Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Why do people buy a leica?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:

Those who don't actually own a Leica seem to covet the 'Leica glow'.
Thos who do own a Leica often stop down a bit to avoid it. Odd really.
JJ


Laughing
nicely put Wink


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
dude163 wrote:
I dislike live view and video , I dont shoot for a living, Im on a disability pension from Air traffic control at the moment, and I do most of my photography as a cathartic *chill out* experience, I was just thinking that a Leica might be the sweet spot

I mean between quality, speed and the *zen* of photo


Go get the Leica. It is the perfect tool for what you describe. Slow food and slow photography, I envy you Smile


I have to agree here. If you want to have a cathartic "chill out" experience,
I can only assume that the Leica would be the one for you. Like Esox says,
"Go get the Leica!" Cool Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm late seeing this thread . . . Just a few words about the "Leica glow" that so many folks bang on about and so few really seem to understand. It has nothing, repeat nothing to do with flare or the 'diffusion of highlights' spreading some sort of veil across the image.

It goes back well before digital cameras were created and has to do with the way some - repeated in a loud voice, SOME Leica lenses reproduce colours, particularly on slide films. To see and understand it properly, you need to see side-by-side shots taken with -say - a 5cm Summilux - and several similar lenses from other good makers under a variety of lighting conditions. Then get someone to mix them up and put them through a top-class projector lens and look for ones that have some 'special' quality about them. Often - but not always - some of those slides will seem to have some extra 'richness' or 'vibrance' - and that's the 'Leica glow'.

You won't see it with every Leica lens, and you won't ever see it if the exposure's wrong and you won't see it on machine produced prints from your local store. And I can tell you from experience that it's harder to see with digital images than it was with Kodachrome and other slide films. And it has nothing to do with curves on an MTF chart, so far as I can tell. Maybe it's some sort of 'designer magic', or maybe - more likely - it was just an instance of things somehow 'coming together'.

Sorry to blether on, but I do occasionally get fed-up reading the same misconception. And my arthritis is playing up today Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A postscript to my earlier post - Some Leica lenses do indeed flare ! I've had a few in my time . . .


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
A postscript to my earlier post - Some Leica lenses do indeed flare ! I've had a few in my time . . .


Stephen, is the difference enough to compare on a monitor over the
web, or is it something I would have to see in-person? Just curious,
as I've always heard about the Leica Glow, and your statement seems
to ring true and avoids confusion.

I do recall seeing on my monitor, some differences in color rendition
between a group of lenses on the same shot, and that the Pancolor
lens group seemed to somehow make the colors look better (to me).
But, perhaps I was already influenced - it would probably have been
better to do a "blind" comparison, wherein I was simply shown the
samples and asked to speak about them.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
... and that's the 'Leica glow'

Or rather that's one concept of the "Leica glow".

There is another "Leica glow" produced by older Leica lenses which describes an overflowing halo at light spots and some similar effects.

These two terms are not "confused", but merely the same term is used for two different things.

I don't think that one meaning owns the patents for the term. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence - hi there!

I think you'll probably see it if you have a really good, well calibrated monitor - something which I confess I don't have. But I'm not sure. To be honest, I can't easily see a significant 'superiority' (and I use the word with some caution) on my computer, or on our large HD televsion either. But neither of those is, as far as I know, going to be as good as a monitor optimised for image processing. My guess is that you'd need to be able to access raw files to download to get a properly informed conclusion. Processed jpegs might not be the best to scrutinise.

Some lenses seemed to have the quality more than others. I had a 50mm Summilux and a 90mm Summicron, both made in the mid-60s, both of which had that extra something showing up regularly, and some the Leicaflex lenses I had for a while were the same - a 90 Elmarit-R, a 135 elmarit-R and later a 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R in particular. But the 50mm Summicron-R didn't seem to do it. Both those older M lenses now seem to fare relatively indifferently in the readers' reviews. And in Erwin Puts' MTF testing.

