From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: Leica, why so high?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:49:11 GMT

In article <30599@sophia.inria.fr>, luong@naxos.inria.fr (Quang-Tuan Luong) writes:
> In article <51260@seismo.CSS.GOV>, pulli@seismo.CSS.GOV (Jay Pulli) writes:
> 
> |> labor intensive.  Not to mention the mark/dollar ratio.  I have
> |> a Leica M3 and a couple of Nikons.  I can always tell the difference
> |> in the pictures.
> 
> Really ? Using print or slide film ? At what enlargement ? Do you look
> with bare eyes or do you use a magnifier ? I am asking all these questions
> because I find it generally hard to see any difference at all in normal 
> viewing conditions, between two pictures taken with roughly equivalent 
> cameras.

  I've used Leicas for over 20 years and I spent a short period in that
time using Nikon and Minolta.  I went back to the Leica because I got
the best results with it, but that is partly due to the fact that the
M series doesn't have a mirror flapping around and so I can get sharper
pictures at low shutter speeds.  Part of it is the 50mm Summicron, which
is the best all-round lens I have ever used.  I could tell the difference
between Minolta lenses and Leica lenses with no problem; Minolta simply
did not have the sharpness or contrast (looking at slides of the same
scene).  With the Nikon you could tell the difference because of the
different colour rendition (this was an older 50 f/1.4, and it was a bit 
warmer than the Summicron), but otherwise it would have been more
difficult to distinguish.

  Note that when you say you find it hard to see a difference between 
roughly equivalent cameras, you are verging on a circularity - if you 
could tell the difference, then the cameras wouldn't really be roughly 
equivalent, but if you can't, then by definition they are roughly
equivalent.

> |>                Most Leica lenses are tack sharp, with high contrast
> |> and superb color correction.  The Nikon is good, the Leica is great.
> 
> It seems that according to measurements they are indeed very good and
> often slighty superior than Japanese lenses, but the difference is not
> so big. Also, a lens such as the Micro-Nikkor 60mm has similar or better
> performance than its Leica equivalent. Perhaps measurement don't say
> everything about lens quality, but then tell me what are your criteria.

  Actually, measurements I have seen (none recently, so please correct
me if you know current numbers) would suggest that Leica lenses are
good but often exceeded by other lenses.  This is because Leitz chooses
to get even performance across the whole image field and across the
range of apertures, rather than optimize for the centre or for a medium
aperture.  So where a Planar has significantly better sharpness and
contrast in the centre of the field at (say) f/5.6, the Leica lens will
give approximately even performance across the whole field at apertures
from f/2.8 to f/11 (and tends to give better performance at f/2.8 than
the Planar).  It's up to you which end of the tradeoff you find
appropriate.  When I'm shooting I always seem to be using slow slide or
b/w film, at about f/2.8 and 1/30 to 1/125th second.  The Leica M is
probably the ideal 35mm camera for this type of work.

-Darrell.
Newsgroups: rec.photo