Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re:[Leica] leica mystique
From: "TSL" <eno22@enter.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 00:31:30 -0400

well I'm not in any position to offer anything short of a subjective view,
which is driving this point for the most part anyhow. It seems unclear
although understandable to speak of "are in a general sense just as good"
but...  Leica is better in what sense?  This would indicate something
specific I would assume - also as you mention "these qualities in
particular".  The emphasis seems to be on "sharpness" - indicating that in
this respect the glass is "equal".  But then it's contrast its glow - other
factors are not specifically a reference to "the good glass".  I guess this
akin to saying that an older 35 will give you better xxxxx than the
'optically superior' aspherical.  It's tough to analyze an optical design in
itself of course.  Benchmarking must be at a certain time focused on a
particular - sharpness at the edges, etc.  So 'how' are these lenses "equal
in the general sense" - I'm sure there are good enough answers here.  But
how are these qualities extracted?
A noticeable difference with the naked eye (quick look) revealing which are
the Leica pics is not all that subtle - especially if this is with a good
number of various mixed photos.  The question, practically is can the same
be said of the other systems involved?  If I can tell which one's are from
another camera, does it make that one different and if so then what sense
does it make to say that Leica is better.  Certainly there is a unique
difference but it appears that we 'are' talking superiority here.  Optical?
Or just that Leica is really unique?  that's a tough line to draw.
Respecting Leica's difference in these ways is no favor to the others.  One
might say that MF is 'sharper' than M, but M still has that quality of best
bokeh, etc.  So should we just go along with the thing - well sharpness is
better so if you're enlarging - or it's the same sharpness - depends on what
you are doing - well what does THAT mean. Or doesn't mean. Perhaps the
answer here is that all the included lenses are capable of producing images
the same "generally" in that none will be 'ineffective' - it's capabilities
to produce the best image are there?  So it's fair game?  Then what's the
worth of such statements about different? Don't know...
However since I am looking at this from a photographer's (i.e. allowed to
like something without any detailed grounds) I'll say easily that whatever
the case the Leica images are different in a way that 'does' make them
better than the others.  Not reasonable?  What is reasonable here?  There's
a recent temptation to make the rule "they are both equally good in what
they do".  Or "to each his own" Or "separate but equal".  This gets sour.
In light of this, the R lenses - do have the "Leica Look" - definitely.  Not
the same as M but its Leica looking to me!  Also - the M is "more" Leica
than R.  This is easily agreed upon unless one is making a point.  So is M
better?  Well, they're both good...hogwash.  Why can't someone make a damn
opinion!  Those that are more informed in the empirical sense will not be
quick to disagree making it all the more a valid statement.  The M lenses
are better.  Or should I change my views? If I'm using an SLR I use an R
glass.  If RF, M glass.  Both best in their category for me.  But also they
can be compared!  M is the answer, even if I didn't use the M much I'd have
to go this way.

Ohh,, you were asking about certain qualities in themselves.  Yeah the R is
better than others too. Someone will wave a flag here.

<I'm interested in this passage, and whether anyone can attest that it is
true for
R lenses as well. I'm a relative newcomer to Leica and haven't used the M
system
enough to judge it against the R system, and it is these qualities I was
looking
for when I switched to Leica R from Canon.

Has anyone compared the below qualities between the two systems? I'm quite
happy
with the R's, and I've heard the R lenses are just as good and in some cases
"better" than the M lenses, but I'm wondering about these qualities in
particular.

Thanks,

Dave Yoder>
>>
> The Leica Mystique - by Carl Weese
> Reprinted from DARKROOM & CREATIVE CAMERA TECHNIQUES, July/August 1995
>
> Well, false.  Nikon, Canon, Zeiss and others make perfectly superb
> lenses that are in a general sense just as good as Leica glass.  But
> Leica M lenses are different.  They've been designed to foster a certain
> kind of image.  Many photographers find that prints from negatives made
> with Leica lenses are no sharper than prints from other major brand
> lenses.  However, they are smoother, richer, more luminous.  Shadow
> areas have more separation and are less likely to need dodging.  It is a
> subtle thing, but still it isn't uncommon to look at a set of prints and
> just know that the pictures were shot with M Leica lenses.