Guest stnami Posted March 21, 2009 Share #21 Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) My house is better than yours Mr Flogger, that's what the thread is about..........come and visit me I am happy to tell you the in person I was down at Nelson harbour the other day. For a bunch of yachties there seemed to be more sense than money. .......the same barnacles grow on cameraphiles as on yatchts Edited March 21, 2009 by stnami Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Hi Guest stnami, Take a look here Am I really THAT prejudiced?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
plasticman Posted March 21, 2009 Share #22 Posted March 21, 2009 I could only manage a few pages of each thread I'm afraid - my tolerance for moggy pictures is quite low - but generally I preferred the Nikon shots. It was very clear to me looking at some posts the other day that Leica lenses on the M8 render with more dimensionality and nuance than on the G1, but the images in these threads proved nothing other than that a lot of snaps of dogs and cats that in the past went into a drawer and were forgotten, are now displayed for all the world as 'Photography'. Hmmm I think I'm hung-over this morning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted March 21, 2009 Share #23 Posted March 21, 2009 I went to the pro center the other day and tested M8.2, 5D with 85/1.2, Nikon 700 and Nikon D3x and also have been looking at pictures made with certain (hat is considered to be) great Nikon and Canon lenses. I'm turned off by the camera hardware philosophy used in Canon and Nikon, and as the picture quality, I feel I would be wasting my time by making "almost" pictures in technical terms rather than the best. I would love to fall in love with a Nikon or Canon camera ... but have a hard time feeling it. Though the D3x has some great qualities in terms of feel, balance and all. I guess aiming for perfection is a handicap in some ways. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljclark Posted March 21, 2009 Share #24 Posted March 21, 2009 In the UK there is a motoring enthusiast Jeremy Clarkson who coined the phrase "Petrol Head" to describe someone who is obsessed with cars. This forum, as many others is full of "Camera Heads". In model railroading there are the "rivet counters"...Folks who will have their "Aha!!" moment when they discover that your hand-built tender only has 17 rivets along one line whilst the real tender had 19. (These guys will take a caliper to your scaled coal and tell you that it isn't the right size.) A friend of mine was an incredible craftsman (good enough to be on a team that made a ship model for the Smithsonian) and capable of making models of wonderful precision. Occasionally someone would try to challenge him on one of his trains. He'd look at them and say something to the effect of "You can lean forward, get real close, and count rivets. I prefer to build something that, when I lean back a bit, 'looks right'". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted March 21, 2009 Share #25 Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) Is it me? Is it Leica? Am I sane or just blinded by a red dot?Back to the topic, yep you are quite sane. I am not convinced the primary reason is the equipment as such although if you do the measurements etc. an average lens used on a Leica will be better than an average lens used on a Nikon. Considering the difference in price they darn well should be. Sensor pixels etc. is only a minor factor unless you really zoom in on the details. The lack of digital sharpening on the M8 gives better texture & more noise. I prefer better texture and don't care about the noise too much. But what I think makes the difference is that an average Leica owner will be a better photographer than an average Nikon owner. This is partly also due to the price, I would guess 90% of us buy one because we like photography & not because we are "gearheads". Leica's do not have all the gizmo's a gearhead is looking for, they are too primitive. So the average Leica user is prepared to pay a considerable price for something else, namely to enjoy taking pictures. With the M8 you cannot take a decent picture unless you at least have some understanding of basic optics. If you understand optics you can take better pictures, or at least you have more control over the situation. Disclaimer: in my case I understand optics but my pictures need improvement, this is beside the point as we are discussing averages. So comparing the two threads is comparing a different part of the photographic population which is the primary reason the average Leica pic will be better than the average Nikon pic. If you know what you are doing then equipment does not really matter too much. Some of my PhD students take fantastic pictures using DSLR's. Edit: What I find intruiging is that although they started roughly on the same date the Leica thread at GetDPI is about 30% larger. Based on the number of cameras sold I would expect a completely different ratio. Edited March 21, 2009 by