Mood and Leica glass, or why I don't go Medium Format

[enboe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Catching up with another friend this past week, I have noted a trend, perhaps a variant on Gear Acquisition Syndrome, away from Leica towards medium and large format.  Shudder (or is it shutter) the thought, some have even sold Leica gear to pursue this new path.  I wonder when, and at what cost, they will return to the red dot.

 

The main reason I have heard for pursuing larger sensors is for more megapixels.  I say they don't need them.  The M8 was, and I believe still is, approved by Magnum, and I have a lovely 11x14 print from an M8 taken by a colleague on my gallery wall.  It captures the tonality with aplomb, and holds enough detail at 10.3 megapixels to communicate the subject and the mood.  The lens used was a 28/2.8/III, something that can be had for a very reasonable price.  Reflecting on this photo vs. the GAS trends of the day, I would propose a list of reasons for shooting an M:

 

1)  The experience - compact, light/moderate weight, unobtrusive, un-intrusive, feel of quality, durable, dependable, predictable, ...

2)  The results - capturing the experience, not just the image.

 

Both are impacted by Leica glass.  I have the blessing of owning a few dozen Leica lenses, the new 75mm being my most recent addition.  If I look back at photos that I connect with or admire, there are a few attributes that make them such:

 

A)  Subject and composition which can be captured by any lens

 Detail which requires quality optical design, I have shot with a 1933 Elmar and achieved detail, peaking in the center.  Designs in the ensuing 85 years have only improved.  10 megapixels is sufficient to capture the texture of subjects, a good measure of enough detail.

C)  Tonal range, a combination of optical design and the image capture medium, be it silver salts, CCD, or CMOS.  Ensuring an optical design is color corrected sufficiently to capture the full range of colors and hues to the same focal point is very important.  Leica glass is excellent since the popularization of color photography in the 1950's, and the new APO lens designs are beautiful.  Before that, the lenses were well-tuned for the B&W emulsion spectral characteristics.

D)  Mood.  I want to capture the feeling I had when I saw a scene and a subject.  Our brains tend to focus on what we are interested in and discount or blur everything else.  Lenses can accomplish the same effect through control of focus and depth of field.  The term "bokeh" is a popular one for describing the effect of subject isolation and background de-emphasis.  Leica's optical designs have been notable since the first Summiluxes.

 

So, nowhere on my list did I mention a need for more pixels.  I do see room, however, for new designs that capture detail, tonal range, and mood, and this is what drives my new acquisitions in Leica glass.  I must have this discussion now with my pixel count-focused friends to see what I am missing.  Not likely much, I predict.

 

Eric

[Ko.Fe.]

I didn't know they sell digital LF, except one for something like 80k usd. Because OP has to compare apples to apples. M8 to some digital LF his buddy switched to.

Comparing M8 to film MF and LF is next to irrelevant. Especially in terms of the lens. M8 is still cropper which cuts lens "mood" at edges of the regular frame.

But if it is OK to OP to compare apples to oranges...

And to really understand what old Leitz glass could do it has to be on film Leica. I had old lenses on the M8 and M-E and I had them on film.

The "mood" they give on digital is like adding tap water into the soup.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Ko.Fe.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Narsuitus]

Back in my film only days, I stopped shooting small format black & white because I preferred the image quality I was getting from medium format.

 

The Leica M10 brought me back to small format black & white.

 

I have not yet tried medium format digital black & white.

[Jeff S]

Larger sensors aren’t as much about more pixels as they are about larger pixels and light capture. This can potentially assist with smoother tonal transitions, be that color or b/w, particularly when incorporated into a disciplined print workflow.

 

But of course gear doesn’t dictate results; people do.

 

Jeff

[Pyrogallol]

enboe - Thank you for spelling out what GAS stands for, I had been reading the term in various posts without working out what it meant.

I have been acquiring gear without realising it was GAS.

I was told many years ago when writing reports or news articles that when intending to use abbreviations you should spell out the term in full the first time it is used, then use the initials thereafter, thanks for doing that.

 

Now I need to fathom out a few other sets of initials people use on this forum, Leica product codes I can get, but some others are like a crossword clue.

[pgk]

I think that you need to be very careful when making comparisons these days. The route now being taken by many manufacturers is that down which post-processing software and lens design and coalescing. Leica M lenses can only do this in limited ways so trying to compare a fully integrated lens which has images adjustments made before even a RAW file is produced (and more which are lens specific after) with one which has its raw file complete with warts and all, is at best a complex one. As the effects on the image of lens and software integration increasingly apply I suspect that we will see extremely 'immaculate' files produced by cameras and no doubt that medium format digital imagery will be no exception and potentially be at the 'cutting edge'.

 

However, the 'warts and all' approach has a lot to be said for it and whilst using a 'flawed' lens which is not integrated into a RAW workflow as much as newer lenses are/will be, is unlikely to produced as perfect a fie, it is likely to produce a more 'characterful' file In my experience this is truest when subject, lighting and lens are all 'additive' in that they enhance the characterful 'flaws'. This might just be termed 'mood' I suppose. I find that in such cases using an older lens on a modern sensor (Leica or other) can produce some pleasing imagery.

