Re: [Leica] What's it all about?

["Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>]

Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> Sheesh. Actually, the _photograph_ is the point. At least for me.

    Amen!
>
>
> If some of you guys don't watch it, I'm going to have to design a test
> that objectively compares prints from four or five different lenses, and
> invite people to put up or shut up (as the expression would have it; I
> don't mean to sound rude). If I did a more informal test and sent around
> a stack of prints made with four great lenses, are any of you so sure
> you could pick out the pictures made with the Leica lenses? Be careful
> how you answer that! <s>
>

    The reason that people often buy products based upon endorsements of
celebs, be it golf clubs, tennis rackets, cars etc. etc. is that tests are
more likely than not to reflect only a particular circumstance which is not
extrapolatable to real world conditions. For example, flare is often not a
problem unless you are shooting toward a light source, sharpness (and
particular apparent sharpness) is affected by so many conditions that under
a wide range of conditions it may be impossible to tell the difference
between any two lenses. People who buy expensive equipment for other than as
a status symbol have a range of reasons, but as you say, it is the
photograph that counts, and I would say that the best reason to get a Leica
*system* is that the combination of lens and camera allows one to get
photos, be it high sharpness and/or contrast, in difficult lighting
conditions, and in situations where it would otherwise be impossible to get
the same photo (e.g. when noise ruins the shot etc. etc.). I'd venture to
say that one *could* under some condition obtain a photo using a pinhole
camera that one could not distinguish from one obtained with a Leica
<em>under some particular condition</em> but that's not the point is it...

Jonathan Borden


Jonathan Borden