Are LEICA good?

Your comments are fair enough, my answer should have been more precise
(just as your accusation could have been more precise...). It is true
that the brand is for some buyers rather a display of luxury, much like
buying a Patek Philippe watch.
Still, from an objective, scientific point of view, if you'd look at
lens measurement charts, you would notice that Leica rangefinder lenses
are as good as it gets. I will concede that quite a few Nikkor or Canon
lenses will be just as good as specific Leica counterparts but as a
whole the M-series lenses family are incredibly good. A bad photo will
definitely not be because of the lens.
You asked for a sample. Alas, I can't give you one, back then I made a
few prints for someone I knew with a Leica. Let me rather describe what
we liked so much about them. All good lenses are very sharp, but what
that particular leica lens did very well was give an almost 3d effect,
the picture really seemed to jump out of the frame. It's rather how the
difference between sharp focused objects and fuzzy backgrounds
translates to the end result. The depth of field seemed more
artistically rendered than on the prints that I was used to. This is
not a scientific explanation, I know, but I was definitely not the only
one reacting this way.
As a counterpoint to all this, I made my very best prints with a very
old rolleiflex with Schneider lens. The combination of a very good lens
and the larger film surface yielded results that were better than
anything I ever saw in 35mm, Leica included. The rollei is still my
favorite camera ever, I like it more than my much more versatile D200,
even if I don't use it so often anymore.


Annika1980 wrote:
wrote:
The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth

That is patently NOT true. Just a few year ago I enlarged some black
and white pictures made with a Leica camera and lens, I believe a 35mm
Summicron lens. The quality was very, very good. And I am picky about
those things, I know the quality of a micro Nikkor, I have seen prints
from Canon prime lenses and all were very good, but the Leica pictures
were even better.


Well I guess that settles THAT!

Oh by the way, could you perhaps share some of those photos with us so
that we can all be blown away by the Leica quality? Or is the Leica
superiority just an analog thing that doesn't do so well in digital
form? The reason I ask is because I've often challenged Leica users to
show me some pics that couldn't be taken with a different top notch
lens, but I never get a reply. I'm left to conclude that either the
Leica lenses aren't really better, or else that Leica users simply
don't take pictures with them. Most Leicas are worn like jewelry.
Taking pics with them would only hurt their re-sale value.

Recently, I was able to use the spectacular Canon 85mm f/1.2L. Now
THAT is a lens!
Here's a shot I took with it.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...

bmoag wrote:
Leica lenses made for Leica rangefinders and Leica SLRs can be presumed
to
be precision optical instruments. Compared to even the better lenses
badged
for Nikon and Canon the Leica lenses are indeed what they are marketed to
be.

keyword: marketed

Q. What's the difference between a good cup of coffee and a great cup
of coffee?
A. Advertising.

Same goes for lenses. Leica and Zeiss have been living off an old
reputation for a long time now. They are the Cadillac of lenses. And
like today's Cadillacs, they are overrated and over-priced.

The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth.

-Annika ---- aka "mythbuster"


http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zeiss_85mm/index.html

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...


My son-in-law's cousin runs a Ford dealership's service department. He
says that over the past couple years they've changed their staffing:
several tune-up and repair mechanics were laid off because there
wasn't enough work to justify their employment. Now there are a few
technicians and a few lubers, and a few lot boys.

--
Frank ess


Maybe that's because they have lost a lot of market share and there are less
vehicles to develop faults.

Gerrit

In article ,
David J Taylor wrote:
Most DSLRs produce a cut-down image compared to 35mm film, which means
they would typically need a lens of about 290mm focal length to get the
same field of view as the Panasonic 432mm.

Unfortuately, it just the focal length that always get translated into
35mm equivalents. What is, for the purpose of DoF, the equivalent aperture?

Try handling both in the shop, and imagine carrying them round all day.

It sort of depends on what you are planning to do. When I know that I
need 300 on DX or 300+1.4x TC of 35mm, I bring a suitable tripod. Walking
around all day with a tripod is not to be much fun anyhow.

On the other hand, for street photography with a (D)SLR, it is quite
possible to leave the 300 at home.

