A rangefinder generates more passion in me than medium format and 35mm SLRs. Medium format is for professionals,I only take photos for leisures. Going out with medium format is just not quite right for me. 35mm Gagibit has such a good result that magnification with it is good enough to me at least. I have family to ...
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Something is going on with Zeiss
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
D
djg
I used to go out leisure-shooting with a Fuji GX-680 and full lens complement ... OK so I'm a bit wacked ...
I never felt at ease with rangefinders as I like to compose closely on-camera and know pretty much exactly what's going on the film frame. Probably a carry-over from shooting slides. With rangefinders I always got the feeling of "well, here's sort of what you'll get on the film".
I never felt at ease with rangefinders as I like to compose closely on-camera and know pretty much exactly what's going on the film frame. Probably a carry-over from shooting slides. With rangefinders I always got the feeling of "well, here's sort of what you'll get on the film".
laprofessor
New Member
LEICA vs. ZEISS approaches to apparent image quality: Can someone say a bit
more about the difference in the philosophies or approaches.
more about the difference in the philosophies or approaches.
I used to think in the SLR way. Using a rangefinder is like guessing what will happen if I shoot. After shooting a few rolls with my G,the doubt,guess work and uncertainty are completely gone. What you see in G's viewfinder,though not equates to,corelates good enough in practical terms with the film image. In return,you get better optics(45,35 and 28), loss of mirror vibration,lighter weight and a nicer shuttle sound. I am keeping my SLR for my macro and also some of the G lenses are not as good as the C-Ys(G90,G21). I am looking forward to the Ikon system. it sounds as if it is the best 35mm system known to mankind. It could be true for 85,50,35,25,21,15 but not 28.
I used to think in the SLR way. Using a rangefinder is like guessing what will happen if I shoot. After shooting a few rolls with my G,the doubt,guess work and uncertainty are completely gone. What you see in G's viewfinder,though not equates to,corelates good enough in practical terms with the film image. In return,you get better optics(45,35 and 28), loss of mirror vibration,lighter weight and a nicer shuttle sound. I am keeping my SLR for my macro and also some of the G lenses are not as good as the C-Ys(G90,G21). I am looking forward to the Ikon system. it sounds as if it is the best 35mm system known to mankind. It could be true for 85,50,35,25,21,15 but not 28.
Leica works well in making a group of their user to believe
that they are using the best,and because it is suppose to be the best,it has to be the most expensive photographic system. There is the Leica myth implying there is some magic behind the brand.
Leica lenses,when compared to many other brand, excels in the resolution and the price.
Leica is a small company and it has serious problems. Large sum of money was spend but the result might not be satisfying. The new digital back has a serious problem that it is still a partial frame. Serious photographer have a certain passion with a particular lens,and will not bear the result of partial framing the images.So you are paying an astronomical sum of money,in return you get something which is substandard.
Many user of Leica are, in many cases, paying in excess for something which does not worth it. Ex&les are those Leica digital cameras and its performance can easily met by many other brands costing a lot less. My G45 2 Planar is only one seventh to one tenth of the price of the M 50 lenses. The performance of this little G beats Leica in flare and distortion control.Its also beats most of the many 50mm Leica lenses in resolution. Its also beats Leica in shorter distance of focusing and it beats Leica in colour rendition.To be continued...
that they are using the best,and because it is suppose to be the best,it has to be the most expensive photographic system. There is the Leica myth implying there is some magic behind the brand.
Leica lenses,when compared to many other brand, excels in the resolution and the price.
Leica is a small company and it has serious problems. Large sum of money was spend but the result might not be satisfying. The new digital back has a serious problem that it is still a partial frame. Serious photographer have a certain passion with a particular lens,and will not bear the result of partial framing the images.So you are paying an astronomical sum of money,in return you get something which is substandard.
Many user of Leica are, in many cases, paying in excess for something which does not worth it. Ex&les are those Leica digital cameras and its performance can easily met by many other brands costing a lot less. My G45 2 Planar is only one seventh to one tenth of the price of the M 50 lenses. The performance of this little G beats Leica in flare and distortion control.Its also beats most of the many 50mm Leica lenses in resolution. Its also beats Leica in shorter distance of focusing and it beats Leica in colour rendition.To be continued...
Throughout the years,Leica is charging excessively for their products,but there are the people who buy them. The quality of the M lenses has not been matched by others and it generates a lot of passion.
This time I wish to see if Zeiss is able to take over with the new Zeiss Ikon system. The new system has 15mm not seen in Leica and all the lenses are better than Leica's.The exception could be 28,when they are more or less the same.
Zeiss is the most advanced in optical design and their lenses excels almost in every aspect.
This time I wish to see if Zeiss is able to take over with the new Zeiss Ikon system. The new system has 15mm not seen in Leica and all the lenses are better than Leica's.The exception could be 28,when they are more or less the same.
Zeiss is the most advanced in optical design and their lenses excels almost in every aspect.
Like I said, "best" is subjective opinion and never will be an empirical fact no matter how declarative one might be with their claims of superiority. Many factors come into play that effect choice and preference.
I have used both Zeiss and Leica rangefinders extensively... and that includes all of the lenses from both systems. In the end I sold all of the G gear in favor of the M gear based on picture quality alone. It is a subjective and arbitrary decision based on aesthetics and what I deem successful images, not charts which tout aspects which are less important to my photo needs.
