks worse at small sizes, but better as you reach 100% so you can see the actual image as saved. and it's better than the Leica 'jpg'.

 

· The Nikon 'nef' when converted to 'jpg' is better than both of the first above choices, but really not all that much better than Nikon's 'jpg' image.

 

· The Leica 'dng' image is best of all. It's far better than Leica's jpg, and also better than both the Nikon 'jpg' and Nikon 'nef'.

 

I can post links to the above four images if anyone wants me to (and if it's not against the rules of this forum). If I do so, I'll just post them as photos a, b, c, and d, and let people try to figure out which is which before I actually post that information.

[k-hawinkler]

Mike,

 

Thanks for your comparison. Very interesting. Please, post the images.

I normally put my images up on smugmug and point to them.

That way I can show full size images, but of course they don't show as images here.

 

K-H.

[wildlightphoto]

I wanted to make a simple test

 

You've got a lot of uncontrolled variables in this test, so there's little you can say about particular components of each system... but I'm not surprised about the outcome.

[MikeMyers]

There are enough uncontrolled variables that make the comparison useless for any scientific observations. Gee, I could go on listing them for ages, and I'd still probably forget some.

 

I braced the camera against a door, and didn't use a tripod.

I used a fixed-focus lens on the Leica, and a zoom on the Nikon.

The exposure seems to have changed a bit (and the lighting may have changed as well).

I used Capture One for Leica, and Nikon's software for the 'nef' image.

The images are not EXACTLY the same.

Maybe I should have used a lower ISO, not 640, but I often use 640 in the Leica, and 800 in the D2x.

Not sure if the differences are due to the lenses, or to the sensors, or the software

 

 

None of the above matters to me - I used the lens I use on my M8 for photos like this, and I used one of the lenses I usually use on my Nikon when I shoot the D2x. (I should try this with a D3 I guess in addition... ) Basically, I just did things the way I often do them, and compared the results. My own interpretation is a reminder to avoid shooting in 'jpg' mode on the Leica, as well as being pleased that at least in this case, my Leica images are as good or better than what I could do with the D2x.

 

For anyone with a bit of time to spend, the four final jpg images are now posted here:

mikemyers' Photos

It's nice that smugmug allows people to view them at any size up to "original size".

 

After looking at them for far too long, I finally settled on the cars parked on top of one of the buildings as my point of reference for comparing the images.

 

(Maybe I'll sign up for SmugMug - seems better than I expected it to be...)

[wildlightphoto]

... Basically, I just did things the way I often do them...

 

Which makes your comparisons more valid (for you) than any controlled tests.

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I stuck the M8 on a tripod and put a few 50mm lenses on it, Leica or Nikon. Or maybe a zoom lens set to 50mm. These are 100% crops: all were taken at f/8 with auto exposure and identical, minimal PP.

 

A

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!

 

C

 

E

 

They're all old lenses, and IMHO the Summicron doesn't really stand out. (I also have an old f/2.8 Elmar but I forgot about it: anyway, on past form it wouldn't have beaten the Summicron.) I'm sure that if someone repeated the test at f/2 and included a Summilux ASPH there'd be a big difference.

[giordano]

And a few more, focal lengths from 70 to 90, all at f/8:

 

W

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!

 

Y

[MikeMyers]

I stuck the M8 on a tripod and put a few 50mm lenses on it, Leica or Nikon. Or maybe a zoom lens set to 50mm. These are 100% crops: all were taken at f/8 with auto exposure and identical, minimal PP. They're all old lenses, and IMHO the Summicron doesn't really stand out. (I also have an old f/2.8 Elmar but I forgot about it: anyway, on past form it wouldn't have beaten the Summicron.) I'm sure that if someone repeated the test at f/2 and included a Summilux ASPH there'd be a big difference.

 

 

I don't know which is which, but to me, image "E" is noticeably less sharp than the others. Of the remaining four shots, I would say "C" is the sharpest, from looking at the black opening in the roof with what looks like a single shingle there. In "C" that seems just a tiny bit sharper. I wouldn't complain about any of these images - at 100% that's pretty nice! So, which image is from which lens?

[MikeMyers]

And a few more, focal lengths from 70 to 90, all at f/8:

 

For this group, I can't tell the difference between W and X. My eyes maybe just aren't good enough. I think maybe X is just the slightest bit sharper, from looking at the bird droppings, but who knows. The last two shots look closer, and Y looks just the slightest bit sharper than Z. Maybe later you can post which is which......

[giordano]

I should have mentioned, all the crops are from near the edge but not right in the corner.

 

A Nikon series E 50/1.8, made about 1984, bought for £10 at a camera fair.

 

B Nikkor-H.C 50/2, made about 1973.

 

C Summicron-M 50/2, Canadian, 1983.

 

D Nikkor AI 50/1.4, about 1979.

 

E AF-Nikkor 35-70/2.8, made about 1990 but has had a hard life.

 

 

W same lens as E

 

X Summarit 75/2.5 (2008)

 

Y AF-Nikkor D 85/1.4, made about 2006

 

X Elmar 90/4, made about 1958.

[marioalessi]

While the statement "what does the Leica DO different justifying the high price" Is specific enough, and while a Professor can teach you how to take photos with any decent camera. Your photography class probably had nothing to do with the passion involved with the tactile properties of the Leica, or the design form an aesthetic standpoint. And yes one wrench isn't that much different than other. However for some us, we have discerning tastes that don't necessarily place the value on something based upon how much or how little something costs in relation to another.

