Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/07/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I like Pentax, Olympus, Leica, Nikon, and Zeiss. The only cameras I ever had that broke down on me were Canon (once), Nikon (twice) and Leica (3 times). Just my experience. I can't hate an object (correction: I do hate cell phones). I can't hate a camera. And I have yet to have a lens that is bad enough that it limits me on technical grounds. I've been blown away by some Sigma photography. If we had a contest that required us to choose the lens that shot the image, I think people would have to pull out their loupes and pixel peep. This is a Leica forum, so it's good to love Leica here. It's also okay to like other makes. If we ever limit this forum to talking only about Leica, I'd probably unsubscribe (again) because we'd have to talk about $7,000 bodies and $7,000 lenses that I'll never buy in the future. This is a great forum with some great photographers on both sides of every issue. Jeffery On Jul 1, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> wrote: > I don't use Olympus or Pentax. I did use Rolleiflex with Zeiss glass on > my SL-35 before owning my first Leica R. The Zeiss glass was super > compared to friends who shoot OM's and Spotmatics. Now I shoot Nikon but > still use some Leica glass, mainly the 35-70/4 and the 100 APO with a few > others thrown in for good meausre. I bought some of Nikon's best glass. > I just got through editing a few thousand photos taken on my latest trip. > Looking at them at 1:1 to touch up sensor dust, I am very aware of which > shots are taken with the Leica glass vs the Nikon glass. As I am peeking > around for dust and I come across a bright edge, if I see no color > fringing I know, without looking, it was Leica R glass. If I see that > lovely color fringed edge, when I look at the lens used, it is Nikon > glass, or a few years back, Canon glass. It is a very rare occurrence > that I see CA on my Leica glass, and a quite common occurrence with Nikon > or Canon. Lightroom does a nice job of cleaning it up, but of course, > those are imaginary pixels, only as good as the algorithms used in > Lightroom, and are not necessarily a representation of what was really > there. > > So, my personal experience is in total support of Tina. And I might ad > that most of my shots with the Leica glass are near wide open, while with > the Nikon/Canon glass were stopped down usually 3 stops to get some kind > of sharpness, unless stopping down more or less is important for > photographic compositional reasons. > > Aram > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Chris Crawford" <chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com> > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 6:10 PM > To: <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Buying Leica..... > >> Tina, >> >> This is a load of bullshit. I've used Olympus OM gear since I was a kid, >> and never had issues with soft edges, fringing, or chromatic aberration >> with the Zuiko lenses, and they have good Bokeh. Never had those problems >> with Pentax lenses either. If quality really mattered to you, you wouldn't >> bother with 35mm anyway. A cheap Mamiya 645 will blow away ANYTHING you >> shoot with Leica, no matter what Leica lens you use. I've shot both, and >> it is NO CONTEST. >> >> I have not touched my Leicas since I got my Mamiya 6. The quality >> difference is incredible. Leica doesn't want or care about your business >> anyway. You got into the system decades ago, when photographers still made >> good money on average and Leicas were not much more expensive than Nikons. >> If you were starting out today, the only way you'd have a Leica is if your >> husband bought it for you. >> >> That's not a slam on your abilities, its the reality of what working >> photographers in Journalism earn now. I became a teacher because I got >> damned tired of being f--king poor. Teaching is one of the very few middle >> class jobs left here, and I still cannot afford a digital Leica on my pay. >> My starting pay in the Ft. Wayne school system is more than the >> photographers at our local papers earn, and all of them have been there >> for over 20 years! You think any of these working photographers shoot with >> Leica jewelry? Hell no. They shoot Nikon. >> >> You're letting your emotional attachment to a brand get the best of >> reason. That is not smart. Leica doesn't give a damn about you; they're a >> business, not a church. Being so emotionally invested in your gear just >> gives them justification to continue charging astronomical prices. You're >> a