It is *all* a matter of opinion, even if able to be measured in some way. Everything depends upon one's starting assumptions (and these depend on what you like, or what appeals to you, or what you don't like). Because a quality is measurable in some way does not make it a "better" or more influential quality in an argument than one that can't.
So, the person who prefers a quality that is measurable in some way over another quality that might not be able to be measured is still one person's preference contrasted with another's. Both are subjective; this is not a problem.
In my view, there is a place for measurements, of course, but Richard's examples ("3D effect" and "musical reproduction") are perfect examples of complex, multiple factor phenomena, among whose attributes include aspects that can be measured, and many that cannot.
An example: we are on less contentious grounds (but barely) when person A claims that sensor P has less noise than sensor Q. Then discussions of the *kind* of noise ensue; these then become claims of "I think this noise is more film-like" (and I prefer that) and so on. All are preferences which support positions; all are opinions.
And I agree that it is a matter of opinion as to whether "Leica has consistently made some of the technically very best lenses on the market", but also add that this opinion is widely shared. Just my opinion.
carstenw wrote:
True enough, Lotus, but if the universal consensus was that their products were not worth the money, they would have been out of business years ago.
The question would really be "worth it to whom". They don't have to be worth it to everyone, just to enough people. Being "worth it" depends on so many things including, how much money you have (the marginal value you put on your disposable wealth on your marginal unit of exchange), your propensity to save, your relative valuation of the unique features that Leica products might provide, as so on. These will be different for everyone, and everyone will have a price that they might be willing to pay for the Leica product. Only those will a price willingness that is above Leica's price will buy.
So, are they worth it? To some, they are. Are there enough people for whom it is worth it? That is the real question, isn't it?
Like in all other industries, most people will settle for 90% performance, but those who want the 98-99% have to pay a big premium, 4-5 times in this case.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Like in all other industries, most people will settle for 90% performance, but those who want the 98-99% have to pay a big premium, 4-5 times in this case.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Like in all other industries, most people will settle for 90% performance, but those who want the 98-99% have to pay a big premium, 4-5 times in this case.
I would state it a little differently. Those that value the 98-99% performance more than its cost, pay the premium.
I would also point out here that there are some serious diminishing returns going one here.
That is for sure! As a pure price-performance ratio, Leica makes no sense. You really have to want it badly enough to pay the extremely high price. I knew about Leica for many years and didn't really care about them much, because I perceived them as quirky and out of my price range. Only when I got a solid job and started having discretionary income, and then when I started being disappointed at my Canon lenses, and later my Canon 5D, then Leica started making sense.
Having owned an M8 since late 2006 and an M6 a tad later than that, I can say now with some confidence that I do believe that I will own a Leica M of some sort for the rest of my life. The only other camera I have come across to make me feel this way so far is a Hasselblad V. Even my beloved Contax 645 I could imagine selling, perhaps for the S2, perhaps for something else.
Not only have I always preferred the ''look'' of Leica glass, but my experience has been that Leica mechanics have been, let's say, "somewhat better" than other makes I have used i.e. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta. YMMV
My experience has been different. I have tested, and sometimes bought Leica products, but generally they have disappointed me. Because of Leica's reputation, and this consensus of people whose opinions I value highly, I was surprised that I ended up preferring other lenses to the Leica lenses I owned. Either I'm a half-blind philistine incapable of appreciating those lenses, or else I have to accept that my tastes are different to those who rate those lenses higher than others.
Richard, I am sure you will remember that I used to own all the Leica-R lenses between 15 and 180mm (used on both a 5D and a 1Ds Mk I back in the Guy Mancuso days and discussed here). All are at least very good optically, and all are (in a tactile sense) very good to use for certain kinds of work, and not so good for others. MF on Leica and Zeiss lenses is a true precision tactile experience.
These days, I use a bunch of Nikon zooms, the new 24 PC-E, and both the new Nikon macros on a pair of D700s. I find a significantly higher keeper rate (and I used to pay the rent as an 'available light' photographer of dance and theatre, and shot only MF lenses in those days). I don't mind admitting that Nikon AF does a better job (in the percentage of keepers sense) than I used to, as a full-time photographer working with MF. And I have written elsewhere about using AF on macro lenses on quick jobs: it works and works well, and you can MF for those situations where that works better.
And Live View makes using MF on a TS lens simply perfect: you can guarantee that the desired elements are in focus; no guesswork at all, and (again) as a longterm TS lens user, I could never have made that guarantee in the past. We waited for the slides or, more recently, waited until we could examine images on a decent sized screen.
As to '3D', dreamy 'bokeh' and all the other things folks love about Zeiss, Leica and other Alt. glass, the Nikon lenses do at least a decent job and my clients absolutely do not care what glass is on the camera: they are only interested in the final image.
