Leica works

[marty]

What a fabulous area to make an analogy to high end audio. In photography, technical advantages have come as fast and as furious as in the audio field. Where it was once impossible to get SOA music reproduction unless one paid exhorbitantly, (and even then, one did not necessarily always succeed), the trickle down effect has made mid-hi the new "hi end". The same has occured in photography. Case in point- consider the revered Leica cameras such as the M9 and R8. Sure, everybody loves Leica images. but when your camera costs $!0K, they should. But that was so yesterday folks. Have you seen what's going on in the camera revolution? Try this: a genuine Leica f2.0 Vario-Summicron lens on a 10 megpixel high sensitivity CCD camera that also does HD movies for around $400 and will outperfom the M9 in most settings because of its intelligent metering system. Don't think it's possible? Guess again. Say hello to the Lumix DMC LX5. Oh, have a I mentioned it weighs about 4 oz and fits easily in your pocket? . See below for full feature details that will astound you.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/lx5/index.html
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072110panasonicdmclx5.asp

This camera is so good, I sold my Hasselblad with its 10K digital back, seriously!! The images are simply amazing.
Whether the images are "as good as" the M9 and R8 is really almost a secondary discussion. The point is, if your goal is to take serious photographs and not just snapshots, the quality of the photographs you take will be far more dependent on the photographer than the quality of the equipment if you are using if your choices are either the LX5 or the M9. That's the point. $400 vs 10K. It's not even a close contest for me. I'd much rather take the $9600 difference and spend it on speaker cables that most folks don't think sound any different than $400 speaker cables. !!!
Marty

 

[Rupunzell]

It pretty much depends on what tool is required to get the required image done. Leica is a very well built camera and fits a niche market well. It is SOLID, has very quiet & soft shutter, excellent wide angle optics. This is due to the small distance between the rear element of the lens and film/digital image surface. Dr. Ludwig Bertele and M.M Roosinov (Patent conflict as to who got it first) came up with what is known as the Zeiss Biogon/Schneider Super Anglon wide angle lens design which out performed any retro-focus wide angle lens. This was one of the lens that made the Leica M series and the Hasselblad SWC legendary. It is worth noting that the Contax G series, auto-focus range finder film cameras offered a Zeiss Biogon for the wide angle lenses and they are excellent, in ever way equal or better to the vintage Leica offering.

This optic design is not possible on a SLR due to the back focus distance mandated by the mirror. These wide angle lenses are standard for view camera (sheet film) wide angle lenses.

For Normal fixed focal length lenses, the Gauss design is typical and is not that difficult to make a good one today by Japanese or German designers. For Telephoto lenses, Canon was the first to grow and produce fluorite crystal with enough clarity and large enough for telephoto lenses. Previous to Canon, natural fluorite crystals were selected, while small these were used in APO microscope optics. For Zoom lenes, Angenieux and the Japanese (Fujinon, Canon mostly) fought over who could design and produce the best. In the end, Canon and Fujinon got more of the market share due to lower production cost (typical serious Canon or Fujinon video camera zoom lens cost over 100,000 USD) and electronics over the French Angenieux. This is one of the reasons why Canon can offer good zoom lenses for their film, digital still and video cameras.

As for the Canon -vs- Nikon debate, it will rage on for as long as these two camera and other camera companies sell cameras. in the final result, any expressive image depends much more on the photographer rather than the camera used.

As for Digital -vs- Film, the debate is almost identical to digital audio -vs- analog with the mass market voting ease of use and convenients over quality of experience.

 

[naturephoto1]

What a fabulous area to make an analogy to high end audio. In photography, technical advantages have come as fast and as furious as in the audio field. Where it was once impossible to get SOA music reproduction unless one paid exhorbitantly, (and even then, one did not necessarily always succeed), the trickle down effect has made mid-hi the new "hi end". The same has occured in photography. Case in point- consider the revered Leica cameras such as the M9 and R8. Sure, everybody loves Leica images. but when your camera costs $!0K, they should. But that was so yesterday folks. Have you seen what's going on in the camera revolution? Try this: a genuine Leica f2.0 Vario-Summicron lens on a 10 megpixel high sensitivity CCD camera that also does HD movies for around $400 and will outperfom the M9 in most settings because of its intelligent metering system. Don't think it's possible? Guess again. Say hello to the Lumix DMC LX5. Oh, have a I mentioned it weighs about 4 oz and fits easily in your pocket? . See below for full feature details that will astound you.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/lx5/index.html
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072110panasonicdmclx5.asp

This camera is so good, I sold my Hasselblad with its 10K digital back, seriously!! The images are simply amazing.
Whether the images are "as good as" the M9 and R8 is really almost a secondary discussion. The point is, if your goal is to take serious photographs and not just snapshots, the quality of the photographs you take will be far more dependent on the photographer than the quality of the equipment if you are using if your choices are either the LX5 or the M9. That's the point. $400 vs 10K. It's not even a close contest for me. I'd much rather take the $9600 difference and spend it on speaker cables that most folks don't think sound any different than $400 speaker cables. !!!
Marty

Hi Marty,

I have a Lumix G1 and the R mount adapter for the G1. So, I can mount my Leica R glass on the camera. I really have to figure out how to use the camera and put it to use.