 

Oddly enough though I would suggest that the 75mm Summicron M is one of the least flawed and thus least characterful and most 'clinical' (as some would say), of Leica's lenses.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

enboe - Thank you for spelling out what GAS stands for, I had been reading the term in various posts without working out what it meant.

I have been acquiring gear without realising it was GAS.

I was told many years ago when writing reports or news articles that when intending to use abbreviations you should spell out the term in full the first time it is used, then use the initials thereafter, thanks for doing that.

 

Now I need to fathom out a few other sets of initials people use on this forum, Leica product codes I can get, but some others are like a crossword clue.

WTF!

 

 

Jeff

 

PS.... what others confuse?

[Peter Kilmister]

I believe that the Hasselblad company make very good cameras and lenses with quality that equates to Leica. Hasselblad medium format cameras have been used by professionals for years. Medium format has advantages and disadvantages. Their cameras are ideal for studio work, especially for advertising or for fashion shots.

The downside is that they are bulky and heavy ... just like the Leica S series which shares their market.

 

Medium format is probably excellent for tripod mounted cameras. It allows for stunningly sharp photography. If that's what you want then shift into that scene rather than using a 24 megapixel 35mm 3:2 format. Great landscape photographers like Charlie Waite used Hasselblad square framed medium format cameras. Before him many used plate cameras.

 

The joy of an M is its ease of use and discretion. Post processing allows for letterbox, square, or rectangular framing. Each to their own.

[ropo54]

 WTF!

 

 

Jeff

 

PS.... what others confuse?

 

Fwiw, Idk (which other words confuse) 

Edited August 5, 2018 by ropo54

[Jeff S]

 

The downside is that they are bulky and heavy ... just like the Leica S series which shares their market.

 

 

Not any more. See X1D. And probably soon X2D.

 

https://www.hasselblad.com/x1d/

 

Jeff

[Herr Barnack]

 

...I have noted a trend, perhaps a variant on Gear Acquisition Syndrome, away from Leica towards medium and large format...

 

I went the other direction.  I Sold my Mamiya 7II kit to help purchase a Noctilux f/1.0 back in 2008 (it is still in my bag).

 

I traded in my Deardorff 5x7 and two lenses to help purchase my M240, which I then leapfrogged to my Safari set M-P 240.

 

I am content with my Safari set, but I must confess that I miss my Deardorff.  Still, you do what you have to do to get the gear you need.

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

I believe that the Hasselblad company make very good cameras and lenses with quality that equates to Leica.

 

Hasselblad never ever produced even a single lens. They let Zeiss, Fujifilm, Nissin etc produce the lens and then put their name on it. Thats all they ever did.

 

Thats why their options in the digital age have been so limited. They dont know squat about the most important part of any camera.

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

Indeed at least crop medium format (44x33mm) is getting downright affordable, namely with the awesome and riddiculously cheap (for what it is, anyway) Fujifilm G system. I dabble with the thought of getting into it, too.

 

The problem with current solutions however is the lack of practicability.

 

You need enough light. Sure you can jack up the ISO to whatever, but if you actually want the medium format look, you better work near base ISO to get maximum image quality. TINA.

 

Even Fujifilm GF lenses dont offer more than f2, and in many cases only f4. Only slightly above that and you're basically already in diffraction town. You dont want any diffraction on a medium format, thats for killing image quality of cheap compact cameras with tiny sensors and riddiculously high Megapixel count numbers on the camera.

 

Autofocus performance is pretty meh, you're limited to pure contrast autofocus.

 

In the sum, medium format is still just slow and needs methodical working. Its for studio and tripod work, not spontaneous or action photography.

 

 

The main reason I have heard for pursuing larger sensors is for more megapixels.

 

Oh most definitely not. If I get into medium format its for the slight extra in image quality. Even more signal to noise with all the nice benefits, like more dynamic range and more subtle color differences recorded. Lenses that are optimized for extreme image quality, even more so than Leica/Zeiss/Voigtländer glas.

 

The problem is you can already get so close to that with digital small format that it really doesnt look worthwhile.

[pgk]

The problem is you can already get so close to that with digital small format that it really doesnt look worthwhile.

 

Convergent evolution will ensure that for most applications, 'smaller formats' will be good enough. I learnt a long time ago that the trade-offs of trying to use medium format underwater made it both difficult and marginal in terms of any quality gains. I suspect that this will happen with larger digital sensors too - theoretically better but the law of diminishing returns and lower specification of their lenses will make their advantages less attractive given the minimal increase in image 'quality'.

[skater75]

I didn't know they sell digital LF, except one for something like 80k usd. Because OP has to compare apples to apples. M8 to some digital LF his buddy switched to.

Comparing M8 to film MF and LF is next to irrelevant. Especially in terms of the lens. M8 is still cropper which cuts lens "mood" at edges of the regular frame.

But if it is OK to OP to compare apples to oranges...

And to really understand what old Leitz glass could do it has to be on film Leica. I had old lenses on the M8 and M-E and I had them on film.