What are those philosophical differences that show up in actual real world work and how do they offer a counter to Chi Yuan's empirical point of view?
Leica M lenses in most focal lengths offer faster maximum apertures with superb performance wide open. Rangefinders are at their best in low available light and faster lenses allow one to use them that way.
Leica M offers a lens design philosophy skewed toward producing a 3D effect for which it is renowned and respected by many of the finest photographers in history, as well as current photographic legends. Even in the swirling world of wedding photography, arguably one of the best of the best ( Jeff Ascough) uses Leica Ms exclusively. Can all these greats be incorrect in their preference?
While it is true that M gear is not inexpensive, it represents a true photographic value. I have lost little or no money on any Leica M gear I have sold over the years. Unfortunately, the same is not true for Contax/Zeiss gear. Value is based on how much something cost you in the end, not initially.
While I would never bash Contax gear, I did and still do prefer the Leica look. In comparison my eye detects a flatness of dimensional quality (not sharpness) from the Zeiss counter parts. The M work is truly distinctive aesthetically to the point that even my wife can select the Leica shots from a pile of images shot with various systems.
As to the Leica digital back, one has to remember that there is currently only one full frame 35mm style DSLR in the entire digital world. Not even a giant like Nikon has cracked that problem yet. It is all changing very quickly and is a matter of time. To make a decision on lens systems based on current digital offerings could be a costly mistake.
The new Zeiss rangefinder is of great interest to me not because of the lenses but the body. The lenses are still too slow for me. But an extra stop in shutter speed may be worthwhile. The .075 rangefinder base is pretty nice but nowhere near that of the famous M3 or the current .085 base available in current M cameras. And I hate that they made it in silver, so I'll wait to see if they offer it in black later.
I have used both Zeiss and Leica rangefinders extensively... and that includes all of the lenses from both systems. In the end I sold all of the G gear in favor of the M gear based on picture quality alone. It is a subjective and arbitrary decision based on aesthetics and what I deem successful images, not charts which tout aspects which are less important to my photo needs.
What are those philosophical differences that show up in actual real world work and how do they offer a counter to Chi Yuan's empirical point of view?
Leica M lenses in most focal lengths offer faster maximum apertures with superb performance wide open. Rangefinders are at their best in low available light and faster lenses allow one to use them that way.
Leica M offers a lens design philosophy skewed toward producing a 3D effect for which it is renowned and respected by many of the finest photographers in history, as well as current photographic legends. Even in the swirling world of wedding photography, arguably one of the best of the best ( Jeff Ascough) uses Leica Ms exclusively. Can all these greats be incorrect in their preference?
While it is true that M gear is not inexpensive, it represents a true photographic value. I have lost little or no money on any Leica M gear I have sold over the years. Unfortunately, the same is not true for Contax/Zeiss gear. Value is based on how much something cost you in the end, not initially.
While I would never bash Contax gear, I did and still do prefer the Leica look. In comparison my eye detects a flatness of dimensional quality (not sharpness) from the Zeiss counter parts. The M work is truly distinctive aesthetically to the point that even my wife can select the Leica shots from a pile of images shot with various systems.
As to the Leica digital back, one has to remember that there is currently only one full frame 35mm style DSLR in the entire digital world. Not even a giant like Nikon has cracked that problem yet. It is all changing very quickly and is a matter of time. To make a decision on lens systems based on current digital offerings could be a costly mistake.
The new Zeiss rangefinder is of great interest to me not because of the lenses but the body. The lenses are still too slow for me. But an extra stop in shutter speed may be worthwhile. The .075 rangefinder base is pretty nice but nowhere near that of the famous M3 or the current .085 base available in current M cameras. And I hate that they made it in silver, so I'll wait to see if they offer it in black later.
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
I think that we will have to wait and see what the new ZI and its lenses are like in practice. It all sounds very attractive but also we will have to wait and see what the digital version is like. Maybe it will even be full frame - marvellous -but based on the RD1, I doubt it.
The prices will be important too and whether they will keep the value.
I use medium format as well as my Contax system. The size is not a problem as I use a Mamiya 6 which is well recommended.
Sorry, I don't know, what is 35mm Gigabit?
The prices will be important too and whether they will keep the value.
I use medium format as well as my Contax system. The size is not a problem as I use a Mamiya 6 which is well recommended.
Sorry, I don't know, what is 35mm Gigabit?
I have a colleague who was (still is actually) a major Leica afficionado and he has some serious Leica M and R series gear. He was anxiously waiting for the digital back to be released ... but not anymore ... after he found out that he can use his R lenses on a full-frame Canon 1Ds.
He has since discovered that there are some really nice Canon lenses ... like the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 400/2.8L IS, and even the 70-200/2.8L IS.
He recently pre-ordered the 1Ds Mk II. I don't think he will EVER pick up his R-bodies anymore ... and he thinks the Leica digital back is overpriced and unable to compete with the 1Ds Mk II. I concur with him.
He has since discovered that there are some really nice Canon lenses ... like the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 400/2.8L IS, and even the 70-200/2.8L IS.
He recently pre-ordered the 1Ds Mk II. I don't think he will EVER pick up his R-bodies anymore ... and he thinks the Leica digital back is overpriced and unable to compete with the 1Ds Mk II. I concur with him.