Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/08/02

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Why we use Leica (was potential image quality)
From: "Bruce R. Slomovitz" <>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 06:16:09 -0400

Not in this country.  But in Europe they are used for delivery as well as
Taxi vehicles.

Bruce S.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Kachadurian <>
To: <>
Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Why we use Leica (was potential image quality)

>I still think that one reason more newspaper guys don't shoot Leica is the
>money. At least in Michigan, the pay at the bottom rung, and even up to
>somewhere in the middle is pretty poor. If your paper has big glass that
>you can use, you get a camera to match it, then as you move around, you
>build a system around what you already had.
> I shot Nikon for years and only could really afford to even change systems
>to Canon when I went freelance and started to build my business. Selling my
>Nikon ang going to Canon cost $2000-$3000, plunking down $5000 to $8000 for
>a decent Leica system would have been out of the question.
>You don't see a lot of delivery businesses driving Mercedes.
> At 09:49 PM 7/31/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Thomas Kachadurian wrote:
>>> But the Leica images looked like
>>> they were made in a normally lit room, good shadow detail, backgrounds
>>> that could be easily placed. The Canon images were obscured by contrast,
>>> dim sides of faces became detailless blobs.
>>This is what I have always noticed about the Leica galss. Where Nikon and
>>Canon have dark (read no detail here) shadow areas and blown out
>>the Leica glass holds the detail.
>>What made me first switch to Leica back in 1990 was a test I did using
>>and Leica.  I used the Nikon 300 2.8 and the Leica 280 2.8 and took
>>of my wife with our dog on a sunny spring day in Atlanta.  The dog is
>black and
>>my wife was wearing a very bright outfit.  In the Nikon photos the dog was
>>black. In the Leica photos the dog was black also, BUT there was detail in
>>fur. The dog was in the shadow side of the photo so I was not expecting
>>detail and when I saw this I was blown away.  I also repeated the same
>>using the 1.4 converters on both lenses and the Leica STILL held detail in
>>shadow areas. Same photographer same film same processing and exposures.
>>Only difference was the glass.
>>As far as why don't more pros shoot Leica....well I would wager that when
>>get into the magazine field you will find more of us using the Leicas than
>>newspaper and wire guys because 1) we shoot Chrome and the difference is
>>important there. 2) in most cases the increased quality will show up in
>>Harrison McClary
>Thomas Kachadurian