Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/16

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] optical excellence and the human error factor
From: Austin Franklin <austin@darkroom.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:57:40 -0400

> So, for comparison, we can already forget about standard color
> prints done through most commercial labs. It is almost impossible to
> detect any significant difference with other top gear if one shoots color 
> prints.

I don't disagree the prints may not be as good as they can be, but the 
negatives themselves should be up to snuff, and can be printed to be 
exceptional prints by a top lab.  Gee, there are many high end labs in my 
area, that I use for client work.  If you are a pro, that's how you work. 
 Even if you're not, it's only cost (or knowing they exist, and where) that 
is keeping you from using them.

> ...But that doesn't mean that the average user will be able to obtain 
this
> maximum performance, even when he pays attention to other elements in the 
> chain (like film and so on).
> In fact, the question is: will he be able to use his gear in such way
> that one will be able to distinguish his output from the one shot with
> competing (and, in many instances, theoretically weaker) gear?

I think the key to what you say here is 'average user'.   I agree, it will 
probably be luck that an average user obtains superior results, from most 
any camera.  But, an experienced, 'good' photographer should be able to 
obtain superior results.  Not to be offensive, but as many have said, and I 
agree, just because you have a Leica (or any high end camera) it doesn't 
mean your images will improve (unless it's a Hasselblad ;-).  These are 
tools that require experience and understanding to use (oh, OK, even a 
Hasselblad).

> A little handshake, a small focusing error, ... all that is needed to get 
> from "excellent" to "average" image quality. How many times have we not
> said to ourselves, after seeing results, that this or that could have
> been (much) better if we had been able to focus more precisely...

I take multiple shots of the 'same' image, and make sure I am focused for 
each...yes, I do get a few out of focus images, unwanted motion etc. per 
roll, but I most always have one of the 'same' image in focus.  Some people 
bracket their exposures too to make up for this possible error too...

> It is a fact that, with our Leica M and R gear, the error margin is
> potentially more important than the one of e.g. Canon and Nikon gear, be
> it already for the simple reason that one has to make more decisions and
> manual adjustments (like focusing) oneself.

I assume you mean manual vs automatic, because manual is, after all, 
manual.  More on this below ;-)

> But, one can safely state that it is more likely that the EOS gear
> will deliver more "top" pictures than the Leica. Not because the gear is
> better (it is not, at least not theoretically), but because there is less 
> of a human error factor involved.

I have used fully automatic gear, and it sometimes doesn't focus where I 
want, it doesn't give me the correct exposure, picks the wrong shutter 
speed (Fuji GA645 has only AP mode), etc.  My images with completely manual 
equipment have far more top pictures than with automatic equipment.

> If you still want to be convinced: try shooting indoors in an average
> house (half-dark). You can safely bet that you will get better focused
> pictures with the EOS than with the Leica.

I am convinced I am far better than auto-focus is, especially in low light 
situations, and ESPECIALLY using razor lenses line the Noctilux or 
Summilux.  I shoot in mostly (if not all) existing light, and find I can 
focus dead on.  Their are techniques you can learn to use to make sure you 
are in focus.

> there is potentially more room for a human
> error with Leica gear than with e.g. an EOS 1V or an F5.

That is not clear to me.   It is clear that I can take more pictures with 
the EOS/F5 because I don't have to take the time to actually focus and make 
sure the exposure is right, but are those pictures any good?  Most of the 
times, they are equally as 'technically' good (correct exposure, focus and 
composition) but I believe I can do better knowing what I am doing in the 
'other' conditions.

Replies: Reply from "CIS" <s_lamb@compuserve.com> (Re: [Leica] optical excellence and the human error factor)