Are all modern lenses so perfect, and thus similar in scene rendering, that camera systems are best picked according to body ease of use?

[Mark T]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with what the OP is suggesting. That there is minimal difference between systems. Most "experts" could not tell you which photos were taken from which system. Especially where focal length and apertures are consistent and especially when shots were processed from RAW files. And does it really matter anyway? One brand might be technically better one year only to be leap-frogged by another the next. Branding really doesn't matter any longer. You just pick one and go with it. Therefore I agree with the OP's original assertion that you should buy what is easiest/most convenient to use but then add; buy that which you enjoy using. There is no technical Leica mystique. People getting excited about minutiae are deluding themselves. I guess you have to do that if you spend so much more on a Leica system compared to something Japanese. By all means, buy Leica because you enjoy it but most technical reasons for buying Leica hold no water any longer. Same is true of Mercedes cars etc too. Manufacturing is a global process of assembly and standards are largely homogeneous.

[Advertisement]

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

[Aryel]

Hello,

The Leica M can almost natively take lenses from the thirties up to the most modern ones. It allows you to manually focus them quickly and accurately. You have such a broad choice to choose from... If you feel the most recent ones aren't for you, just try some older ones (leica and others). I am waiting for an Elmar 50 Red Scale as I type. Excited to try this out. I sold my 50 asph long time ago because I did not really warm to it (many people rightly love it, it just did not workout for me).

However, if autofocus is important to you then why did you choose a leica M to start with? If you are looking for modern rendering with autofocus, then, yes, better move on to a different system. 

[colonel]

3 hours ago, Mark T said:

One brand might be technically better one year only to be leap-frogged by another the next.

By all means, buy Leica because you enjoy it but most technical reasons for buying Leica hold no water any longer. Same is true of Mercedes cars etc too. Manufacturing is a global process of assembly and standards are largely homogeneous.

I agree with the first point. I find Leica releases me from GAS. I have been shooting with various M(P) 240 since 2014 and am still undecided when I get a M10

I disagree on the technical side. What first drew me to the Leica system was the ability to be sharp wide open. None of the DSLR lenses are. Now with mirrorless the game has stepped up, but the lenses are big unwieldy plasticy things that give me no joy. M lenses are like jewellery. I also find I still get the best picture on the M system, it’s to do with having mastery over everything, including focus. AF is a pain for street, as you have to find the focus point and keep the af button down. Any slip and who knows .....

Mercedes still can’t corner like BMW, and the multicoloured dash boards give me a headache, and no one makes leather seats like Jaguar. Each to his own  The point is they are different, even if some differences have now been erased (I.e. neither doors rust anymore) ...

Edited February 7, 2021 by colonel

[250swb]

6 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

But right now 2020-202,1 with the mirrorless thing happening, plus video hopping into our cameras, we have a turning point in history.  Now is my time to stick with Leica or move on.  I have many old Nikon F-lenses calling me but Nikon has lost their opportunity by not making their F-Lenses work on the Z-Mirrorless body since the F-Stop aperture is not automatically shut down before taking the picture, this mistake is a "trip and fall" for Nikon.

 

I'm not getting what your point is here? Using old Nikon lenses on a Z body is no different from using old Leica lenses on a Z body, or old Leica lenses on an SL body. No manufacturer has an adapter that mimics an SLR. And does it make a difference in reality? Most of the time you focus with the lens set at the aperture you want to use, the focus peaking may incorporate the DOF but usually this isn't a show stopper, or for slower work or critical focus yes you have to open the lens wide to focus then stop it down, it takes a second or two. I find using my old F lenses and Leica lenses on my Z body as intuitive as with any other camera.

[mmradman]

7 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I'm not getting what your point is here? Using old Nikon lenses on a Z body is no different from using old Leica lenses on a Z body, or old Leica lenses on an SL body. No manufacturer has an adapter that mimics an SLR. And does it make a difference in reality? Most of the time you focus with the lens set at the aperture you want to use, the focus peaking may incorporate the DOF but usually this isn't a show stopper, or for slower work or critical focus yes you have to open the lens wide to focus then stop it down, it takes a second or two. I find using my old F lenses and Leica lenses on my Z body as intuitive as with any other camera.

Fully agree.

M camera be it film or digital is best paired with M lens.

Z camera is best paired with Z lens, it also provides benefit automating aperture and focus with modern F lenses which are AFS and G and E type. Older AFD lenses will not auto focus but are perfectly usable and aperture is controllable via FTZ adapter. It even knows working aperture of my old AiS lens.