Consider though the lens that you have on the camera is a Leica designed and/or licensed lens that has been manufactured by Panasonic. So, Leica has had a hand in the performance of your camera.

Rich

 

[naturephoto1]

It pretty much depends on what tool is required to get the required image done. Leica is a very well built camera and fits a niche market well. It is SOLID, has very quiet & soft shutter, excellent wide angle optics. This is due to the small distance between the rear element of the lens and film/digital image surface. Dr. Ludwig Bertele and M.M Roosinov (Patent conflict as to who got it first) came up with what is known as the Zeiss Biogon/Schneider Super Anglon wide angle lens design which out performed any retro-focus wide angle lens. This was one of the lens that made the Leica M series and the Hasselblad SWC legendary. It is worth noting that the Contax G series, auto-focus range finder film cameras offered a Zeiss Biogon for the wide angle lenses and they are excellent, in ever way equal or better to the vintage Leica offering.

This optic design is not possible on a SLR due to the back focus distance mandated by the mirror. These wide angle lenses are standard for view camera (sheet film) wide angle lenses.

For Normal fixed focal length lenses, the Gauss design is typical and is not that difficult to make a good one today by Japanese or German designers. For Telephoto lenses, Canon was the first to grow and produce fluorite crystal with enough clarity and large enough for telephoto lenses. Previous to Canon, natural fluorite crystals were selected, while small these were used in APO microscope optics. For Zoom lenes, Angenieux and the Japanese (Fujinon, Canon mostly) fought over who could design and produce the best. In the end, Canon and Fujinon got more of the market share due to lower production cost (typical serious Canon or Fujinon video camera zoom lens cost over 100,000 USD) and electronics over the French Angenieux. This is one of the reasons why Canon can offer good zoom lenses for their film, digital still and video cameras.

As for the Canon -vs- Nikon debate, it will rage on for as long as these two camera and other camera companies sell cameras. in the final result, any expressive image depends much more on the photographer rather than the camera used.

As for Digital -vs- Film, the debate is almost identical to digital audio -vs- analog with the mass market voting ease of use and convenients over quality of experience.

Unfortunately, Contax and Yashica cameras as we knew them ceased manufacture by their parent company Kyocera of Japan in 2005. Kyocera later sold the Yashica name in 2008.

Schneider has made some Super Angulon lenses under the Leica brand name which were derivations of those used by Leica for the M series cameras and of the Biogon design. These lenses in the 21mm focal lenghth were made for the R series Leicas first as a f3.4 which had elements that fit well into the lens mount and mirror box of the camera that could only be used by Leica SL and SL2 camera bodies. These were the first Leica R series cameras. The later designed Super Angulon f4.0 lens was introduced later again made by Schneider for the R series cameras which would work with all Leica R cameras. I have one of these and my particular lens has been a stellar performer for me.

Rich

 

[Steve williams]

Has anyone had opportunity to compare the Lumix DMC LX5 vs Canon S95 which is same price point and does pretty much exactly what the Lumix does but with Canon optics

 

[amirm]

The two are indeed direct competitors. There are a bunch of comparison reports on the web. Here is one: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_LX5/verdict.shtml

"Canon's PowerShot S95 is arguably the Lumix LX5's main rival, as both pack sensible resolutions and bright lenses into small bodies with plenty of controls for enthusiasts. While both share similar-sized 10 Megapixel sensors, 3in / 460k screens and bright f2.0 focal ratios when zoomed-out though, there are considerable differences to weigh-up between them.

Most obviously the PowerShot S95 is smaller. By employing a body that's shorter in every dimension with fewer protrusions and a lighter weight, the S95 looks and feels noticeably smaller in use – and crucially it'll squeeze into smaller pockets than the LX5. The absence of a lens cap also makes it thinner, not to mention quicker to power-up and down again. The lens may not zoom quite as wide (28mm vs 24mm), but it does zoom a little longer (105mm vs 90mm).

The PowerShot S95 also features two control wheels, with one thumb wheel on the back and one programmable ring around the lens barrel, along with twin microphones for stereo sound. The S95's motorised flash can also raise and (neatly) lower itself automatically, and some may prefer the screen being the same 4:3 shape as the best quality photo setting. In terms of image quality we additionally preferred the S95 above 400 ISO which avoided many of the LX5's undesirable artefacts. The S95 also features an HDR mode which combines three exposures automatically, and the option to view RGB in addition to brightness histograms.