SJP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted March 21, 2009 Share #26 Posted March 21, 2009 I went into the Nikon thread because I am quite convinced of the quality of Nikon cameras and lenses, in fact if I were not a Leica fan I would be using Nikon. But the vast majority of shots in the Leica thread had more presence, tonality, punch, etc than the shots in the Nikon thread to my eye, although the photographers were just as good... Is it me? Is it Leica? Am I sane or just blinded by a red dot? Jaap, You know as well as I do that you can’t just take a bunch of random pictures and make a valid comparison between cameras. There are too many variables involved. First, you have to ask exactly which cameras are involved. The only valid comparison would be between the M8 and at least the D3 – better yet the D3X which is more in line with the current M8.2 price. Which Nikon cameras were involved in this comparison? Next, you’d have to ask what lenses are involved. If you’re going to compare Leica lenses against Nikon lenses then you have to be sure you only look at professional Nikon lenses. Some of the Nikon primes fall into that category and so do the new 24-70 f/2.8G and 14-24 f/2.8G. The others don’t. Which Nikon lenses were used in the comparison? Then, you have to consider the skill of the person doing the post-processing. Were the Leica post-processors as skilled as the Nikon post-processors? Finally, and most important (but this doesn’t really exhaust the variables), you have to consider the skill of the photographer. Who were the people who shot these pictures. I know you’re a master of your craft. How about the others? Then, there’s the fact that nothing less than well made prints – I’d say 11 x 14 minimum -- are valid targets when you try to compare photographs. The web just won’t get the job done. The M8 and the D3 and D3X all make magnificent pictures. It’s up to the guy holding the camera to take advantage of that. I see a few good pictures and a lot of bad pictures in both samples but I don’t see anything that tells me one camera brand is better than the other. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted March 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I know all that, but it is just that I saw a different look as a generality in the mass of images, and I prefferred the Leica one. I never said "better"... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 21, 2009 Share #28 Posted March 21, 2009 I agree with LCT that the lens makes a huge difference. When I shoot my D3 it is with either a Zeiss 35/2, 50/2 or 100/2 and find these give more presence and punch than my nikon lenses. The only nikon prime I prefer over the zeiss is the excellent 85/1.4, Also, I became so used to MF that I now prefer MF lenses on the D3 for the pleasure of using them, but the IQ is definitely better with the Zeiss glass, more like Leica lenses, IMO. best...Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted March 21, 2009 Share #29 Posted March 21, 2009 Business result is measured by profit, sports success by objective effects/medals, art achievement by significant exhibitions/awards/reviews. Can we please point to examples of great digital photographs that took awards, were exhibited at MOMA/Tate etc, or merited praise by renowned art ctitics TAKEN BY LEICA M8 ? We know Nikons and Canons usually take most of World Press Photos etc, so no need to enumerate theirs. All Leicaisti, please step forward with your knowledge of topic. Just don't say there is comparatively so few Leicas, true art is always elitist after all.... PS. Esthetic solipsists ("I like it, so it's good") need not answer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tollie Posted March 21, 2009 Share #30 Posted March 21, 2009 After a quick look I think that PP has something to do with any difference. I have a sense that the Leica Forum members are generally committed to excellence and that extends to PP. I know that some here do very little PP but I think most digital images benefit from even small adjustments. Other noticeable differences have to do with lens characteristics (oof area). Other posters here have noted that most of the Leica images have been made with top of the line prime lenses while the Nikon thread hosts a much broder variety of bodies and lenses. My 2 cents. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljclark Posted March 21, 2009 Share #31 Posted March 21, 2009 Jaap, You know as well as I do that you can’t just take a bunch of random pictures and make a valid comparison between cameras. There are too many variables involved. [snip] The M8 and the D3 and D3X all make magnificent pictures. It’s up to the guy holding the camera to take advantage of that. I see a few good pictures and a lot of bad pictures in both samples but I don’t see anything that tells me one camera brand is better than the other. Too many variables. I'd love to collect a handful of skilled photographers (a couple M8 shooters, and 2 or 3 Nikon shooters with decent Nikon and Zeiss glass -- maybe even one shooting a D300) and turn them loose in an specific area for a day...Someplace that would allow them to do their own thing, but still be likely to capture some of the same subjects -- someplace like DC's National Mall. Then hand the photographer's selected frames, in unprocessed RAW, over to a real PP wizard. What do you think the results would be in a blind test? (Well, not completely blind, for obvious reasons.