Jump to content

How to get the very best quality image from a Leica.


MikeMyers

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I switched from film to digital some years ago. The only time I shoot film now is when I use my XPan to take a panoramic photo.  I find the digital image quality is a good as film and I typically have more dynamic range and a usable image at higher ISO's. Until the Leica M10-R came out I was quite happy with the results from my Nikon equipment. But the lighter Leica M10-R is much easier to take on hikes. 

Here is one of my early shots, hand held 28mm Summilux taken on a late January day. The first image is a reduced resolution jpeg to meet the board requirements and the second is a full resolution crop to give some idea of the sharpness and detail. The meta data is ~f/2.8 1/250/sec ISO 100 -- the M aperture estimates are usually off, it could have easily been f/4 to f/5.6

Not quite Bridal Veil Falls, but not bad.

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

So, to a person looking at a photograph, what is the difference between a film photograph or a digital photograph?  

How many people can tell the difference?

 

And back to the purpose of this thread, how to get the best quality image from a Leica, are you suggesting either film or digital is "better"?

At risk of diverting this thread.......

Lots of people can notice that there is a difference between a photo taken with digital and with film. I posted some family snaps taken with film on the family Whatsapp group last week, and my daughter immediately asked if they were film - because they looked different. I moved back into film (while not leaving digital) because film looks different - it responds to light (chemically, physically) in a different way. The grain is a different shape and pattern. Taking a negative to be turned into a positive also makes a fundamental difference to how the final image responds to light (highlight roll-off, shadow detail). Sure, you can make a film image look like a digital one, if you do the right digital processing (applying the right curves, colour adjustment etc), but that doesn't change the fact there is a difference.

And no, I don't think film or digital are better. They are just different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm oblivious to things that other find obvious.  Maybe I just look at photographs differently, and the things that are important to me are different things than what you are referring to.  

So, how about when you have some free time, you post two identical photos here, one taken with film, and one with digital, and point out the differences I the photos that you think identify which is which?   You take the photos, of the same subject, in the same lighting, and roughly the same exposure, in B&W or color (your choice, but the same for both).   If possible, the same ASA/ISO speed.

 

I never find myself wondering whether an image was from film or from digital.  The things that I pay attention to are composition, sharpness, grain/noise, shadow/highlight details, and most important, timing.  I used to see an obvious difference in printed photos from color film, but that's irrelevant as we're looking at all these images on our digital displays.  

 

I suspect you are right, and there are differences, but I've never learned to notice those differences.

Regarding this specific thread, are you implying that either film or digital can make "a better quality image from a Leica"?

Just to add, all my recent film photography with my M3, M2, and F4 has been black&white.  I did buy some color film, but haven't shot any of it yet.  I instantly can see the difference between my b&w negative scans, as the grain is so prominent.  I doubt this is what you're referring to though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I guess I'm oblivious to things that other find obvious.  Maybe I just look at photographs differently, and the things that are important to me are different things than what you are referring to.  

So, how about when you have some free time, you post two identical photos here, one taken with film, and one with digital, and point out the differences I the photos that you think identify which is which?   You take the photos, of the same subject, in the same lighting, and roughly the same exposure, in B&W or color (your choice, but the same for both).   If possible, the same ASA/ISO speed.

 

I never find myself wondering whether an image was from film or from digital.  The things that I pay attention to are composition, sharpness, grain/noise, shadow/highlight details, and most important, timing.  I used to see an obvious difference in printed photos from color film, but that's irrelevant as we're looking at all these images on our digital displays.  

 

I suspect you are right, and there are differences, but I've never learned to notice those differences.

Regarding this specific thread, are you implying that either film or digital can make "a better quality image from a Leica"?

Just to add, all my recent film photography with my M3, M2, and F4 has been black&white.  I did buy some color film, but haven't shot any of it yet.  I instantly can see the difference between my b&w negative scans, as the grain is so prominent.  I doubt this is what you're referring to though.

Just because I see a difference, doesn't mean that I think it important! As I wrote, I shoot both digital and film, and while I see differences, I don't see one as better than the other.

No, I'm not going to go out taking test or demo shots. I find such things uninteresting. Nor do I think it important for you or anyone else to see the difference, if your criteria for assessing a photograph are different.

In B&W I notice differences in colour response: film is more sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum and digital to the red. You notice this with skies. Film negatives treat highlights differently (better) than positives - which are more likely to be digital these days. Digital noise patterns are just different from film grain. I don't notice these things analytically - they just make a difference to the overall look.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important quality of a photograph for me is 'content'. Everything else is either a help or a hindrance. It matters not a jot whether it was taken on a film camera, or digital. Now, if we are looking for technical information, that is rather different. The nature of the thread should help in analysis. So, in many ways, I agree with Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 6:01 PM, 250swb said:

I've not come across a tripod for a 35mm camera that isn't portable, but if you want the ultimate quality from any camera a tripod is essential. 

Did HCB use a tripod, I guess very rarely, but that is because he didn't do the sort of 35mm photography that necessitated a tripod.

On the other hand there are a lot of 35mm photographers who do use a tripod, so are you really suggesting that if you have a Leica you should run out and buy a Nikon just to use with a tripod if you want ultimate quality? Kind of a dichotomy there. Probably this is all just Leica fanboy bollocks, pigeonholing a camera to be subject specific, and ignoring that Leica themselves incorporated something called a tripod socket into the baseplate of their cameras?

It also makes a fool of people who do endless tests looking for perfection in film processing while at the same time denying the ultimate equipment for making the perfect exposure, a tripod.

No a tripod isn't essential for 35mm, but neither can it be ignored.

I simply point out that Leitz lens designs for a long time were optimised for contrast over resolution (it's not that simple, but suffice it to say for now). Puts describes this in detail. Why? Did they do this? The contrast 'survives' subtle motion blur; resolution does not. In other words, 'best image quality' has to be qualified for the purpose.

See: https://collectiblend.com/Library/Leica_Lens_Compendium_Chapter6.php

Verstehen?

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/3/2022 at 8:24 AM, MikeMyers said:

 …but that's irrelevant as we're looking at all these images on our digital displays.  

 

No, I make prints and look at the work of others in print (and books).  A camera phone can often suffice for online display.  
 

There are differences between b/w silver prints and inkjet prints.  But each can be wonderful, or mediocre, just like the pictures themselves. Nobody cares about the gear or materials involved when viewing a great print of a worthy pic (with the possible exception of those who rely on gear forums).

Jeff

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

On 4/3/2022 at 12:16 AM, Wandering Photographer said:

I switched from film to digital some years ago. The only time I shoot film now is when I use my XPan to take a panoramic photo.  I find the digital image quality is a good as film and I typically have more dynamic range and a usable image at higher ISO's. Until the Leica M10-R came out I was quite happy with the results from my Nikon equipment. But the lighter Leica M10-R is much easier to take on hikes. 

Here is one of my early shots, hand held 28mm Summilux taken on a late January day. The first image is a reduced resolution jpeg to meet the board requirements and the second is a full resolution crop to give some idea of the sharpness and detail. The meta data is ~f/2.8 1/250/sec ISO 100 -- the M aperture estimates are usually off, it could have easily been f/4 to f/5.6

Not quite Bridal Veil Falls, but not bad.

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!

 

I was here this last Saturday, but over on the Maryland side.  Took the M10-R and Q2M out for a nice walk.  Oh hey, the dog came along too!!!!  Plenty of nice pics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2022 at 4:17 PM, Ornello said:

I simply point out that Leitz lens designs for a long time were optimised for contrast over resolution (it's not that simple, but suffice it to say for now). Puts describes this in detail. Why? Did they do this? The contrast 'survives' subtle motion blur; resolution does not. In other words, 'best image quality' has to be qualified for the purpose.

Agree with the above. This may be an unwanted rant to some regarding the current nature of lenses

It wasn't only Leitz lenses. There was a time lenses were developed for a "certain" look that portrayed a certain emotion. However, with digital pixel peeping along with edge to edge sharpness became the industry norms as that's what customers demanded. Everyone demanded to see that shot of a brick wall in any review of any lens, rather than normal day to day activities.  The general picture became stale as there are/were little to no distinguishing factors between lenses. But then a few manufactures made the decision to sacrifice edge to edge sharpness for character or that "glow" lenses once had. Voigtlander has their vintage line designed not only for the lens to physically give a lens that vintage look but also give the photo that vintage look. The VM 35mm 1.4 SC and 50mm 1.5 Heliar are great lenses designed to give that vintage look up to aperture 2.8. I remember several years ago Nikon's 58mm 1.4 lenses designed for an older portraiture look got panned in reviews because it lacked the desired edge to edge sharpness that everyone wanted.

For myself I hope Voigtlander continues to release these vintage look lenses and when I look to acquire I'm considering a lenses at least 20 years old or more. 

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ejg1890 said:

Agree with the above. This may be an unwanted rant to some regarding the current nature of lenses

It wasn't only Leitz lenses. There was a time lenses were developed for a "certain" look that portrayed a certain emotion. However, with digital pixel peeping along with edge to edge sharpness became the industry norms as that's what customers demanded. Everyone demanded to see that shot of a brick wall in any review of any lens, rather than normal day to day activities.  The general picture became stale as there are/were little to no distinguishing factors between lenses. But then a few manufactures made the decision to sacrifice edge to edge sharpness for character or that "glow" lenses once had. Voigtlander has their vintage line designed not only for the lens to physically give a lens that vintage look but also give the photo that vintage look. The VM 35mm 1.4 SC and 50mm 1.5 Heliar are great lenses designed to give that vintage look up to aperture 2.8. I remember several years ago Nikon's 58mm 1.4 lenses designed for an older portraiture look got panned in reviews because it lacked the desired edge to edge sharpness that everyone wanted.

For myself I hope Voigtlander continues to release these vintage look lenses and when I look to acquire I'm considering a lenses at least 20 years old or more. 

Thoughts?

I doubt that. The story is far more complex. Some of the Leitz company's lenses could not have been made by anyone else because they alone had the raw glass that enabled superior designs.The first 50mm Summilux-R (from 1969) used some of these newly developed glasses to produce a lens which at that time had no peer. I was amazed at the quality of that lens when I got mine in 1971.

See this:

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-leitz-leica-glass-research.html

Leitz lenses were designed to have best sharpness in the center because that was (in their opinion) the best for journalistic photography. Again, my experience in using that lens (the 50mm Summilux-R) showed the wisdom of that approach. The OP needs to study the history of Leitz more, and then he will understand what and why certain design choices are made. Leitz lenses were made for certain purposes, and have characteristics suited to those purposes. The Telyt 400mm and 560mm f/6.8 lenses, for instance, have only one group, which enables them to have extraordinary contrast, something that is important when taking photographs over long distances through lots of air, which contains dust that tends to lower contrast. A side effect of this design choice is that the lenses tend to have some curvature of field, which will make the edges of the image of flat surfaces be at a slightly different focus point. For photographs of field sports and wildlife (the application for which the lenses were designed), this is of little or no consequence.

Thus the question 'how to get the very best quality from Leica lenses' must be answered 'use them for the purpose for which they were designed'.

https://www.furnfeather.ca/RevPDF/First Impressions.pdf

 

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ornello said:

I doubt that. The story is far more complex. Some of the Leitz company's lenses could not have been made by anyone else because they alone had the raw glass that enabled superior designs.The first 50mm Summilux-R (from 1969) used some of these newly developed glasses to produce a lens which at that time had no peer. I was amazed at the quality of that lens when I got mine in 1971.

I am not saying these other manufacturers had lenses that matched Leica in look or emotion of the result. I'm not saying lenses outside of Leitz /Leica had the same quality of lenses or photographic look. They may would have had flaws and imperfections. However, with digital and lenses from the last 10-15 years many of those flaws such as clarity, flare, CA, etc have been resolved with these new lenses. Now many photographers look back at those older lenses and don't view them as flawed but as characteristics of the lens. This is due to perfections of todays lenses. In reality there's not much of a differences in modern lens between Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamaron, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Like any other product, lenses are the result of market and technical advancement. 
 

I think it was approximately 20 years ago when Zeiss released their Masterprimes, a set of cine lenses in the S35mm format that were at their time an unexpected jump in sharpness, speed (t 1.3) and breath-taking corner- to-corner sharpness at any stop. Back then, a single prime cost about 25k. Rental house bought them in droves, everyone was amazed by their performance. But it didn’t take long and the word clinical emerged and somewhat brought some drizzle to Zeiss’ parade. 
 

Today, super sharp and super fast lenses are not a speciality of Zeiss, Cooke or Leitz anymore. Every lens manufacturer can pull that off. 
 

Manufacturers specialise in specific niches. Zeiss do what they always did and kept building high-performing manual lenses for stills and cine. Leitz/Leica expanded to AF but kept their business model of being famous for expensive high-end glass. They expanded to the cine market successfully and discovered plasticity as their signature (which older Leica glass doesn’t show as much). 
 

Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, you name it, take the big chunk of the cake by offering AF still glass for a moderate budget. You clearly get what you pay for. Canon also has some cine lenses for offer (and their cine zooms are very good) but they don’t play a major role in their segment. They do, however, play a significant role in the broadcast sector and share that high-budget market evenly with Fujinon. In a way Fujinon is the Japanese Zeiss with tons of optical products (and Fuji Film for the consumer market). 
 

All what we call character or the lack of it in lenses are flaws we like or miss. Naturally, lenses with some vintage show more character. At some point Canon found out that their 70ies K-series cine primes shot through the roof of the used market. They usually went for 20k a set, but went up to 150k for the same set just 5 years later. The younger cinematographers had discovered their character (mostly their flares) and invested heavily in vintage glass, so did the rental shops. A few years ago, as an answer to that market, Canon developed the Sumire cine primes which flare and glow heavily when shot open. Now Sigma and Tamron have sell similar offerings, even Arri (together with Zeiss) have primes on offer that can be vintage-ised.

To find a balance in sheer performance, still keeping some character and keeping the value high in the used market is Leica‘s challenging task. AF with their electronics are somewhat of an anathema to that proposition, which makes the SL line exceptionally challenging for   Leica. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, hansvons said:

which makes the SL line exceptionally challenging for   Leica. 

 

Not convinced - SL lenses are the highest specified lenses from Leica, apart from the C lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AF lenses tend to lose value quicker than manual glass. I own the 24-90 and don’t expect it to hold its value or even raise it like my old Cooke 20-100 zoom from the 70ies despite its much better performance (and similar plasticity). I bought it for versatility, ease of use, it’s optical quality and reliability as a tool that earns money. 

Timelessness and holding the value is Leica‘s strongest selling proposition right after IQ. I totally see that with M glass, we experience that with some of the R lenses, I‘m not convinced to experience that with the SL glass. With the 24-70 SL we see some watering down already. On the other hand I have no idea what that means for the 24-90 resale value.

On the long run, I assume a AF-based value hit with the SL primes despite their incredible performance. Pros, however, don’t care much about that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...