«

"Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
news:9WgQg.4$...
>
> "jeremy" <> wrote in message
> news:LRfQg.26$Kh.1@trnddc05...
>
>>
>> There comes a point where the cost of the equipment is too high to
>> justify actually *using it.*
>>
>> Even Erwin Puts has recently acknowledged that photographers, except for
>> a small band of dedicated ones, long ago abandoned the precision
>> rangefinder in favor of Japanese SLRs.
>>
>> I've read about several informal "blind" tests where the participants
>> were unable to determine which camera took which photograph. Bob
>> Monaghan did one such test. So how much is Leica's legendary (or should
>> I say, "mythical") margin of superiority worth? Is there any photo taken
>> with Leica equipment that couldn't have been taken with a Nikon or even a
>> Minolta?
>
> I've seen lots of tests that compare Leica glass to other stuff, and the
> Leica stuff is usually much better. Trust me, I'm not seeing things. On
> top of initial image quality you also have to consider how long a lens
> will provide that level of quality. Company a 30 year old Leica lens to a
> 30 year old Nikon or Canon lens and then draw a conclusion.
>
> Rangefinders aren't for everyone, and that goes double for Leica. But if
> you can afford it, they are a real joy to use, and can provide decades of
> service.
>
>>
>>
>
>

Depends upon how you factor the "Cost" aspect into the definition of
"Value." You can buy a lot of gear from other manufacturers for the price
of a single Leica item. If you want to throw your money at Leica, that's
fine. You earned it and paid taxes on it.

Some of us--especially those of us that don't earn our livings from
photography--have more mundane concerns, like car and house payments,
retirement savings, college funds, etc., making a Leica purchase somewhat
frivolous.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <> wrote in message
news:SugQg.14172$ link.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>> I've read about several informal "blind" tests where the participants
>> were unable to determine which camera took which photograph. ... So how
>> much is Leica's legendary (or should I say, "mythical") margin of
>> superiority worth?
>
> [Gag reflex off]
> It isn't about the destination but the journey.
> [Gag reflex on]
>

Spare me the sarcasm. Show me where the images created by Leica are SO
superior to everything else that the average viewer takes one look and
gasps, "Look! That was a Leica photograph!"

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:18:30 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan <> wrote:
> "Max Perl" <> wrote
>
>> Leica is good at mechanical work.....
>> but not very good at electronics?....
>> so hopefully they have got a partner to design and produce the electronic
>> part of the camera.
>
> Panasonic?

The sensor is apparantly from Kodak. Scanning through the preview on
DPReview, there doesn't seem to be a mention of who made the processor
unit.

-dms

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> There are very few true dogs in camera land. 99% of the
> cameras work better than 99% of the photographers using them.
BTW this is total nonsense and you should know it. For the vast
majority of photo their camera is a bit limiting factor on how good
their photos look. If you are one of those people how is happy going
out and finding what you think is an interesting looking staircase and
photographing it to make it look artistic then sure any crap camera
will work. But most people have the subject they want to photograph in
mind when they set out to get a photo, whether it be sport, landscape
or photos of people.

Take a look at a bunch of photos form someone who was using a cheap
camera and much of what you are going to see is ugly, and it is not all
if any the fault of the person taking the photo. One of the big
advantages that a good camera gives you is being able to shoot using
available light and avoiding the really bad photos one gets when using
the on camera flash.

The test of a good camera is not can you get a good photo from it, the
test of a good camera is what range of conditions can you get a good
photo with it.

Give an average photographer a 5D and have them shoot a bunch of photos
and then give that same photographer a point and shot film camera
loaded with ISO 400 print film using a lens that does not go faster
then f/5.6 and let them take another set of photos, many photos from
the second set will look like crap.

Maybe the photos from the 5D will not hang on the walls of a museum,
but how many photographer are shooting for their photos to hand on a
museum wall? But that is not the point, the same photographer using a
better camera will get better photos.

Scott

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <> wrote:
>A Leica is just a nice thing to have, it is beautifully
>built, nice to hold, makes a nice sound ... but it takes
>the same picture.

Takes the same picture? That isn't the case.

What is probably true is that you cannot tell much difference between
a Leica M lens *at f/8* and a Canon, Nikon, Minolta or Pentax lens at
f/8. But compare the lenses wide open and there is a world of
difference between the results; several of the current range of Leica
M lenses actually perform at their best wide open.

