Re: [Leica] optical excellence and the human error factor

["CIS" <s_lamb@compuserve.com>]

Austin

I agree with you totally on your points below.  As an F5 user as well as am
M6 user, I am now getting more high quality images with the M6 than I ever
got with the F5.  Then reason is exactly the points that Pascal made.  I
have in the M6 a camera that does not do auto everything and I therefore
have to assess each shooting opportunity and decide the optimum film type
and camera settings to get the results I want.  As a result, I put more
thought into my photography and I therefore produce better images.  Yes, I
could rely on the F5 to control everything and in many cases it can produce
images ranging from acceptable to exceptional.  I could also manually
control the F5 and get the same results and many of the Nikon lenses produce
stunning images, especially the primes such as the 85mm f/1.4.  However, if
one is an average user then an F5 on auto will not produce any improvement
and one is therefore likely to stay an average user.  My wife (with no real
unerstanding of photography) can take stunning pictures with the F5 on auto,
but give her the M6 and she will fail in nearly every shot.  The M6 is a
camera that really does enable an average user to become more proficient and
to improve.

Simon

Austin Franklin replied to Pascal's points as follows:

> > 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.
>
>