Leica V Others

Or perhaps one of Top Cat's pictures? In all these years of hearing about his extensive collection of expensive Mamiya, Contax and Canon cameras I cannot recall ever seeing a single one of his pictures.

You can find some Petrikography via the following links. Though I have a feeling you might need to be registered with photo.net to view member galleries these days.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=224576
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=151843
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=237076
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=127049

Matthew

Back to the original question of the thread. A leica rangefinder has no mirror which results in lower feasible handheld shutter speeds and a shorter latency between when you press the release and the shutter firing. The lenses have a lovely creamy way of rendering out of focus details (bokeh). These will impact on the final image (whatever size), as will the style of composition developed with the direct optical viewfinder system.

Lots more information is available at the Leica forum (and their search engine actually works!) where some users also work with Canon or Nikon SLRs and can give direct comparisons based on experience:
http://www.leica-camera.com/cgi-bin/discus_e/discus.pl?pg=topics&access=guest

Don't bother with trying to compare original image quality using web images, its a waste of time given the number of variables (scanning, JPEG compression, limited screen resolution, colour matching etc.)

A used M6 has all the functions of the current MP model and is a much more reasonably priced way into the system. A 50 or 35mm summicron lens would be a useful combination to start with.

Nick

[This message was edited by Nick_S on Mon 15 November 2004 at 11:55.]

[This message was edited by Nick_S on Mon 15 November 2004 at 11:57.]

Nick
Good stuff on those forum (fora fori?) thanks for the info
Martin
PS Good searching as well!

quote:

---

Or perhaps one of Top Cat's pictures? In all these years of hearing about his extensive collection of expensive Mamiya, Contax and Canon cameras I cannot recall ever seeing a single one of his pictures.

---

I've posted the odd one or two over the last couple of years, but usually only to serve some other purpose - such as pictures of kit or whatever.

My photography is personal in the main, and when I take something I like, it gets printed. I no longer have a scanner and apart from my dSLR stuff the rest of my work exists only in the print/analogue domain.

Unlike yourself, Matthew, I've long since given up on photographic willy-waving competitions It's not a competitive sport, you know...

Photography for me is a personal thing and unless you have a liking for old boats, architecture or beaches, you'd find my stuff pretty ordinary. Unlike you, I have never made any claims to be a great photographer. I prefer to try to do justice to what I'm taking and I take advantage of the fact that my wife owns and has access to a lot of gear.

However, let me put one thing straight. My wife is a professional photographer, almost certainly far better than you will ever be. These cameras are/were ours, except the Mamiya which I purchased just before we met.

If the search option were working I could point you to a couple of photos I posted ages back but that's not the point. As Phil Greenspun puts it, "it's easy to be a photographic hero on the screen" (or words to that effect) - but seeing the final print is all that matters. That's why I don't bother posting on the web.

You probably already know this, but almost all of the contributions to sites like photo.net are done in a 'fishing for compliments/praise/validation' capacity - as you seem to do on a regular basis, my old nemesis.

I don't need validation nor care what anyone thinks of my photos. They're mine. They're not for public and/or internet audiences. Can't tell it any more truthfully than that.

John

Oh dear, touched a nerve have I?

FWIW I fully admit to being a crappy photographer and have never made any claims otherwise.

Matthew

Not really a nerve, just took exception to your implication. That's all. Anyway, it's all a bit OT so let's just leave it at that for the sake of the others.

John

There was no implication -- I was just curious about your photographs. Mamiya and Contax are not brands people buy by accident (as it were) or for showing off in the way that many do with Nikon and Canon SLRs.

Matthew

Do try to have a look at the Nikon F3 which is sadly now discontinued, but mint examples are available from reputable dealers at surprisingly low prices. It uses the wonderful chunky Nikkor AI-S (ie non aufocus) lenses. Never bettered, in my opinion.

G

The best camera I've owned is my Olympus OM4 Ti because a) I enjoy using it and b) It is small and light. I have owned Leica and Contax in the past (amongst others) but ultimately I found that I did not take them with me everywhere because they were a pain to cart around. Whilst the optical quality of Leica kit is exemplary I'd chose a camera on usability as well as lens quality.

Finally, if absolute image quality is really important and portability not an issue why not buy medium format? Just a thought.

Bruce

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
Or perhaps one of Top Cat's pictures? In all these years of hearing about his extensive collection of expensive Mamiya, Contax and Canon cameras I cannot recall ever seeing a single one of his pictures.

Matthew

---

The most notable absence is the great man and Leica user himself - Mick Parry. I want him to post something for us all to admire.


The black and white pictures linked to above all prove that it is not the implement but the wielder that counts most.


I personally stick with a basic digital camera which suits me fine for the thousands of pictures I take of my daughter and teh one or two of other subjects. The manual SLR I used to use meant I missed far to many moments.


>Will add something funny when I think of it.<

[This message was edited by reductionist on Mon 15 November 2004 at 13:07.]

Bruce

The designer of the Olympus OM1 (Yoshihisa Maitani) was a fan of leica rangefinders which shows in the size and quietness of the OM-series cameras. My favourite camera for years was a black OM1n, but it really needed a selective or spot metering pattern (like your OM4 has).

Nick

Martin,

I didn't go into the detail I should have with my first reply, but, for what it's worth, the results I've seen from Leica suggests that fancy German glass does have an edge over, say, Nikon and Canon glass. For me, it comes down to four things:

* Leica prime lenses are amazingly sharp even wide open. Canon and Nikon lenses, in contrast, generally need to be stopped down one or maybe two clicks before they are razor sharp (with several notable exceptions). But this matters only if you do a lot of low-light, wide-aperture photography.