In its favour, the Lumix LX5 features a more comfortable grip, a hotshoe for external flashguns, an accessory port for an optional electronic viewfinder (and maybe other accessories in the future), a wider lens, a brighter focal ratio when zoomed-in, finer zoom increments, the choice of aspect ratios without compromising the field-of-view, optical zooming and manual control over exposures for video, adjustable spot focusing options, fast flash-sync speeds, double the battery life and quicker focusing in our tests. You can also mount filters with an optional tube accessory.

While there are some feature advantages to the S95, most would agree the LX5 ultimately has more for the enthusiast, but crucially there's still that difference in size. The LX5 is actually quite close to some EVIL compacts when fitted with their smallest pancake lenses, and while it features a bright and wide built-in zoom, it may not be sufficiently small to carry as an alternative to a large-sensor camera. In contrast, the PowerShot S95 remains sufficiently smaller than any EVIL camera or DSLR to make it a truly pocketable companion. This coupled with its lower price will ensure many happy owners."

 

[Kal Rubinson]

"In contrast, the PowerShot S95 remains sufficiently smaller than any EVIL camera or DSLR to make it a truly pocketable companion. This coupled with its lower price will ensure many happy owners."

And I am one of them!

 

[richard]

I'd like to make a couple of comments as a daily user of an M9.

I'm not a pro photographer by any means, but I've been an avid amateur SLR user since college (started in 1979 with an FE and 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor). I currently have a Nikon D3s, an F6, an F3, an FM3A, a D5100, and many of the best professional Nikon lenses (200/2, 135/2, 85/1.4, 35/1.4, 28/1.4, 58/1.2, many Micro-Nikkors, many zooms, etc,), as well as some Zeiss-for-Nikon SLR lenses. About the time this thread was started I took a leap of faith and purchased an M9, based upon reading comments of many pros and amateurs in various forums / blogs. I have since been slowly aquiring Leica and Zeiss rangefinder lenses (the fastest ones have been almost unavailable since the M9 came out).

The M9 and Leica glass just friggin' rocks! There is an immediacy and "realness" to the images that, in all honesty, can be duplicated with the full frame D3s and the 200/2, but the Leica does it while weighing 1/5 as much, and does it with every lens! The Kodak 18 MPX sensor in the Leica also has no AA (blur) filter like an SLR does, which probably makes its resolution equivalent to a Canon or Nikon with a 24 MPX (or greater) sensor.

There are two major prices to be paid. First, learning to rapidly focus the rangefinder lenses is not easy. I liken it to a driving a 6-speed manual transmission vs. driving an automatic. There is a hell of a learning curve, but the manual transmission eventually rewards your perseverance by giving you a level of control over your vehicle not possible with an automatic. Ditto with the Leica manual focus. Secondly, the high ISO capability of the Kodak sensor in the Leica tops out at 2500, while the Nikon D3s goes to 102,500. I would say there is no contest in low-light conditions, but that is confounded a little by a couple of things. First, the rangefinder, with no mirror vibration, can be hand-held at a considerably slower shutter speed than can an SLR. Also, if you can find one and afford it, Leica makes a 50mm f 0.95 lens, which can pretty much see in the dark.

So, I'm not about to get rid of my Nikon stuff, I like it as much as ever. And for macro, telephoto, zoom, and fast-moving subjects, it's essential. But if I had the choice of keeping the M9 and its lenses and getting rid of all the Nikon stuff, vs. getting rid of the Leica system and keeping the Nikon stuff, I'd keep the Leica without question.

 

[Steve williams]

Very informative first post

welcome to WBF Richard

 

[amirm]

The M9 and Leica glass just friggin' rocks! There is an immediacy and "realness" to the images that, in all honesty, can be duplicated with the full frame D3s and the 200/2, but the Leica does it while weighing 1/5 as much, and does it with every lens! The Kodak 18 MPX sensor in the Leica also has no AA (blur) filter like an SLR does, which probably makes its resolution equivalent to a Canon or Nikon with a 24 MPX (or greater) sensor.

As Steve said, welcome to the forum and contributing to Photography forum no less .

I wonder how much of your impression comes from lack of AA than the lenses themselves. It would be hard to separate the two of course.

 

[richard]

Not really, in my opinion.

I can crop down to about 60% of a D3s RAW image without noticing a decrease in resolution on my Thinkpad (1024 x 768) screen, while with an M9 RAW image I can go to (20-25)% and still have it very sharp. I attribute that to the sensor, and lack of AA filter. My impression from reading is that the AA filter decreases effective resolution, but does not affect the overall character of an image.

The "character" of the images, however, I think is due to the Leica glass. There are probably hundreds of threads discussing "the Leica look," (or lack thereof), so I won't belabor the point, but in my experience an optimal Leica image will evoke more of a "you are actually there" feeling than will the best from an SLR. I'm not absolutely sure why, but based on my own observations, that is the case.