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

[richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man)]

Peter, 1970 is just 30 years ago ;-P

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:30?PM Peter Klein via LUG <lug at leica-users.org>
wrote:

> 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.
>  >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



-- 
// richard http://imagecraft.com