* Leica primes generally have better bokeh (the way out-of-focus elements are rendered) than Canon and especially Nikon lenses, although there are exceptions among all three brands. I think my 105 Nikkor, for example, is pretty damn close to a 90mm f/2.8 Leica for bokeh (see these examples, not mine, of shots taken with the 105 DC Nikkor). Seems plenty good to me.

* Leica primes are generally better at capturing "depth" -- the illusion that the 2-D image is 3-D.

* Leica primes really shine in B&W -- I don't know why and it's really hard to describe, but there's a beautiful tonality, creaminess and glow with Leica B&W shots.

That said, as so many have pointed out, the photographer's talent matters much, much more than the kit. This photographer, for instance, shoots a crappy consumer Nikon SLR with a cheap, flare-ridden lens, yet her fashion shots are amazing. What's even more interesting, at least for someone like me who's struggled for decades to learn the art of photography, she got "there" in no time at all. She discovered photography only a year or so ago and her lack of a Leica isn't holding her back.

One last thing... money. Leica is an expensive brand. A 50 f/2 Leica lens, for example, costs about $900, whereas the same focal length and speed from Canon or Nikon comes in at about $100. Ditto for bodies -- a Leica MP is about $2800, whereas a Nikon FM3a is about $600. You should consider whether your photography needs a camera and lens system that extravagant to shine.

Joe

Maya ROXXXXX

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
Maya ROXXXXX

---

Underdosing on the insulin again, mr r?

Mr R

Guys am I missing something here?
Maya? and Rox?

Maya = Maya Washington from Joe's link in the previous post.

Rox = TXTSPK for "Rocks" and is a method of expressing approval popular with young people like myself barely into their 30s.

Matthew

PS JonR -- It's overdosing with insulin that makes you go a bit squiffy.

quote:

---

I’ve been thinking a getting a film camera for ages, and have done a lot of homework. Question is though Leica seem to be the dogs whatsits could you, all things being equal as far as possible, tell from say a A3 print which was the Leica lens and which was the Nikon or Canon etc. Are they that noticeably good?
Martin

---

If the quality of the optics is a priority for you, don't leave Contax out of the equation: Zeiss and Leitz optics are simply superior. You might, for instance, see a difference when comparing detail in shadowy areas of the pictures you would take, since these better lenses will be able to transfer a much wider contrast range onto your film. My Canon lenses (and particularly the primes and L series) do a great job, but I cannot help but be amazed at the pictures taken by my friend, who states that "the name of Carl Zeiss is connected to his work".

If you want real quality, go for Hasselblad or Rollei, but expect to pay the price. Not only financially, but also in terms of ergonomics.

Cheers,

Edo

Edo wrote:
"If you want real quality, go for Hasselblad or Rollei, but expect to pay the price. Not only financially, but also in terms of ergonomics."

One of the reasons I enjoy using the Leica rangefinder is that when I see my slides or prints, they are focussed exactly where I intended. Focussing a medium format camera precisely on a mobile subject at full aperture is not easy (more limited depth of field), especially in low light. Having had, at various times, a Rollei SL66, 2.8GX and Mamiya C330, it was the latter which I found the nicest to compose and focus with, but the Rollei TLR allowed very long shutter speeds to be handheld and still returned crisp shots.

Nick

Have any regular Photonet visitors noticed that, in the last year or so, more than half of the top-rated pix have been shot with a D-SLR of some sort -- Nikon D70, D100, Canon Digital Rebel, Canon 10D, 20D, etc.?

Just an observation, but if you connect the dots a pattern seems to be emerging... photography is going digital and fast at that.

Joe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Petrik:
Just an observation, but if you connect the dots a pattern seems to be emerging... photography is going digital and fast at that.

---

Absolutely right, Joe. Recently, my lab even told me they weren't doing any wet prints anymore. I went on looking, but 20"x20" was the largest wet print any lab would make from my MF negatives. I settled for a semi-wet lambda print, and even though sharpness was good, I missed the finesse and natural tonality my old wet prints used to have.

Indeed, also in photography the earth is becoming slightly rounder each day.

Cheers,

Edo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick_S:
Focussing a medium format camera precisely on a mobile subject (...)

---

I haven't been fortunate enough to try one of those wonderful medium format auto-focus cameras yet, but that might just be what you need if you want to shoot moving objects. Please note that Rollei now also makes a 6x6 AF camera, they're not all 6x4,5 anymore.

Cheers,

Edo

Edo wrote:
"I haven't been fortunate enough to try one of those wonderful medium format auto-focus cameras yet, but that might just be what you need if you want to shoot moving objects."

I'm not sure how handholdable some of these are, but the Contax 645 does look good. Another option is the Mamiya M7 rangefinder camera, though the maximum aperture of its lenses (other than standard) is pretty slow.

Nick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick_S:
I'm not sure how handholdable some of these are, but the Contax 645 does look good. Another option is the Mamiya M7 rangefinder camera, though the maximum aperture of its lenses (other than standard) is pretty slow.

---

My main concern with this type of camera would be AF speed and accuracy. If it's not up to par with 35mm systems, there's not point in handholdability anyway...

Cheers,

Edo

Joe

The photonet statistic is a function of ease of submission of a digital originated image versus the extra steps of scanning etc of a wet or analog image.

So when are you taking the plunge <g>

Derek

<< >>

Oh bloody hell, just when you thaought it was safe, there's talk of a digital M.
http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/presse/data/03729/index_e.html