Re: Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH quality

[Oddmund Garvik <garvik@i-t.fr>]

Pascal wrote:

>On the risk of hurting some other people's feelings, I must confess that
>the results of this lens do not appear to be significantly different from
>my Nikon SLR equipment (Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8, Micro-Nikkor 55 mm f/2.8,
>Zoom-Nikkor 28-50 mm f/3.5), and this with a variety of subjects (travel
>pictures, available-light, night).

Well, this confirms my own and many other photographers experiences. I have
mentioned this several times in this forum. An FM and an M are two
different camera concepts, but often used for the same sort of photography.
It is clear that the Nikon F.. system is more versatile as system, than the
M-Leica system. 

If you use good Nikon lenses and good Leica lenses, you will obtain "the
same" results. The colour rendering of German lenses is more neutral and
give this impression of an overall better rendering. In black and white I
cannot see any difference. I have been using M-Summicron 35mm and 50mm
lenses for years, and also the Tele-Elmarit 90mm lens. With my Nikon FM I
have through the years used Nikkor f1.4 35mm, Nikkor f1.2 50mm, Nikkor f1.8
85mm, Nikkor f2.5 105mm and an Angenieux 70-210mm zoom lens. 

I don't bother writing down technical details while I am working. I know
approximatively how it was done. I find it impossible, however, to
distinguish between FM and M-Leica images. As I already mentioned, I think
the quality of processing and printing is a matter of decisive importance.
If you want "better" results, you will have to increase the negative
format. I have never seen convincing examples of equivalent results with an
M-Leica and good MF cameras, as some Leica users often claim. You cannot
really compare an M-Leica with a Rolleiflex, for instance, or a Hasselblad.

Is it important? I don't think so. You get excellent results with several
24x36 cameras. The decisive factor is purely irrationaland subjective, a
question of taste, of "compatibility" between camera and photographer, a
question of size, of noise, delay and so on. I think it mainly is a
question of habit. 

It is indisputable, however, that new Leica cameras have the poorest
price/quality ratio of any 24x36 mm camera. It is not thereby said that
Leica make bad cameras. What I say is that the Leica legend is very
exaggerated. There are several alternatives at the same level, cheaper,
more versatile, and probably more efficient. I shall not mention any of
them..., but you are not at all missing a point, Pascal! 

I still have a Leica M4 (without lenses). Every time I am looking at it, I
ask myself for how long time I will continue saying: "Aah, a Leica is a
Leica...". The marketing people in Solms know this. That is the reason why
they still sell a simple camera concept from 1954 with a single 50mm f2.0
lens for the blood-curdling prize of about $4550 (in France)...with your
35mm ASPH we are close to $6700!

I will soon move definitely to my farm and start "another" life. Spending
so much money on a camera is for *me* a total lack of common sense. I will
have to pay less ($5200) in pure operating costs (tax included) per hectare
(2.5 acres) vineyard...which will give me about 40 hl (880 gal?) of
excellent red wine, Appellation Chinon Controllee. Sometimes it is smart to
stick the finger into the ground to find out where you are...  


- ---
Oddmund <garvik@i-t.fr>  //  Chinon, France