[Leica] Leica lens quality as a forerunner to another "lens" race.

[boulanger.croissant at gmail.com (Peter Klein)]

My love of Leica M cameras started c. 1970, when I discovered that I 
could focus a rangefinder more accurately and easily than an SLR. At 
that time, a used M2 was only a little more expensive than a new Nikon 
F. i bought one. I quickly noticed the better optics. The other stuff, 
the cult, the glorious history of Leica in photojournalism, I learned 
later. That was nice, and it made me feel part of something. But what 
truly mattered was that the camera fit me.

It's now over 50 years later, and many things have changed. Most medium 
to high end lenses are sufficient in optical quality. Autofocus can 
often be more accurate and faster than RF focusing by eye. The change 
from film to digital taught me that there is no such thing as 
perfection. The RFs that we thought were perfect on Kodachrome or 
Panatomic-X were calibrated to a reasonable compromise, which we could 
easily see once we went digital. Focus shift was real. Film grain and 
thickness covered up some optical flaws. But many of these flaws can 
only be seen when we pixel peep. Aside from jerks on Internet photo 
forums, who cares? Pixel peeping is a false god. There is a point (a 
zone, really) of diminishing returns on absolute optical quality.

I too have been to Wetzlar and watched Peter Karbe demonstrate how much 
better the newest ASPH lenses are, zooming into a flower until we could 
see the tiniest structures. It was miraculous and inspiring, and we were 
all in awe. But I also had to ask myself how much all this would help me 
in my mostly handheld photography. And how many thousands of dollars 
would I be willing (or not) to spend, just to push a smidge further into 
that zone of diminishing returns?

I suspect that solving problems like distortion and smearing in the 
corners and edges of the frame are not either-or solutions, but a matter 
of *both* optics and software. Let each craft do what it's best at, such 
that it annoys the photographer as little as possible. That may not be 
the best solution for competing with Japan, but it probably is the best 
photographic solution.

A big problem is Leica's prices. Most pro photographers left them long 
ago. Even most serious amateurs no longer aspire to Leica. Wetzlar just 
smiles, pushes the boundaries further and raises prices again.

In a way, I'm lucky. I bought most of my Leica lenses when they were 
more affordable. I'm happy with my M10-P and original "Henri" Monochrom. 
In some ways I prefer the aesthetics of the classic lenses. A couple of 
my lenses are (heresy!) Voigtlanders, and I like them. So I don't have 
to buy anything else if I don't want to. But that doesn't make me a 
Leica customer. It makes me a Customer Emeritus. I hope there are enough 
doctors, lawyers, dentists and collectors of expensive things to make up 
for folks like me.

--Peter

Don Dory wrote:

 > I had the chance to talk to a high ranking individual within the Leica
 > organization at breakfast.? The gist was that Leica was proceeding on an
 > optical solution rather than a software enabled solution. Probably the
 > better solution as if the information is there software can take it to an
 > even higher level.? However, it puts Leica on a cost effective curve that
 > makes their products even more exclusive: also, it hurts production 
volume
 > as some of their designs have very high defect rates by Leica standards.
 > Obviously this drives an even higher price point.
 >
 > Last, one of the participants received a survey from Leica with one
 > question about Japanese production of lenses at a (much) lower price
 > point.? So, Leica is aware of the pricing problem and is trying to 
work on
 > it.
 >
 > Last, this Leica representative clarified the classic stool of any 
product:
 > price, size, performance.? You could have any two.? I am currently 
weighing
 > this as I own several of Sigma's most excellent lenses for the FE mount.
 > Their performance is magnificent however the average weight is in the
 > neighborhood of 1.5 kilograms compared to my 35 ASPH Summilux in the high
 > 300 grams.? The Sigma is a better lens but my shoulder and hand don't
 > appreciate the weight as much as my eyes appreciate the image quality.
 >