[pgk]

Well, I have M9s with 21 SEM, 35 Summilux pre-FLE, 50 Summilux aspheric and 90/2.8 Elmarit-M. I also have Sony A7IIs with 20/1.8, 35/1.8, 50 and 90 macros. So quite complimentary systems you might think, but one is RF and the other is EVF. In reality they are chalk and cheer. I will ALWAYS pick up the RF Leica's in preference if they are suitable for what I have in mind rather than the Sony which I use for other (specialist) work. Both produce 'fit for purpose' images and perhaps that is no longer the point at all. The images are different too - for lots of reasons and not simply because of the lenses. But the differences are only there if you can 'read' them. So in my book there are differences but its more about the whole interface between me and the final image and trying to break this down into its component parts and isolate just one which is pivotal is a waste of time. Its about the sum of the parts not the individual component nuances.

[Mark T]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, colonel said:

I agree with the first point. I find Leica releases me from GAS. I have been shooting with various M(P) 240 since 2014 and am still undecided when I get a M10

I disagree on the technical side. What first drew me to the Leica system was the ability to be sharp wide open. None of the DSLR lenses are. Now with mirrorless the game has stepped up, but the lenses are big unwieldy plasticy things that give me no joy. M lenses are like jewellery. I also find I still get the best picture on the M system, it’s to do with having mastery over everything, including focus. AF is a pain for street, as you have to find the focus point and keep the af button down. Any slip and who knows .....

Mercedes still can’t corner like BMW, and the multicoloured dash boards give me a headache, and no one makes leather seats like Jaguar. Each to his own  The point is they are different, even if some differences have now been erased (I.e. neither doors rust anymore) ...

I think you just proved my point when you refer to Leica lenses being like jewellery.

[lct]

 

7 hours ago, Mark T said:

There is no technical Leica mystique. People getting excited about minutiae are deluding themselves. I guess you have to do that if you spend so much more on a Leica system compared to something Japanese. By all means, buy Leica because you enjoy it but most technical reasons for buying Leica hold no water any longer.

Not sure to follow you. We, at least i, buy Leica M lenses because they are the very best compact lenses available, even from a technical point of view. Not a reason to bash other brands that i buy into with pleasure too but there is an indisputable champion there and it is named Leica .

[colonel]

1 hour ago, lct said:

 

Not sure to follow you. We, at least i, buy Leica M lenses because they are the very best compact lenses available, even from a technical point of view. Not a reason to bash other brands that i buy into with pleasure too but there is an indisputable champion there and it is named Leica .

Agree

There is still no FF system as small as M and with the bonus of such breathtaking quality and the best MF system ever invented 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by colonel

[colonel]

5 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Even third party Chinese lenses for Leica M all look the same. But  - this is only relevant to those who "see", because most people only "look".
, it is very important for me to get that disputed 3D microcontrast feel on my photos. Zeiss does that and Leica does that.

Disagree, the new Chinese lenses have real character. I welcome them to the M market. 

You are right that there is sharp and clinical on one side and dreamy and soft on the other. But I don't think it is binary, I think there are many lenses in between that combine different aspects. Perhaps the best examples are the new Voigtlander and Chinese lenses

Rgds

 

[Tom1234]

Just now, colonel said:

Agree

There is still no FF system as small as M but with such breathtaking quality

 

I hearty agree with the sentiment that smaller is better up to a point.  Leica's new lenses need to get smaller not bigger. 

Size & Automation Example:  I first shot Nikon EL2 body then went to the newer smaller Nikon FM as Nikon tried to make sure Olympus with their really small cameras did not take all that market.  I bet also that Nikon just did not know what direction the market would go in and if it went small the FM, FE, would be their offering.  

But I quickly sold the FM considering it too small for my hands and lacking even semi-automation.  The EL2 body was bigger and easier to hold onto and had Auto Exposure so it was the perfect semi-automatic camera having the shutter speed automatically adjusting as you adjusted the F-Stop.  This was a sweet spot for automation… assisting you but not taking over decisions really since it relied on your input as something to react to. 

[colonel]

47 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

I hearty agree with the sentiment that smaller is better up to a point.  Leica's new lenses need to get smaller not bigger. 

Size & Automation Example:  I first shot Nikon EL2 body then went to the newer smaller Nikon FM as Nikon tried to make sure Olympus with their really small cameras did not take all that market.  I bet also that Nikon just did not know what direction the market would go in and if it went small the FM, FE, would be their offering.  

But I quickly sold the FM considering it too small for my hands and lacking even semi-automation.  The EL2 body was bigger and easier to hold onto and had Auto Exposure so it was the perfect semi-automatic camera having the shutter speed automatically adjusting as you adjusted the F-Stop.  This was a sweet spot for automation… assisting you but not taking over decisions really since it relied on your input as something to react to. 

The best handling FF AF camera I have used is the Nikon Z. I still prefer the M. The Z hand grip is much more comfy. I walk around for hours holding the camera in my hand, with a wrist strap for safety. No doubt even with a leather case the M is still not as comfy. For my TTArtisan 0.95 I bought the multifunction grip. Might as well get GPS with a grip

[pgk]

19 hours ago, matthewm2 said:

..... as lenses strive for "perfection" they lose character.

