Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What shift in the reasons for buying a Leica? Leicas were always about the user experience, and rarely produced the best image quality.

 

Barnack designed the Leica because he wanted a smaller camera, not for better image quality (which was obviously going to suffer badly, compared to the other cameras of the time, with 4x-14x more square inches of film to work with.)

 

Cartier-Bresson (and those who followed through the 1950s) could easily have pursued higher image quality with 4x5 press cameras or even 6x6 Rolleis, throughout his career, but intentionally threw away IQ as a goal when he chose the "small-format" Leica, in exchange for "the user experience."

 

Nikon and Canon got their big break during the Korean War, when western journalists taking R&R in Japan discovered that the N/C screw-mount lenses were not only cheaper, but outperformed their Summitars and Summarons and Summarits. That, of course, was before my time, but I will guarantee that even in the early 1990s, a Nikkor ED telephoto would eat the hind legs off Leica's 180/250/280/400 lenses (except for the sainted 180 APO-Telyt, a standout).

 

When the Nikon F arrived, many photojournalists kept their Leicas for wide-angle work because the coupled RF was faster for focusing those than a ground-glass, and because they were less obtrusive (smaller and quieter) when up-close-and-personal, and because they were lighter if one carried multiple cameras to avoiding time and pictures lost to swapping lenses. And for a brief time, were optically better than the new retrofocus wideangles the SLR mirror required.

 

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7c/45/22/7c45224fde91096c3d46cba50f439436--saigon-vietnam-february-.jpg

 

When Leica Ms occasionally produced better image quality, it was mostly due to the absence of mirror shake at a handful of lower shutter speeds (1/30-1/8). Other than that, no one in their right minds bought Leica for better image quality. Because it is mostly a myth.

 

When I switched from Contax G to Leica in 2001, I knowingly threw away image quality, because the Contax G lenses easily outperformed the equivalent M lenses at that time. (But a Leica M4-2's manual focus was far more responsive than the Contax G's AF, and I preferred the Mandler color rendering) The original Cosina/Voigtlander 25mm Color-Skopar equalled or bettered the Leica 24mm f/2.8 ASPH (although it was a stop slower, and a bit long for the required scale-focusing). The Contax SLR 50mm f/1.4 outperformed the 50 Summilux, until the ASPH version just about caught up. If you really wanted sharp corners, you got a Contax RTS III - which had a vacuum back to ensure film flatness.

 

A 35mm Summilux-M ASPH does not, overall, outperform a 35mm Canon EOS 35 f/1.4 (a little CA here, a little lower contrast there). It does equal the Canon overall, in a smaller, better-built package, which improves the user experience.

 

Now, since about 1995, in order to save the company, Leica has put a great deal of effort into improving the quality of their lenses (As the CEO at the time said, "Leica lenses are always going to be the most expensive. All we can do is try to make them worth the price.") Not that they were horrible before, but Leica image quality was hardly the industry leader. And in some cases, by 2005 or so, succeeded in producing "the best" image quality - in certain focal lengths.

 

But that is a very recent development.

Thank you Adan. To me this one of the most informative and eye-opening summary (for some anyway) of that matter. The post is hard-hitting and honest.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not my experience in using Nikon and Leica (and some Zeiss/Contax) gear since the early 90s.

There was (and still is, by the way) some lenses here and there from Nikon on par or better than Leica's equivalent, but the average optical quality of M and R system was clearly ahead at the time.

SEM 15 (ok, that was a Zeiss design, but it was clearly better than Nikkor 15/3.5 of the same age, who flares everywhere...), Elmarit 19 v2 (the best retrofocus UWA of the era, together with the Distagon 21 developed 4 years later), Elmarit 28s (v4M and v2R), Summilux 35 Aspherical (performances on par with today's design, back in 1991... Nikon takes further 20 years to make a modern 35/1.4, and still it's good but not so great), Summilux-R 35 (back in the days, mid-80s, probably the sharpest of non-aspherical-design 35/1.4), Summicron-M 35/50/90 in the 80s, 60 macro, 100 Apo-Macro (the "reference" mid-tele lens in late 80s...), all 180s and 280s APO, 70-180, good old Tele-Elmar and Elmarit 135s, then a few years later M24 and 21 asph, 90 Apo, Summicron-M 28 etc.

Edited by Steve McGarrett
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you Chaemono for your great conversations! It helps us all to see the differences in detail.
 
It seems you have a huge arsenal of cameras :)
 
Congratulations !!!
 
As I wrote, I´m happy with my M10 in terms of the usage, but getting the feeling the sensor is outdated makes concerns 
 
.... was my decision to go with Leica good?

 

 

Since Leica is arguably the healthiest of the modern camera companies I'd say you're OK.

 

Some twaffle on here about sensors but the bottom line is the M system is as healthy as it's been in decades and Leica is both profitable and in  growth.

 

Gordon

Edited by FlashGordonPhotography
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Leica is arguably the healthiest of the modern camera companies I'd say you're OK.

 

Some twaffle on here about sensors but the bottom line is the M system is as healthy as it's been in decades and Leica is both profitable and in  growth.

 

Gordon

 

Allow me to add that nobody seriously forecasts any change to Leica's blooming business situation at least for the next decade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to warm up. Orange bottles of water on the kitchen counter for color and overall rendering. I suspect this isn't going to be a fair match.

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

 

α7R III + Sonnar 35/2.8 FE

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!

ISO 2000 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M

ISO 2000 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well put. The problem with user experience is that its difficult to quantify as a simple numerical indicator .....

 

My own attempt out of 10:

 

Leica M cameras: 10, Canon dSLRs: 7, Sony A7 Series: about 5ish ..... Feel free to fill in the gaps :D.

SL  9, CL 9, TL2 8.5, Q 8.5, X series 8.... ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

 

α7R III + Sonnar 35/2.8 FE

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!

ISO 400 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M

ISO 400 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

Edited by Chaemono
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The menu system is reason enough to elevate Leica above any other camera I’ve owned. It is designed by people who understand the needs of photographers. OK I could learn what I needed to learn on my Sony A7R2; but what a palaver!

Couldn't agree more.

Over 100+ menu choices on the A7RII, much prefer M10. Sometimes less IS better.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love how contrast increases when stopping down the Summicron a bit. I have more. :)

well Chaemono, thanks again for all your hard work and to my eyes the leica image is far superior to the Sony and I don't care what DXO scientists say. ISO 400 is much more usable to me than ISO 10,000.  Sometimes as we all know the scientists don't always get it right, always ask who is funding the research.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaemono's last two images suggest to me that maybe Leica are correct in their belief that a 24 mp sensor is the optimum for a 35mm full frame camera and I suspect that Canon have similar views. Obviously Leica know more about sensors than all of the critics contributing to this forum, pixels aren't everything 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...