I'm a lot less picky these days and I think the character of lenses haa changed as well. I read the Leica User Forum posts and read descriptions that suggest the new aspherics completely eclipse the 1960s era optics, in contrast and 'clinical' detail. I've never been able to try any of them, but they sound truly spectacular. The old ones were pretty good.

Lenses certainly do have individual characteristics, you are absolutely right. I had a Topcon RE Super once with a 58/1.4 lens, and although it gave really 'warm' slides they looked almost to be "glowing". Maybe the Leitz people didn't have a monopoly of getting thing to come together, eh?.

One of the problems with Leitz/Leica lenses (and with any other inherently good optic) is that unless one's technique is pretty much dead right, the quality just doesn't come out. I used to want to bang my head on the wall when customers complained that their new Leica didn't give any better results than their Pentax/Nikon/Minolta etc had done. When you shone the bright light in their eyes and got the rubber truncheon out you'd find they had a cheapo projector with a plastic lens, or an enlarger with a wobbly column and some junky old lens their uncle's neighbour's friend's girlfriend's great-grandad had been given in 1914 . . . Or they got 6x4 mail-order enprints. The results could be better than the best Japanese stuff, but you had to work to get it. Or buy a Pradovit and use Kodachrome II, once you'd learned how to use a lightmeter Smile That was the easiest way to see the 'glow' I've been going on about.

Sorry, Laurence, I'm droning on . . .


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
... and that's the 'Leica glow'

Or rather that's one concept of the "Leica glow".

There is another "Leica glow" produced by older Leica lenses which describes an overflowing halo at light spots and some similar effects.

These two terms are not "confused", but merely the same term is used for two different things.

I don't think that one meaning owns the patents for the term. Wink


Well, I cheerfully allow that in today's lexicon your last sentence is spot-on. But it's a relatively recent way of describing what we used to call flare . . . forty years ago. Very Happy A regretable ambiguity, in my 'umble opinion!


PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
...I was just thinking that a Leica might be the sweet spot
I mean between, quality, speed and the *zen* of photo... I was just looking for some help about making a decision.

My brain says stick with DSLRs , but my heart........


If you buy a second hand M8 and dislike it you can probably sell it for the same amount you bought it for. Also, there is no reason to dump the K-x and its lenses unless finances force you to.

Having never used a rangefinder I wanted to see what the fuss was about without the expense. My lady love bought me a FED2. I love it. But I won't be selling my SLRs. Or my TLRs. Or even my 5x4 Horseman...

K.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
womble wrote:
dude163 wrote:
...I was just thinking that a Leica might be the sweet spot
I mean between, quality, speed and the *zen* of photo... I was just looking for some help about making a decision.

My brain says stick with DSLRs , but my heart........


If you buy a second hand M8 and dislike it you can probably sell it for the same amount you bought it for. Also, there is no reason to dump the K-x and its lenses unless finances force you to.

Having never used a rangefinder I wanted to see what the fuss was about without the expense. My lady love bought me a FED2. I love it. But I won't be selling my SLRs. Or my TLRs. Or even my 5x4 Horseman...

K.


Well spoken Kris, Leica RF is for reach guys I am perfectly happy with Russians too. No way to sell my gears just for buy a Leica RF and if need tele lens, macro etc , hey where is my SLR ?! Wink


PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

Some lenses seemed to have the quality more than others. I had a 50mm Summilux and a 90mm Summicron, both made in the mid-60s, both of which had that extra something showing up regularly


I am curious, do you have image samples?


PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
womble wrote:
dude163 wrote:
...I was just thinking that a Leica might be the sweet spot
I mean between, quality, speed and the *zen* of photo... I was just looking for some help about making a decision.

My brain says stick with DSLRs , but my heart........


If you buy a second hand M8 and dislike it you can probably sell it for the same amount you bought it for. Also, there is no reason to dump the K-x and its lenses unless finances force you to.


K.


Hi womble , funny you say that, I will keep the KX for sure along with the FA50/1.4 (autofocus for the kids!), helios 40/85mm and my takumars , and I realised also that a M RF is a zero risk proposition like you said, I can easily sell it to recoup my money if I dont like it

thanks

Robert
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3