Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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.