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 21, 2009 Share #32 Posted March 21, 2009 Yes I am prejudice. If I wasn't I would of kept my Nikon D200 and all the top glass I had and still would not completely like the images I got from it. One thing I notice when I zoom in on the nikon images is they break apart. Not so with the M8 images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted March 21, 2009 Share #33 Posted March 21, 2009 I know all that, but it is just that I saw a different look as a generality in the mass of images, and I prefferred the Leica one. I never said "better"... Fair enough. I find that I don't necessarily prefer one class over the other. I prefer the good pictures in the samples, no matter what camera made them. It always seems to me that the really important things about a photograph are what it says and how it says it, meaning the rightness of the geometry and the relationship of its elements. Those things are subjective too, so I guess it all comes down to personal opinion -- as does all art. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted March 21, 2009 Share #34 Posted March 21, 2009 I couldn't see any consistent difference in presence, punch or tonality (not at web resolution anyway). There are some very good photos in both threads. Agreed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted March 21, 2009 Share #35 Posted March 21, 2009 Yes I am prejudice. If I wasn't I would of kept my Nikon D200 and all the top glass I had and still would not completely like the images I got from it. One thing I notice when I zoom in on the nikon images is they break apart. Not so with the M8 images. It's a shame your pictures are "breaking apart." Maybe if you let some local photographers look at them you can find out what you're doing wrong. By the way, the D200 isn't exactly top of the line. Which "top glass" were you using with it? Maybe that was your problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 21, 2009 Share #36 Posted March 21, 2009 I guess it was quiet in the Jaap household? Maybe there was a nostalgic longing for the Leica forum of 2007? In any case, this stuff is so old and so wrong. But on the other hand, I love the M8... and I guess Leica owners do appear to have nicer dogs than Nikon owners (on the evidence of those threads). In addition they seem to have sleeker and sportier cars. My own experience suggests that we are also superior lovers (YMMV of course). So... apparently I did choose the right camera, after all! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted March 21, 2009 Share #37 Posted March 21, 2009 Agree. So does REAL Nugat.... 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/80051-am-i-really-that-prejudiced/?do=findComment&comment=847853'>More sharing options...
jamhowa Posted March 21, 2009 Share #38 Posted March 21, 2009 But what I think makes the difference is that an average Leica owner will be a better photographer than an average Nikon owner. This is partly also due to the price, I would guess 90% of us buy one because we like photography & not because we are "gearheads". Leica's do not have all the gizmo's a gearhead is looking for, they are too primitive. So the average Leica user is prepared to pay a considerable price for something else, namely to enjoy taking pictures. With the M8 you cannot take a decent picture unless you at least have some understanding of basic optics. If you understand optics you can take better pictures, or at least you have more control over the situation. I think that there are "gearheads" in every photographic community, but I think the essential difference is all Leica photographers are forced to think. Even an R8/9 requires you to think. Most modern digital cameras have dumbed down the whole process so much that they require virtually no technical understanding of photography. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 21, 2009 Share #39 Posted March 21, 2009 Most modern digital cameras have dumbed down the whole process so much that they require virtually no technical understanding of photography. Yes - Leica owners are superior in every sphere, including intellect and "technical understanding of photography" which always leads to better pictures of dogs and cars. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted March 21, 2009 Share #40 Posted March 21, 2009 Yes - Leica owners are superior in every sphere, including intellect and "technical understanding of photography" which always leads to better pictures of dogs and cars.Maybe a bit strongly formulated but in essence this is clearly true:D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.