 

While you can by two shirts form a construction standpoint, that look different in color, there also the case of some fabrics that feel different than others. Even though their ability to protect from the elements is exactly the same. Some of us prefer to match our clothes, and wear clothes, produce a pleasure response due to their very texture, or the unmeasurable thought and pride that went into them.

 

While my ex-girfriend though that canned spaghetti sauce was just the same as that at my favorite restaurant, I will prefer to eat at that restaurant over eating with her, or by myself, with canned sauce, no matter how much it costs. After all at the end of our lives, its the happiness we gave and shared and lasting memories we leave with those we care about that matter.

 

For me, my Leica inspires me, and when I touch it it brings happiness to me. It is not just canned spaghetti sauce. It's an expensive object that people cared about to make, and put a little more effort into it than my last camera, and Canon 5D.

 

The same can be said my Luigi case. I feel a human connection to an individual man, who made something with pride, without a comity involved. His case inspires me. That alone is worth the money i spent on it.

[earleygallery]

John,

 

Interesting comparisons. What surprises me - even in small web shots - is just how well the 90 f4 Elmar fares.

 

One can see the sharpness of the later Leica glass, but if viewed in isolation I really doubt that anyone would really notice. It's the image itself that captures the attention and interest.

[giordano]

One can see the sharpness of the later Leica glass, but if viewed in isolation I really doubt that anyone would really notice. It's the image itself that captures the attention and interest.

 

That's how I feel.

[Viv]

An interesting discussion.

 

To be sure, there are differences in image quality produced by various lenses. However, I believe that such differences between Leica and Zeiss M-mount lenses would, at most, be extremely marginal - and would certainly not be obvious on an 8x10 print.

 

The ability and 'eye' of the person behind the camera matters much more, with regard to image quality, than the equipment in use.

 

Having said that, there is a real pleasure in using and owning quality equipment, whether it be a Leica body, a Rolex mechanical watch, or an Audi R8. Such pleasure cannot easily be quantified, being essentially subjective.

[wildlightphoto]

... there is a real pleasure in using and owning quality equipment, whether it be a Leica body, a Rolex mechanical watch, or an Audi R8. Such pleasure cannot easily be quantified, being essentially subjective.

 

And there's also the pleasure of watching a jaded gallery owner's jaw drop when he first sees your big prints. The first thing he says once his brain's speech center recovers is often "What camera are you using?"

[MikeMyers]

......Your photography class probably had nothing to do with the passion involved with the tactile properties of the Leica, or the design form an aesthetic standpoint. .... For me, my Leica inspires me, and when I touch it it brings happiness to me .... That alone is worth the money i spent on it.

 

 

I can understand and appreciate everything you posted. The photo course was at the University of Michigan, and what you've said pretty much describes my attitude when I took the course. I went along with what they were telling me, and ended up getting a D as I recall. The instructor (and the assistant) told me that I just didn't get it, and if I remember correctly, I was too involved with my equipment and not enough with the final product, the print. After picking myself up off the floor, I asked to take the course over again, and this time tried to do and think the way these guys did. I ended up with an "A". I think I now see things both ways.

 

For you, sitting at home, admiring your Leica gear, it's something that gives you great pleasure. For some photographer in Vietnam back in the war, slogging his way through swamps with a couple of Leica M cameras around his neck, the camera was just his "tool" to capture the images. For me, when I was taking these courses, the camera was completely irrelevant. The ONLY thing that counted was the final print that I handed in at the end of each assignment. The composition and the printing technique were probably the most important things, but they wanted the picture to "mean something".

 

I now think there's a huge gap between "photography" and "camera collecting". It's great that the Leica is BOTH an excellent tool, and a work of art. ...but I'm finding out that I can spend far less money on lenses, and still get the results that I'm after....

[SJP]

And there's also the pleasure of watching a jaded gallery owner's jaw drop when he first sees your big prints. The first thing he says once his brain's speech center recovers is often "What camera are you using?"

not bad for some bird pics:D

[SJP]

...but I'm finding out that I can spend far less money on lenses, and still get the results that I'm after....

fine with me but the original question was "How does Leica glass compare to the rest of the world?" there is a difference i.e. the comparison is favorable.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Knomad]

For me, there are a couple of key differences, at two different levels.

 

I use a Leica M primarily for the convenience and the way of seeing.... I travel a lot, and I'm tired of lugging a heavy bag full of DSLR gear around on airplanes or on extended trips, and I like the spontaneity of the little rangefinder, and the ability to compose by editing in and out of the brightline frame. Yes, I know this is more about the camera than the lens... but it effectively rules out modern Nikon and Canon for me for most purposes. At this level, it's a philosophy of life choice. I prefer Leica minimalism and compactness over the Nikon and Canon approach of all things for all people, with the attendant trade-offs in size and weight and complexity.

 

One lens comparison does come to mind, though. I have an 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor gathering dust in a drawer someplace. It's a perfectly good lens stopped down, but wide open I've never been happy with it, it's just soft. And what's the point of carrying a big, heavy f/1.4 lens if it doesn't perform well at f/1.4? On the other hand, my Leica 50mm Summilux pre-aspherical performs quite nicely at f/1.4, at a quarter of the size and weight. I actually prefer to use it wide open. I don't have time to go find comparison images, so I'll just say that for my personal use, wide open, I greatly prefer the Leica glass over the Nikon. I can put a Zeiss lens on the Nikon body and get adequate wide open performance, but it's still a bulky/heavy package if I do that.

 

Once on the Leica M body, I'm less finicky about lenses. I have preferences, but there's Leica glass and there's Zeiss glass that will accomplish what I'm after. I have not yet tried Voightlander glass, so I can't yet speak to that.