I totally get the whole alt. glass *oeuvre* just the same: it is (for me at least) about workmanship, build quality (I still have a few of the best Oly lenses, used on a G1) and a look that is different in various ways from Canon and Nikon. and re. MF: this aspect make you 'make' images.
The point is (and has been made more briefly by others, above) that the "Leica quality" is a perfect example of the principle of diminishing returns: that extra 10% quality (in whatever sense has meaning for you) is going to cost 3–5 times as much as 90% of the same. And there is no doubt that some people just love having those beautiful mechanical objects to hand.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Richard, I am sure you will remember that I used to own all the Leica-R lenses between 15 and 180mm (used on both a 5D and a 1Ds Mk I back in the Guy Mancuso days and discussed here). All are at least very good optically, and all are (in a tactile sense) very good to use for certain kinds of work, and not so good for others. MF on Leica and Zeiss lenses is a true precision tactile experience.
These days, I use a bunch of Nikon zooms, the new 24 PC-E, and both the new Nikon macros on a pair of D700s. I find a significantly higher keeper rate (and I used to pay the rent as an 'available light' photographer of dance and theatre, and shot only MF lenses in those days). I don't mind admitting that Nikon AF does a better job (in the percentage of keepers sense) than I used to, as a full-time photographer working with MF. And I have written elsewhere about using AF on macro lenses on quick jobs: it works and works well, and you can MF for those situations where that works better.
And Live View makes using MF on a TS lens simply perfect: you can guarantee that the desired elements are in focus; no guesswork at all, and (again) as a longterm TS lens user, I could never have made that guarantee in the past. We waited for the slides or, more recently, waited until we could examine images on a decent sized screen.
As to '3D', dreamy 'bokeh' and all the other things folks love about Zeiss, Leica and other Alt. glass, the Nikon lenses do at least a decent job and my clients absolutely do not care what glass is on the camera: they are only interested in the final image.
I totally get the whole alt. glass *oeuvre* just the same: it is (for me at least) about workmanship, build quality (I still have a few of the best Oly lenses, used on a G1) and a look that is different in various ways from Canon and Nikon. and re. MF: this aspect make you 'make' images.
The point is (and has been made more briefly by others, above) that the "Leica quality" is a perfect example of the principle of diminishing returns: that extra 10% quality (in whatever sense has meaning for you) is going to cost 3–5 times as much as 90% of the same. And there is no doubt that some people just love having those beautiful mechanical objects to hand....Show more →
Agreed. Current Nikon cameras and zooms are pretty amazing, and great value. I think that's the problem that Leica faces with the S2: will they be able to ensure that the extra sensor surface area counts, when SoNiKanon keep pushing ahead so fast with new sensor and lens designs.
I had a brief fling with a nikon D200 a couple of years back. I had a AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR lens that I absolutely loved and the 105 2.8G AF-S VR micro was superb. I miss the AF that nailed it( maybe that`s why the lenses seemed so good )
I had a AF-s 12-24 F4G IF-ED DX and a AFS 17-55 2.8G DX IF-ED that were a match for anything. i gave it all up for a 1dsmk3 but wonder how I would have got on with the latest FF Nikons.
I`m not too upset now because my MF lenses on my 1dsmk3/5d2 do a stellar job.
I tried to find out recently what seems to be exactly the Leica quality that deserves them the worldwide reputation and allows them to command the super high prices. At least the Zeiss look has been discussed quite thouroughly in the recent threads. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that mechanical perfection with very tight tolerances are the main selling point. As for the optical quality, Leica seems to try to get very high resolution numbers all over the frame. That would be great by itself to have a great resolving lens, but it seems to me that in order to achieve this resolution, and to make it visible, the lens should have low micro-contrast. This exactly the opposite approach to Zeiss who emphasizes high micro-contrast at the expense of resolution, since the "sharpness" illusion especially at normal print sizes does not come from high resolution but specifically from the high micro-contrast. Is this correct?
Sounds about right Edward. In the modern designs they tend to have both high resolution AND high contrast though.
I've found I can add sufficient contrast in post, but it can never quite get to the same look as a Zeiss lens. For big prints though, the resolution can be quite impressive.
Hmm. If you told me that was taken on a 5D2 I would believe you. I've no doubt that the camera does produce higher quality images than a 5D2, but this image doesn't show it...
Yes, the high ISO shows lots of noise and smudging. I have shot an S2 at night, at low ISO locked up on a tripod, and it is certainly equal to the best medium format digital options but not superior in image quality (does have better handling, tho not so much advantage on tripod). Like all MF digital, it is stupendous at low ISO (up to 400 max) and then declines. If you want ISOs of 400+, 35mm is still king (except for two new phase backs that "bin" pixels to offer low resolutions of 10 or 15 mp but give excellent ISO up to 800 and even good at 1600 with a little work in pp).