The "mood" they give on digital is like adding tap water into the soup.

Does the above mean that the new/latest  glass would not work well on film? I am thinking of adding MP film to my Leica family, but all my lenses are current.

How well do the latest lenses and film match each other?

[Stonewall Brigade]

I briefly consider "what if" i traded in all my Leica gear for a new medium format system.  I looked at the Hasselblad X1D and the new Fuji.  Lots of reasons to think that there are advantages to go medium format and higher megapixel.  Then I reminded myself that I only shot RAW, that I really like the output and ease to process Leica's DNG RAW files, and the "final straw", that the only RAW processing software that I use and know how to operate is Capture one Pro. And that meant Capture One Pro would generally not be available to me again since it purposely does't support any medium RAW files except for its' own Phase One system (which I can't afford). I am not a working pro who sells photos for a living and I don't make giant enlargements, where perhaps medium format or near-50 megapixel files may be better.  And so why do I really need to go into medium format?  This self reflection on what I like about photography and which brand is best for me reaffirmed Leica as my brand to stay with.  I don't need a Sony with a super complicated menu and the ability to take 28 frames per second.  I don't need 500 autofocus points in a Nikon. (I wish I had in-camera image stabilization and auto dust reduction with a "lowly" Olympus micro for thirds!).

[Ko.Fe.]

Does the above mean that the new/latest  glass would not work well on film? I am thinking of adding MP film to my Leica family, but all my lenses are current.

How well do the latest lenses and film match each other?

From what I have seen it is totally personal choice and on top of it each modern lens behaves differently not only on film, but on type of film.

C-41 and BW might be in totally different mood for same person.

You could check it before buying MP.

Do google search for "lens name flickr". It will show search result for group on Flickr.

Open the link, in the group click on Photos, in Photos window click on the icon of magnifying glass. It will open search line on the top.

Enter - Film. It will open page with photos marked as taken with film. Also enter lens name and on film in google search. It is always better to see some pictures instead of reading some words, IMO.

It also depends how far film itself is explored.

So, minimized for Flickr scan of the negative tells only half about lens potential. Then someone is saying and showing lens as too sharp at the image for internet, we always have to keep in mind what Leica made lenses not just browsing on the iPhone, but made them capable of providing enough resolution for large prints.

From what I have seen, personally I can't say here is something bad from current lenses on film.

But I'm not into Leica glow and some special character. I want lens to be sharp, no glow, no defective bokeh (swirl and such), to have micro-contrast (resolution) and to be not flat.

Last one might be called as character rather than technical characteristics. But on bw film photos taken with up to date Leica lenses it gives object separation from less in focus parts of the image. Sometimes instead of 3D it gives effect of person been as two dimensional life size cutout. Yet, personally I don't see it as something bad.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Ko.Fe.

[erl]

Hasselblad never ever produced even a single lens. They let Zeiss, Fujifilm, Nissin etc produce the lens and then put their name on it. Thats all they ever did.

 

Thats why their options in the digital age have been so limited. They dont know squat about the most important part of any camera.

And bloody good lenses they are (in the main) too! Smart decision IMO. Oh, and you forgot Schneider in that line up.

You must be a bit wet behind the ears to 'can' a substantial and long performing company like Hasselblad in that way.

 

For the record, I have used, and still have multiple Hasselblads and lenses etc, for about 50years. I earned a very handsome living from them in that time. My livelyhood depended on having the best gear available at the time, to supplement my skills. Choosing Hasselblad was no accident.

[otto.f]

Does the above mean that the new/latest  glass would not work well on film? I am thinking of adding MP film to my Leica family, but all my lenses are current.

How well do the latest lenses and film match each other?

Latest lenses do very well on film, more so, I like my Summicron 28 asph ii more on b&w film than on the MM1 where I like the Mandler lenses relatively more on the MM1

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wattsy]

I would propose a list of reasons for shooting an M:

 

1)  The experience - compact, light/moderate weight, unobtrusive, un-intrusive, feel of quality, durable, dependable, predictable, ...

 

D)  Mood.  I want to capture the feeling I had when I saw a scene and a subject.  Our brains tend to focus on what we are interested in and discount or blur everything else.  Lenses can accomplish the same effect through control of focus and depth of field.  The term "bokeh" is a popular one for describing the effect of subject isolation and background de-emphasis.  Leica's optical designs have been notable since the first Summiluxes.

 

 

I still persist with the M system because of the largely unique optical RF viewfinder. It is what I'm used to. I don't believe the M has any other significant advantage over other systems. Far from being "light/moderate" weight, an M (either digital or film) plus even a modest modern M lens is like a small and heavy brick. As for "mood", there is nothing unique about Leica lenses when it comes to "control of focus and depth of field". Of course, they are very "good" (which they should be considering the price) but most of the great "Leica" photographs that we all laud as some of the highlights of 20th century photography were taken with lenses (often not even from Leitz) that many current M users would turn their noses up at nowadays. What's more, few, if any, of those photographs are great because of anything to do with "bokeh".

Edited August 23, 2018 by wattsy