marketer's wet dream. >> >> >> -- >> Chris Crawford >> Fine Art Photography >> Fort Wayne, Indiana >> 260-437-8990 >> >> http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio >> >> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Crawford/48229272798 >> Become a fan on Facebook >> >> >> >> >> On 7/1/13 7:58 PM, "Tina Manley" <images at comporium.net> wrote: >> >>> To me the camera matters. I've used other cameras. For stock or large >>> enlargements, you examine the files at 100%. There is no contest. I >>> hate >>> chromatic aberrations, fringing, soft edges, awful bokeh - all of which >>> you >>> get with other lenses and other cameras. With Leica cameras and Leica >>> lenses, I don't worry about 100% examinations. They are always good! >>> Sometimes great. If I'm going to spend my time and energy and money for >>> travel to take photos, I'm not going to take a chance on an inferior >>> camera >>> or lens. >>> >>> Tina >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Sonny Carter <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Peter, >>>> >>>> I post pictures from my M9, my Olympus EP-1, my Pentax Kr, and my >>>> iPhone 5. >>>> >>>> The most pleasurable to use is the M9, but I do sometimes need AF, and >>>> thus >>>> the other three get some amount of use. >>>> >>>> The quality of the "three" is not there, but I've learned to use them >>>> appropriately, and with my editing eye, I can produce web postings that >>>> satisfy, but the high detail of the Leica files enable me to do things >>>> with >>>> flowers that just are not possible with the others. So, to me, the >>>> camera >>>> matters. (I could wish for live view and a tilting Electronic >>>> viewfinder >>>> though.) ;-) >>>> >>>> hmmm, (Sony?) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Peter Dzwig <pdzwig at summaventures.com >>>> >wrote: >>>> >>>> > All, >>>> > >>>> > At the end of the day, whether we are using Leica, Fuji or something >>>> else I >>>> > don't doubt that Uncle Doctor Ted would impatiently remind us that >>>> it's >>>> us >>>> > not >>>> > the cameras that take the photos, and that if we are any good anyway >>>> then >>>> > the >>>> > camera shouldn't matter a huge deal. >>>> > >>>> > Peter >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 26/06/2013 23:25, John McMaster wrote: >>>> > > I really wonder if I would have bought into Leica if I was buying >>>> > now..... I had not shot with nor knew anybody who owned one (I have >>>> owned >>>> > Canon, Nikon, Contax, Olympus, Hasselblad, LF etc and shot with a lot >>>> more, >>>> > all prime lenses etc) and thought the name was all image ;-) >>>> > > >>>> > > I was coming from an APS-C Nikon and was looking at Canon 5D II or >>>> M9, >>>> > at that time size (I knew I would not carry a DSLR) so went M9. If the >>>> Fuji >>>> > series was on the market at the time would I have bought that? >>>> > > >>>> > >>From http://zackarias.com/blog/ >>>> > > >>>> > > "You see, for decades Leica was the shit for the traveling >>>> journalist, >>>> > street shooters, documentary photographers, etc. They are fantastic >>>> cameras >>>> > with an undeniable heritage. But here?s the deal. The folks who put >>>> Leica >>>> > on the map can?t afford them any longer. They are a boutique camera >>>> > company. The working stiff can?t shell out close to $10,000 for a body >>>> and >>>> > a lens. Go price out 2 M?s, a 20mm ish lens, a 35mm, and a 75mm. Go >>>> price >>>> > that out. Then price out an x100s, an X-Pro1, and the Fuji 14mm, 35mm, >>>> and >>>> > 60mm lens. You still haven?t spent the price of a single Leica body >>>> yet. >>>> > Let alone two of them. And glass." >>>> > > >>>> > > With hindsight I would still go Leica, nothing to touch the lenses >>>> for >>>> > different looks and I prefer the simpler operation, but if I had not >>>> used >>>> > them what would make me spend 'rather a lot' more on Leica than Fuji? >>>> Does >>>> > 'full frame' or the build quality make enough of a difference for the >>>> price >>>> > jump to most people? >>>> > > >>>> > > john >>>> > > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > Leica Users Group. >>>> > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > >>>> > =========================================================== >>>> > Dr Peter Dzwig >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Leica Users Group. >>>> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Sonny >>>> http://sonc.com/look/ >>>> Natchitoches, Louisiana >>>> >>>> USA >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tina Manley >>> http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information