RE: [Leica] potential image quality

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

On Monday, July 27, 1998 7:40 PM, Erwin Puts [SMTP:imxputs@knoware.nl] 
wrote:
> You are mixing up two totally different lines of discussion.
> The 35mm format and its uses (the art of the snapshot, the fixing of
> shadows, capturing the fleeting images of a constantly changing world) is
> not the topic of the maximum image quality debate.
> What I am trying to tell is this: the Leica is excellent as a tool for 
this
> kind of picture taking (after all they invented it or at least made this
> approach viable and HCB elevated it to an artform). No discussion here.
> Trying to evaluate the potential image quality of a lens while practicing
> this art however is not possible.

Erwin,
Thanks for changing the subject line from "high performance photography" to 
"potential image quality". The first one evokes the whole photographic 
process and the Zeiss shortlist could be felt as indications as to  what 
behaviour one should adopt in his/her photography to do justice to the 
quality of lenses. That is the way I understood it. I maintain that 
adopting such a behaviour in daily photography contradicts the mission of 
the 35mm format.

The second subject line evokes potentialities, which is a more rhetorical 
way of looking at the matter. I therefore totally agree with your last 
sentence hereabove. Which I think I have stated in more provocative words 
with the question : "Zeica quality is not useful for normal 35mm handheld, 
100-400 ISO film, mirrorslapped shooting ? "

> I am confining myself to evaluating the optical quality as it is. And 
then
> you need to go to some length (as evidenced by the Zeiss listing).
> I would like to make a careful and forceful distinction between the
> evaluation of the optical qualities of a Leica lens and the methods and
> knowledge needed to get at these qualities and the appreciation of the
> Leica camera system as a superb tool for making pictures with emotioal 
and
> visual impact.
> Both approaches are not necessarily opposed but one (picture taking) is 
not
> equal to the other (lens evaluations). But knowledge of lens performance
> adds to the visual impact of picture taking (as exemplified by the
> Noctilux).

I agree with this and sincerely wish to thank you for the time and work you 
put in the evaluations you publish. They are probably the best available 
source of credible data on Leica M lenses and free us from the task of 
going through these processes ourselves. I personnaly have based most of my 
Leica purchases on the opinions you have published. And I bought a Leica M 
system with the firm decision of taking no tripod (or gear bag) along with 
me when I take pictures...

I am not sure I understand the last sentence herabove though. How does the 
"knowledge" of the potential performance of a lens add to visual impact of 
picture taking ? If I need to shoot at f1 in order to get hand holdable 
1/15 sec with a 50mm, well I've got to use a Noctilux, and I "know" that 
the performance might be sufficient to get a useable image. The level of 
knowledge in this case is the previous experiences on might have add of 
similar situations and setups (I have never touched a Noctilux) and/or 
credible experiences and tests shared by others. The latter seems to be 
like one of the main objects of this list and of your site. But, as you say 
yourself, it is difficult to believe statements proclaiming 'stellar' 
quality in such difficult circumstances....

Friendly regards
Alan
Brussels-Belgium