Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/25

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

Subject: [Leica] Transitions in photography
From: Doug Herr <Telyt@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:36:34 -0500

Dave Rodgers wrote:

>>>
 I can't  fully  explain why I still think Leica glass makes a difference
in the digital realm. It's not like CRTs or 1,440 dpi printers cry for
resolution, and you can punch up contrast quite easily.  Yet I see things
at times that convince me to stay with Leica, even when AF  beckons. If I
had to justify it (and I know that I don't to this audience) I'd say that
nothing seems to tame imperfect light like Leica glass. The more I shoot,
the more I compare, the more I'm convinced. I lose very few frames due to
poor focusing. However, the real gem photos seem to be those taken in
adverse lighting.
<<<

I've noticed the same thing.  The chromes made with Leica glass hold shadow
detail better where the "Brand N" glass gave me murk; brighter colors with
harsh backlighting is also obvious.  Before digital printing I could excuse
murky shadows in my prints as a result of the printing process but it's
obvious now.  It's the glass.

My own transitions include:

1) digital printing.  I'll never use an enlarger again.
2) from R to SL.  The larger body feels better with my primary lenses, the
250, 400 and 560 Telyts, and the awesome, bright SL viewfinder is just what
I need with these slow lenses.  A large infusion of cash might cause a
transition to winder-ized R8 bodies.

Doug Herr
Sacramento
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt