Nifty Fifty wrote:
Leica Stores make me want to vomit. You don't feel like you're in a camera shop at all, but rather in a luxury car dealership or a high-end boutique where golden calves are displayed on velvet in glass cases and sold by people who seem to have spent their lives reading brochures but taking very little photographs. Simply dreadful. Thanks, my experience with this will last until the end of my life.
Here I strongly disagree. Leica is the only camera company I know of that has a World Wide network of company owned stores. These stores add significant value to the Leica ownership experience. The offer many good often free services to their customers. Free loans of almost any combination of gear to take out shoot and learn. No need to rent Leica gear to see if it is a good fit. Free inspection and cleaning of Leica gear including sensors. Lots of interesting events both social and educational. Well trained and motivated staff. They can be great advocates for you with Leica corporate. Despite what you say many of the staff are experienced and active photographers. I have shot with them. Many are very talented as well.
I currently live within an easy less than two hours to four flagship stores. I know the staff, I take advantage of what they have to offer. They add great value for me. Maybe could for you as well.
Get over the upscale facilities if they offend you and look deeper. Many of us just consider that a perk just like with any luxury brand we enjoy. You may discover value in the Leica stores if you give them a chance.
But like many things in life they act as mirrors reflecting back what is projected at them. I suspect this may be a problem for you...
1bwana1 wrote:
These stores add significant value to the Leica ownership experience.
Well people will start complaining that they pay so much and get services as if they're shopping at Walmart isn't it? 😂
I buy my Leica stuff used so the store really irrelevant to me anyways, but the staff at official stalls are always kind and helpful even if you don't buy anything really.
1bwana1 wrote:
Here I strongly disagree.
I have absolutely no objection to that. Everyone has their own expectations and needs. What's heaven for one person can be hell for another. Both are equally valid.
1bwana1 wrote:
Leica is the only camera company I know of that has a World Wide network of company owned stores. These stores add significant value to the Leica ownership experience.
Here I have to disagree, as you're generalizing. Of course, Leica marketing tells me that the stores significantly enhance the Leica experience, and that may be true for you and many others, but not for me and others. I don't need a fancy brand boutique; it puts me off. But I don't begrudge anyone who's into that kind of glitz and glamour their "Leica experience."
1bwana1 wrote:
I currently live within an easy less than two hours to four flagship stores. I know the staff, I take advantage of what they have to offer. They add great value for me. Maybe could for you as well.
Get over the upscale facilities if they offend you and look deeper. Many of us just consider that a perk just like with any luxury brand we enjoy. You may discover value in the Leica stores if you give them a chance.
I don't have to give anyone a chance. I went to a store years ago, more for fun, and wasn't impressed. Of course, that doesn't apply to every store, every salesperson, or every situation. The whole concept of a store, however, is something you either like or you don't. There's nothing more to say about it. And I only wrote that because someone recommended I visit a store, and I wanted to emphasize that I've already been there and it's not for me. I don't need that kind of "Leica experience."
1bwana1 wrote:
But like many things in life they act as mirrors reflecting back what is projected at them. I suspect this may be a problem for you...
I have absolutely no problem. Unlike many here, I don't suffer from GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and therefore only very rarely go into camera stores. Over the years, I've encountered salespeople in two well-known camera shops in Berlin (Leistenschneider and Foto Meyer) who were rather uninformed, whereas in a branch of an electronics wholesaler, contrary to my expectations, I had very long and insightful conversations with an extremely friendly and competent salesperson. It always depends on the individual case. If I were to buy a Leica today, I definitely wouldn't do it in a Leica store, but rather at Calumet, where I've had very good experiences and where the "shop experience" suits me much better.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
the staff at official stalls are always kind and helpful even if you don't buy anything really.
I just want to emphasize again that I never claimed otherwise.
philip_pj wrote:
[...]
All image motifs must look credible to natural vision, their brightness tone values and color must look like you saw it yourself, there must be the right level of contrast at both macro and micro (and also middle spatial frequencies, which is why it is reported - 20 lpmm, or 30 lpmm as used by Cosina). Ironically enough, final micro-contrast is not vital, but it is sugar to the eyes. In particular, if your lens attenuates highlights poorly, the result is a flattening of the subject, it merely looks dreary.
Related to this phenomenon is the highlight blocking we all see in a bright sky, the appearance of which forces you to reduce exposure if you want that detail to stay inside the DR envelope. Natural vision is a subtle outcome that needs to be nurtured in natural landscapes, but our eyes do so well at compensating for what we see that we are quite easily convinced by poor 3D lenses.[...]...Show more →
At page 91, post #4, I had a question about "highlight tolerance". You never came back on that. Now you are writing if your lens attenuates highlights porly...
I have to ask, again about this. Is your lens supposed to let different levels of light (light intensity or brightness if you will) pass the lens in a nonlinear fashion? I'm used to how film can show highlight roll-off, I don't think lenses does this. It sounds like magic to me when I think about a lens knowing what film you use, or what ISO value you set and then attenuates highlights accordingly.
OregonSun wrote:
[...]1st in each pair: Bushnell Automatic 28mm f/2.8
2nd: MC Macro Revuenon 28mm f/3.5 - my copy, at least, is a clear contender for the MOST POP
Hey, fun!
Thank you for posting. I for one have been asking for A/B comparisons.
But... I never thought of comparing lenses like the ones you used here. There are big differences between the images and the brain get some work to do "comparing" them.
I was (of course) thinking of comparisons between modern lenses having some ambition with regards to filling the image circle with something at least at least possible to recognize also if not very sharp. Example of lenses coming to my mind are of course the Thypoch Simera lenses against lenses Phillip have labeled as flat while promoting the Simeras.
I like when we get depth in our images. Despite that I would bring the Bushnell Automatic over the Revuenon any day for a walk around lens. I like the image with the tree (pair 2). You didn't you take these photos for actually comparing the amount of 3D pop you would get, did you?
For those watching / lurking ... I hope I've offered insights into optics and the issue of physiological response. But, in as much as it is crystal clear to me that Heron's A : B presents a difference in contribution from the optic ... it is equally clear that the participants that routinely engage me on the matter are not here to learn, nor do they legitimately care to even try to learn nor discuss the actual merits of the optics, even when presented with far superior resources than my limited understanding offers.
Even when presented with other sources of optical expertise far beyond those of us in the forum, the incessant and perpetual refusal, is unending. Everything from folks calling me "dense" to folks wanting to "vomit" ... really nice, guys ... shows your superiority on the subject really well.
I've tried to stay above the noise and share with fellow FM'ers (active participants and lurkers) as much perspective on the subject as I can. For those wanting to further their understanding of the subject, feel free to PM me, anytime. For those whose mission in life is to be perpetual dissenters, naysayers, disrupters, interlopers and general antagonists against their fellow FM members trying to have a legitimate discussion ... well, here again, we have two camps.
Since we reached the crossroads of a (what I was hopeful was legitimate) a feigned request for additional insight, and a complete rejection and aspersions of "vomit" regarding my suggestion toward a legacy of optical engineering insight ... my genuine sincerity to advance the understanding of the subject is not being reciprocated in a like manner.
I'm certain that folks who have been "watching" readily recognize the difference between those aspiring to discuss the matter in earnest vs. those who have a different agenda. Nothing new here, just an acknowledgement that I appreciate those who have been watching from afar, and hope that I've presented at least some nuggets of useful insight / perspective for some of our members.
Granted, you'll never please 100% of the people, 100% of the time ... but, I've given a significant amount of time, effort and attention to the matter. Hopefully, it has not been 100% in vain ... as I have nothing but the highest regard for Fred and his site, and our fellow members. It has always been my great appreciation for Fred and his site that propels me to continue to contribute, and to do so above the fray of "dense" and "vomit".
RustyBug wrote:
For those watching / lurking ... I hope I've offered insights into optics and the issue of physiological response. But, in as much as it is crystal clear to me that Heron's A : B presents a difference in contribution from the optic ... it is equally clear that the participants that routinely engage me on the matter are not here to learn, nor do they legitimately care to even try to learn nor discuss the actual merits of the optics, even when presented with far superior resources than my limited understanding offers.
Even when presented with other sources of optical expertise far beyond those of us in the forum, the incessant and perpetual refusal, is unending. Everything from folks calling me "dense" to folks wanting to "vomit" ... really nice, guys ... shows your superiority on the subject really well.
I've tried to stay above the noise and share with fellow FM'ers (active participants and lurkers) as much perspective on the subject as I can. For those wanting to further their understanding of the subject, feel free to PM me, anytime. For those whose mission in life is to be perpetual dissenters, naysayers, disrupters, interlopers and general antagonists against their fellow FM members trying to have a legitimate discussion ... well, here again, we have two camps.
Since we reached the crossroads of a (what I was hopeful was legitimate) a feigned request for additional insight, and a complete rejection and aspersions of "vomit" regarding my suggestions ... my genuine sincerity to advance the understanding of the subject is not being reciprocated in a like manner.
I'm certain that folks who have been "watching" readily recognize the difference between those aspiring to discuss the matter in earnest vs. those who have a different agenda. Nothing new here, just an acknowledgement that I appreciate those who have been watching from afar, and hope that I've presented at least some nuggets of useful insight / perspective for some of our members.
Granted, you'll never please 100% of the people, 100% of the time ... but, I've given a significant amount of time, effort and attention to the matter. Hopefully, it has not been 100% in vain ... as I have nothing but the highest regard for Fred and his site, and our fellow members. It has always been my great appreciation for Fred and his site that propels me to continue to contribute, and to do so above the fray of "dense" and "vomit".
Rusty, you and Philip have added much information on the topic and lens design in general. Thank you both for that. For those that want to vomit, please go lock yourselves in the toilet where you belong and stop smelling up this thread. You are not here to learn or discuss…you just want to ruin a good discussion.
Yeah where did we all land on this? Currently looking at the Thypoch Simera 50mm and the photos I've seen from some reviews seem to exude that 3D pop. Same with the 35mm Nokton f/1.5 I currently own.
RustyBug wrote:
Fred is the best.
Exactly! That's why I advise everyone to look at Fred's informative lens tests and especially his lens comparisons, instead of falling for charlatanry. I've linked to them here several times when the influencer made false claims that can easily be exposed as such by Fred's pictures. Unfortunately, neither the influencer, nor you, nor chez ever responded. You simply operate on the principle of ignoring what you don't like. After a short time, new claims are made that again cannot be substantiated, and any requests for sources are dismissed with the suggestion that one should simply study the history of optics. And then you're surprised by the backlash? You could easily silence critics with verifiable facts and comparison photos. Instead, you're now playing the victim. The real victims, however, are the gullible ones who absorb half-truths here and, in the worst case, spread them further.
Jonas B wrote:
Hey, fun!
Thank you for posting. I for one have been asking for A/B comparisons.
But... I never thought of comparing lenses like the ones you used here. There are big differences between the images and the brain get some work to do "comparing" them.
I was (of course) thinking of comparisons between modern lenses having some ambition with regards to filling the image circle with something at least at least possible to recognize also if not very sharp. Example of lenses coming to my mind are of course the Thypoch Simera lenses against lenses Phillip have labeled as flat while promoting the Simeras.
I like when we get depth in our images. Despite that I would bring the Bushnell Automatic over the Revuenon any day for a walk around lens. I like the image with the tree (pair 2). You didn't you take these photos for actually comparing the amount of 3D pop you would get, did you?
I don't have multiple 'modern' lenses in the same focal length to do a comparison with. I'm honestly surprised that no on else in this thread has provided one.
I agree, the Bushnell is much more suited to everyday shooting. I'll keep the Revuenon around for the novelty of it's extreme effect though. It's been fun figuring out how to compose with it to take advantage of its special character.
Yes, I shot those examples specifically to illustrate the degree to which a lens can enhance the 3D effect.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Exactly! That's why I advise everyone to look at Fred's informative lens tests and especially his lens comparisons, instead of falling for charlatanry. I've linked to them here several times when the influencer made false claims that can easily be exposed as such by Fred's pictures. Unfortunately, neither the influencer, nor you, nor chez ever responded. You simply operate on the principle of ignoring what you don't like. After a short time, new claims are made that again cannot be substantiated, and any requests for sources are dismissed with the suggestion that one should simply study the history of optics. And then you're surprised by the backlash? You could easily silence critics with verifiable facts and comparison photos. Instead, you're now playing the victim. The real victims, however, are the gullible ones who absorb half-truths here and, in the worst case, spread them further. ...Show more →
I've referenced a variety of Fred's work, as well as others here (e.g. the VM 40/1.2 thread, etc.). I'm not sure where you come up with charlatanry, particularly as I have referenced world renowned legacy optical engineering as a potential source to educate oneself on the matter of optical design and its influence on perception associated with physiological cues of spatial / depth considerations.
We should simply "agree to disagree" ... btw, I'm not a victim. But, thanks for being so kind to think of me, as such. Still, I think if you want to learn about optics, your proximity to Leica's history is a valuable resource, that is available to you more readily than most of us.
I reiterate that a starting point of Summilux vs. Summicron, and Mandler vs. Karbe are good places of study. Irwin Puts, Leica vs. Zeiss, etc. and accompany that with a deeper study into the human physiological response for depth / spatial cues. These are the basis of Trompe' Loeil, and the understanding of them is intertwined with the choices that optical engineering designers bring to the ethos of their designs.
Honestly, if you want to learn about the subject(s) ... and find that our inputs here are of little merit to your perspective ... then, there is the prospect to seek elsewhere (I made my recommendation in proximity to your location) of your choosing.
Well, when I can get the weather to cooperate I want to run another test shoot of all the lenses I can on the same subject. Hopefully as quickly as I can so the light stays pretty consistent.
If I do them all adapted on the SL2 I can get pretty much all of them done except for the Canon EF ones and the few Minolta's I still have. The SL2 will give my old eyes the best shot at getting the manual focus ones on target.
What I expect from years of use is for three lenses to shine. The CY 100/2.0, the CY 85/2.8 and the Pentax SMC 50/1.4. I am curious though to see what the SL lenses do also as quite honestly they seem to be the best zooms I've ever shot based on the images I'm getting with them
I'm also quite sure if I can get this test done there will be some surprises. It'll be ironically funny if none portray 3D pop.
RustyBug wrote:
For those watching / lurking ... I hope I've offered insights into optics and the issue of physiological response. But, in as much as it is crystal clear to me that Heron's A : B presents a difference in contribution from the optic ... it is equally clear that the participants that routinely engage me on the matter are not here to learn, nor do they legitimately care to even try to learn nor discuss the actual merits of the optics, even when presented with far superior resources than my limited understanding offers.
Even when presented with other sources of optical expertise far beyond those of us in the forum, the incessant and perpetual refusal, is unending. Everything from folks calling me "dense" to folks wanting to "vomit" ... really nice, guys ... shows your superiority on the subject really well.
I've tried to stay above the noise and share with fellow FM'ers (active participants and lurkers) as much perspective on the subject as I can. For those wanting to further their understanding of the subject, feel free to PM me, anytime. For those whose mission in life is to be perpetual dissenters, naysayers, disrupters, interlopers and general antagonists against their fellow FM members trying to have a legitimate discussion ... well, here again, we have two camps.
Since we reached the crossroads of a (what I was hopeful was legitimate) a feigned request for additional insight, and a complete rejection and aspersions of "vomit" regarding my suggestion toward a legacy of optical engineering insight ... my genuine sincerity to advance the understanding of the subject is not being reciprocated in a like manner.
I'm certain that folks who have been "watching" readily recognize the difference between those aspiring to discuss the matter in earnest vs. those who have a different agenda. Nothing new here, just an acknowledgement that I appreciate those who have been watching from afar, and hope that I've presented at least some nuggets of useful insight / perspective for some of our members.
Granted, you'll never please 100% of the people, 100% of the time ... but, I've given a significant amount of time, effort and attention to the matter. Hopefully, it has not been 100% in vain ... as I have nothing but the highest regard for Fred and his site, and our fellow members. It has always been my great appreciation for Fred and his site that propels me to continue to contribute, and to do so above the fray of "dense" and "vomit".
jamesdak wrote:
Well, when I can get the weather to cooperate I want to run another test shoot of all the lenses I can on the same subject. Hopefully as quickly as I can so the light stays pretty consistent.
If I do them all adapted on the SL2 I can get pretty much all of them done except for the Canon EF ones and the few Minolta's I still have. The SL2 will give my old eyes the best shot at getting the manual focus ones on target.
What I expect from years of use is for three lenses to shine. The CY 100/2.0, the CY 85/2.8 and the Pentax SMC 50/1.4. I am curious though to see what the SL lenses do also as quite honestly they seem to be the best zooms I've ever shot based on the images I'm getting with them
I'm also quite sure if I can get this test done there will be some surprises. It'll be ironically funny if none portray 3D pop.
I think I have 5+ modern fast 35mms I'd like to test for that elusive 3D pop.
The thing is, I don't have a scene that produces that effect reliably. And without the scene, it's gonna be next to impossible to test which lenses contribute to it.
Even, if that 3D pop is a personal thing...
Stumbled on this old shot a few minutes ago. Does this give you the impression of 3D pop?
https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/99771641.jpg
Shot back in 2008 when I had a simple two element Leica 560/6.8 that I used adapted on my Canon 5D. I regret letting this unique lens go.
I like the image. To me there is a sense of depth but perhaps not POP. Semantics?
A sidenote: the highlights are a problem. There are parts of the bird where the lens failed with attenuating the highlights. Attenuating the highlights? I don't know what that would be, Phillips post (page 93 post #7 paragraph 3) is not really clear and I'm afraid he won't get back about the claim.
A two element 560mm lens, I didn't know there was such a lens. (I have never owned anything longer than 200mm.)