For example, the Leica M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH has a higher resolving power
at f/2.8-4.0 than any other brand of commercially available 24mm lens
at *any* aperture. The 21mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 and f/2, 50mm f/1.0 and
f/1.4, 75mm f/2, 90mm f/2 and 135mm f/3.4 (all ASPH lenses) are also
superlative performers when used wide open.

With most brands of lens there is an imperative to use the lens at its
"sweet spot" wherever possible, because optical performance drops away
very rapidly as you open up beyond f/8 or so. But with modern Leica M
glass, you can effectively shoot at whatever aperture you need and get
outstanding results.

Note that these comments do not apply equally to Leica R glass,
especially in focal lengths of less than 50mm. Despite that, Leica R
wide angle lenses are still significantly superior in optical
performance to those from Canon, for example, which explains the
extreme popularity of Leica R to Canon EF mount adapters.

"Scott W" <> wrote:
>
>The problem I see Leica having with this camera is that they are
>missing the main selling point of a Leica. In the past many people
>considered their cameras the best 35mm cameras available. But it is
>the photos you care about and not the journey then there are much
>better camera. And how many photographers are going to use a camera
>that cost top dollar but does not produce top quality images? Is it
>worth that amount of money to many people for the feel and sound of the
>shutter (wish they messed up on the M8 anyway)?


People who think that Leica users place such a high priority on looks,
feel and sound are deluding themselves.

The #1 reason for using a Leica M rangefinder is the optical
performance of the lenses, which is simply outstanding, especially
when used wide open.

The #2 reason is the rangefinder focusing, which is extremely fast and
accurate.

You say there are "much better cameras". If you are shooting sport or
wildlife, I would agree; the rangefinder is not the best camera for
these tasks. But for those genres of photography that suit a
rangefinder camera, there is no better tool. There are certainly no
better lenses, and very few that even come close.

You don't even have to pay Leica prices; the Zeiss Ikon costs half the
price of a Leica M7 or MP body, and the Voigtländer Bessa R2A/M or
R3A/M costs about half the price of a Zeiss Ikon. They all have Leica
M mount and they all accept the superlative Leica M glass.

Leica M rangefinders are not for everyone. They are clearly not for
you, so why not just accept that and move on? Please don't criticise
something that you obviously don't understand.

Chris Loffredo <> wrote:
>
>Is Leica too expensive? New stuff probably (and the M8 definitely!


I have to disagree.

I was very pleasantly surprised by the price of the M8. It was at
least GBP 500 (~US $900) less than I expected, and I am looking
forward to receiving mine.

The premium over the film M7 is about 50%, which is on the low side
when comparing digital SLR camera prices with their film cousins.

"Max Perl" <> wrote:

>Leica is good at mechanical work.....but not very good at electronics?....so
>hopefully they
>have got a partner to design and produce the electronic part of the camera.
>
>Is it possible to find a working R4 today?? .....I guess that most SL2's
>still working.


Plenty of working R4 bodies available - just look on eBay! And plenty
of Minolta parts bodies available too.

The SL2s will probably still work after a 23rd century nuclear
holocaust - they were simply *too* well made.

Daniel Silevitch <> wrote:

>The sensor is apparantly from Kodak. Scanning through the preview on
>DPReview, there doesn't seem to be a mention of who made the processor
>unit.


Leica have sensibly avoided Imacon, who let Leica down very badly with
the Digital Modul-R (the DMR is a fine unit but the delivery rate has
been painfully slow). The M8 electronics were designed by a respected
German company, but I am sorry I cannot recall the name.

"Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
news:UYdQg.1$1B.0@bos-

Then
>> again, to put things in perspective a Patek Phillipe men's watch STARTS
>> at $12000, but a Leica isn't made of gold.
>>
An excellent analogy......There are dozens (perhaps hundreds) of watches on
the market that can (and do) tell time as well as a Patek Phillipe. So, the
owners of such a watch are wearing jewelry, and not time keepers. - Much the
same thing might be said of the owners of Leicas. It may capture images as
well or better than anything else on the market, but to pay $5K for one, and
over $1k per lens, is a bit of overkill for the minute, mostly unobservable
difference, don't you think? So, the Leica owners are basically carrying
jewelry, rather than cameras. And, in doing so, they give up one important
thing. They can no longer blame their equipment for their bad photos....:^)