Those 10x or more zooms in small cameras are nice if all you do is take
take pictures at events where you don't know what is going to happen and
when photography is not the main purpose of the trip.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Philip Homburg wrote:
[]
Unfortuately, it just the focal length that always get translated into
35mm equivalents. What is, for the purpose of DoF, the equivalent
aperture?

Please see the recent discussion with Roger Clark et al. My own
observation is that the DoF under typical usage conditions is greater, but
you can still get out-of-focus backgrounds at the long end.

[]
Those 10x or more zooms in small cameras are nice if all you do is
take
take pictures at events where you don't know what is going to happen
and
when photography is not the main purpose of the trip.

Here we differ - such cameras can be used when photography is the sole
purpose of the trip. Perhaps not for you (who have a greater choice of
kit), but certainly for me. I take many more picture now, and better
ones, than when I had my film SLR and lens collection. I look at them
more, as well.

I expect we both agree that there is far more to getting a good photo than
which camera you use.

David

Leica lovers, you might want to take a look at this

http://www.ebay.ph/viItem?ItemId=190041154099

1 US Dollar = 50 Philippine Pesos. Is this item a bargain? I could buy
a Canon 5D and several good L lenses with the price of this thing.

Anthony wrote:
Leica lovers, you might want to take a look at this

http://www.ebay.ph/viItem?ItemId=190041154099

1 US Dollar = 50 Philippine Pesos. Is this item a bargain? I could buy
a Canon 5D and several good L lenses with the price of this thing.

That auction doesn't make sense. Even if I had 16000 dollars to spend
on leica I surely would buy new equipment.
If I could live with second hand stuff of unknown quality I wouldn't
buy leica.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

In article ,
David J Taylor wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
[]
Unfortuately, it just the focal length that always get translated into
35mm equivalents. What is, for the purpose of DoF, the equivalent
aperture?

Please see the recent discussion with Roger Clark et al. My own
observation is that the DoF under typical usage conditions is greater, but
you can still get out-of-focus backgrounds at the long end.

Do you have the message ID of article in that discussion?

The FZ5 lens is listed as 6-72mm, f/2.8-3.3.
That gives a 35mm equivalent aperture range of f/16.8-19.8.

Assuming you focus before the hyperfocal distance, you can always
get an out-of-focus background.

72mm, f/3.3, and a CoC of 0.03/6 gives a hyperfocal of around 300 meters.

Those 10x or more zooms in small cameras are nice if all you do is
take
take pictures at events where you don't know what is going to happen
and
when photography is not the main purpose of the trip.

Here we differ - such cameras can be used when photography is the sole
purpose of the trip. Perhaps not for you (who have a greater choice of
kit), but certainly for me. I take many more picture now, and better
ones, than when I had my film SLR and lens collection. I look at them
more, as well.

I expect we both agree that there is far more to getting a good photo than
which camera you use.

Yes. The nice thing about the current almost endless variety of cameras is
that everybody should be able to find one that suits his needs.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Pete D wrote:

Actually the F1.2 is not as good as you think.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax85/index.html

It's hard to make conclusions from such a poor test.
I couldn't even find the Conclusions in the test report itself, btw.

Look at this page:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/penta...tax85mm_e.html

Compare the Centre frame crops which the guy re-ressed to 6000 pixels
(for whatever reason). Note that the Pentax image on the left looks
like it has been way over-sharpened (look at the halos) while the Canon
image doesn't show any signs of sharpening.
Looks fishy to me.

So while I might question the test procedures of that test it is
obvious that the Pentax is a very fine lens as well, which was kinda my
point. Leica isn't the only one who makes good lenses.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:35:30 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

What the lowest price and weight for a DSLR with a 300mm image-stablised
lens?

Hmmm.

Pentax K100 + 75-300 lens (IS in body): $800ish ($130 for a Pentax
SMCP-FA J 75-300mm f/4.5-5.8 AL lens)
Canon 350 + 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS: $1200ish
Nikon D50 + 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR: $1100ish

B&H list prices. The low low price on that Pentax lens has me a bit
suspicious about its optical quality, though.

-dms