'Perfection' is a generalisation. You would need to define what exactly it means. Then strive to achieve it. In reality its not possible to produce lenses free from flaws and design choices affect characteristics. The real roblem lies with us, the lens users, and our decision making abilities from being able to 'see' an image through to its final output. Whilst technical perfection can be an absolute requirement, there is far more to an image than simply translating the scene in front of you into a precision representation on your chosen output medium. Sometimes it may be necessary to make use of lens flaws to achieve a specific 'look'. When a number of factors reinforce (and these may include lens flaws) they can go together to produce something out of the ordinary. Using the latest, precision lenses is not always the best solution for a photographer.

[Narsuitus]

In my case, as images I view that have been created with different lenses by different cameras start to look alike, I attribute it to my failing eyesight.

[Dennis]

As one said once, the craft is looking for perfection, while art is looking for expression.
And I choose a thousand times expression. It doesn't matter if Karbe or a Chinese lens, just go out and shoot. I adore Leica, not only because of the IQ lenses but for his unique RF system, which really can make a difference.

Sometimes I compare photos (IQ) taken with my M lenses with my Nikkor G lenses. While 80-85% of both worlds are very satisfactory, I tend to prefer Leica almost all the time, for their unique character and look. Why? For the same things, you mentioned in this post. 
The pursuit of IQ perfection is legitimate, as long we don't lose the point of "lens character." 

[Dr No]

No.

[Lids]

8 hours ago, Dr No said:

No.

Username checks out.

[Lids]

OP,  I can see where you’re going with this.  Extending your logic just a bit further, we can eschew the idea of focal lengths altogether.  

Buy a 9mm Laowa, slap it onto GFX100 and crop down to the desired field of view.   Sounds amazing … doesn’t it?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paolou Pigini]

On 2/6/2021 at 3:48 PM, evikne said:

Yes, I doubt Leica has ever made "character" lenses on purpose. But if the lenses should continue to get better and better, they will inevitably get bigger and heavier. Instead I think they should utilize the newest technology and knowledge to make better lenses within the limits of the M-system's basic idea. Voigtländer has managed to make a 35/1.4 at the same size as Leica's classic 35 mm Summilux pre-ASPH, but much sharper wide open, and with 0.7 m focus limit. I am sure Leica could have done the same if they would. But I think they may be afraid to make lenses that don't live up to today's high standards.

Check out this video, I find it very explanatory and I'm curious to know what others think about it:

My idea is that the Canon lens is great, but also extremely flat. It can fit well in certain genres but I would never choose it for photos with character, because it doesn't have much of it. 

The Cron swirl, on the other hand, is much more pronounced and adds three-dimensionality to the scene. Even the micro-contrast seems superior to me, regardless of the color profile, but it's harder to say. 

The Canon isn't the only one to have such precise bokeh, there are other much less expensive lenses that do the same too, and actually they are very common today, so I think the Leica one was a choice. 

Leica for me has done a great job of keeping the character in their lenses, but I agree that the small M's are on another level from this point of view, even those of third party manufacturers. 

A balanced modern lens, however, is also the latest 35mm Sony, not so characterized but still not completely flat and it is small in size for the type of lens.

https://www.magicweddingphotographer.com/sony-35mm-f-1-4-gm-review/

In the end, in any case, it should not be lost sight of the fact that much of the result is done by the photographer, the lens has little influence on the total.

In the end, in any case, it should not be lost sight of the fact that much of the result is done by the photographer, the lens has little influence on the total.  The most important thing therefore is to be in tune with what you use. I fully agree with what LocalHero said:

On 2/6/2021 at 1:57 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

Serious comment: if brand loyalty is getting to you that intensely, then you need to get out and take photos with whatever camera works for you - and keep doing so until you are more interested in your photos than your kit. 

 

[matthewm2]

15 hours ago, pgk said:

'Perfection' is a generalisation. You would need to define what exactly it means. Then strive to achieve it. In reality its not possible to produce lenses free from flaws and design choices affect characteristics. The real roblem lies with us, the lens users, and our decision making abilities from being able to 'see' an image through to its final output. Whilst technical perfection can be an absolute requirement, there is far more to an image than simply translating the scene in front of you into a precision representation on your chosen output medium. Sometimes it may be necessary to make use of lens flaws to achieve a specific 'look'. When a number of factors reinforce (and these may include lens flaws) they can go together to produce something out of the ordinary. Using the latest, precision lenses is not always the best solution for a photographer.

I don't disagree with you. But that's not the discussion here. The fact of the matter is, if a company wants to sell more product, they need to have an upgrade cycle. The cycle with camera bodies is megapickles and the like... the cycle with lenses is, what is technically considered to be, optical perfection. 

So, sharpness is a bourgeois concept? Maybe, but it sells lenses.