Re: [Leica] existential pleasures of engineering (2)

[Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

Has the "law of diminishing returns" no applicability to this 
group?  Is the economic status of this group (as I've noted 
before) so far into the stratosphere that economic issues are 
not a factor?.....(for those of you familiar with the allusion, 
are we all Harry Pearsons of "the Absolute Sound"?)

Certainly, if one buys a new lens, and the difference between 
the immediately previous model and the current "APO" or whatever 
is 10-20%, one should opt for the new one....but in a real-world 
example, should I sell my 1970 EXC 50 Summicron for $300 and 
buy a new one for $1000?  or sell my 35 Summicron for $500 and 
buy the "APO" for three times that?  I think a dose of reality 
is in order.

The top 1-2% performance gain IN ANY MANUFACTURED object costs 
an additional 100% or more (sometimes MUCH more)....and will 
make NO better pictures, better sound, better transportation, etc.

Even though a person has the MONEY to do this kind of illogical 
purchasing, it is truly quest for the "holy grail"...a goosechase, 
etc....and is not prudent thinking....especially since most people 
have trouble with the bodies, and are in no way approaching the 
limits of thirty year old optics in their photography.  Lets 
request reliable, well adjusted RFDR bodies that stay that way, 
leave the lenses where they are until the rest of the system 
catches up.

Cheers, 
Walt

On Sat,
13
Mar 1999, Erwin Puts wrote:

> Recently a Lugger got many messages as he noted that some older generation
> lens showed image 'defects' that the newer one had corrected. Many persons
> tried to convince him that the older lens still had its merits and that he
> should not go for the ultimate quality. My question here is simple: why not?
> What is wrong with trying to find the best equipment available, disregarding
> for a moment the ability to exploit this new image potential. There is simply
> an existential pleasure in knowing you have the best equipment and that you
> can improve on your own abilities and your equipment will grow with you.
> In my view there is nothing wrong with selecting the best equipment money can
> buy in the 35mm world. And it is up to any buyer to define for her/himself how
> to use this equipment and enjoying the use or ownership of a product of
> precision engineering.
> The Leica M series is a remarkable adaptable instrument to many uses.
> There are Leica users who sell pictures and make a living out of this
> activity. There are Leica users who produce artistically pleasing pictures of
> great human interest.
> There are Leica users who make pictures of real life objects and try to excel
> in capturing the finest possible details with the utmost clarity.
> There are Leica users who try to combine all these approaches in one style of
> photography. (Emil Shulthess is one of these persons)
> There is not any logical argument why any of these approaches is inherently
> superior or should be designated as the best (or the only) way to use Leicas.
> Recently it has been proposed that Leica users should stop searching for the
> best in image quality as the example of HCB 'proved' that great masterpieces
> can be made with the older equipment. Again this argument is not valid. The
> value content of HCB pictures is its representation of the human condition in
> its geometrical forms. HCB never was interested in any special optical
> qualities of Leica lenses. His priorities were quite simply of a different
> order. The argument that what is good enough for HCB should be good enough for
> every Leica user, is a very thin one. Why should HCB's imagery be the norm for
> everybody? Again it boils down to the position that only a certain class of
> photographers are allowed to define what is the proper use of a Leica as they
> seem to claim to use the instrument in its proper way. This argument is
> circular of course. HCB simply used the equipment available to him at his
> time. As did Eisenstaedt. It would be a bit rash to claim that some masters of
> the Leica (artistically speaking) should be used as an example to limit the
> quest for the ultimate image quality. At least the Leica optical designers
> still think that the potential for improvements in optical quality is very
> real.
> In this same category we find the often quite forcefully stated expression
> that photographically old and new lenses perform on the same level.
> And that by implication the quest for improved image quality is futile or at
> least not necessary. Or it is said that the improvements are not worth the
> trouble. In any case we note a Luddite attitude here. Modern Leica lenses have
> a generally much higher level of aberration correction than earlier versions,
> much smaller blur circles and a very different balance of residual
> aberrations, including the secondary spectrum. You can see this in every
> conceivable image characteristic. It is a bit disappointing to note that some
> observers dismiss the improvements as irrelevant for contemporary photography.
> Of course if you shoot with the high sun in your back, use apertures of 1:5,6
> and smaller and print on small-scale color prints, the differences will be
> small. Still the knowledgeable observer will note a higher overall contrast
> and a much crisper rendition of textural detail with the new lenses. And not
> every lens shows these improvements in the same scale. As example the second
> generation of the Summicron 50mm (from 1969) exhibits more aberrations than
> the third (current) generation. Still in practical shooting the chance that
> you will note these 'image defects' is small. But if you happen to take
> pictures of objects with many very fine obliquely oriented textural details
> and high flare conditions, you will see the difference. And that is the point
> of current improvements: get optimum results whatever the level of subject
> detail or flare or contrast.
> Sometimes these differences will only become visible under controlled and
> comparative test sessions. And this brings us to the next story. Lens testing
> should not be representative of the demands of real life photographers in real
> life photo shooting sessions. I am not sure where this myth comes from as the
> supporters of this myth never explain what exactly they mean. It seems to be
> that the traditional test pattern (two dimensional and black-white bar line
> patterns as used by the USAF charts) is the scapegoat. Now no serious tester
> will base his conclusions on such a test pattern unless suitably educated into
> its interpretation. Used as a rough form of MTF related information it still
> has merits. Used as a simple resolution chart it is not of great use. That you
> may not interpolate from a two dimensional test pattern to a three dimensional
> reality is refuted by all optical handbooks and all optical design programs.
>