Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Wendy, I have a collection of over 1200 original prints of A4/Letter size, mainly (95%) black and white, accumulated over the years through Print Exchanges, covering every combination of camera/lens you can imagine. I cannot tell the camera or lens or system used by looking at a print at normal viewing distances - this is a personal observation, others on the list might see differences (This is an essential disclaimer on this list). Some of my prints that other participants have enjoyed the most have been taken with the crassest, cheapest, plastic Nikon lenses, on the crassest, cheapest, plastic Nikon bodies. It really makes no difference to the photograph and print. My advice to you is this - buy what you enjoy using, what falls within your budget, what is instinctive to use. Most manufacturers of luxury items sell their products for what the market will bear, period. If you cost their products, they will say that the premium is due to 'design' or 'sophistication' or some such word, i.e. what the suckers in the real world will pay. There is a world of difference between perceived value (what others will think about the user) to actual value (how good the product really is). The classic example of this now is Toyota! All the negative hype and media/political feeding frenzy going on obscures the fact that their products on the whole are exceptionally good. I really wish I could buy their stock, but unfortunately, from India, it is not easy... Cheers Jayanand On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com>wrote: > Diglloyd, a subscription site, to which I no longer subscribe, had some in > depth analyses of the M9 and quite a few lenses. > The 35mm f2 Zeiss ZM lens was, in his opinion, the pick of the bunch, which > included a lot of Leica lenses too. > In terms of build quality he would be comparing it to current Canon and > Nikon lenses, as well as the Leica ones and they are obviously much better > than them and close to Leica in his opinion. I have never used a ZM lens > but > have a 28mm f2 for my Nikon which is much better made than recent Nikkors I > have used. > In his photographic comparisons the big difference between the 35mm f2 asph > Leica and the Zeiss was the field flatness, with the Zeiss much better in > the field. I am not much bothered, personally, about field flatness in > non-copier lenses, since I rarely photograph flat objects square on, but he > found landscapes with the Zeiss superior to the Leica because of this. > I may reconsider re-subscribing to the site, since I find has plausible > data on it. > He did have a go at reviewing the M9 and got a few things wrong and missed > the point at first, but eventually got well into it, he did not much like > it. > Anyway, IIRC depending on use he considered the 35mm f2 Zeiss to be the > only non-Leica lens he preferred to the Leica version. > FWIW. > > A little story about money. > I worked in the R&D department at Garrard, the record deck manufacturer, as > a young engineer in the mid 70s. > Their top model, the 401, had fallen out of fashion and production reduced > to the extent that it no longer justified being assembled on an assembly > line. The production was therefore re-planned to be built as one offs from > part bins in batches. Now Garrard priced everything on a cost plus profit > basis, unlike the competition which sold on the "what can we get for it > after a favourable review" basis ;-). > The assembly was re-costed and a new retail price calculated about 70% IIRC > more than it had been. Orders surged at the new price. > This taught me that often a higher price makes things more attractive even > with no change in the product. > BTW the production cost of these and other mass produced items, like cars, > tends to be about 10-20% of retail BTW. > cheers, > Frank > > On 28 Feb, 2010, at 07:01, Mark Rabiner wrote: > > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Vince Passaro <passaro.vince at > >> gmail.com > >wrote: > >> > >>> Mark lit into the guy (Kevin) for his suggestion that the lens he used > >>> every > >>> day for a few years was not as good as the guy (Kevin) said it was. > >>> Regardless of the details that was the gist. "Hi Welcome to the Lug > you're > >>> wrong." I was suggesting perhaps "Hi, those pictures are excellent" > might > >>> have been a better starting point for the argument. > >>> > >> > >> Which took it off topic > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> > >> Sonny > > > > > > Actually my difference with him was that he was calling a ZM a "world > class > > lens" on par with the Leica lens costing three times as much. > > And there were no pictures being discussed. > > > > [Rabs] > > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >