Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16378129 « Official: Leica M11-P announced »
  

RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: Leica M11-P announced


Stephen G wrote:

It doesn't feel to me like it has enough "Leica DNA".


Lovely lenses, though now they are blessing Sigma lenses you can mount on a Sony as Leica for 2x the price.. so why not put them on the superior Sony body for your use case and save money?.

You're still NOT getting the Leica optical DNA.

Folks want to focus on the body, but (imo), the reason for owning a Leica that makes a Leica, Leica ... is the optical formulation in ethos approach to both optics and photographic subjects.

Even, those folks who adapt Leica glass on other sensors are NOT getting the fullness of the optical properties that decades of optical design by Leica's ethos have brought to us. Mixing Leica lenses with the WRONG sensor / microlenses, diminishes the fullness of the Leica DNA that is designed into the optical projection that proceeds through the lens, microlens, cover glass / bfa (or not for mono), etc.

The extreme precision of optics doesn't get improved by jacking around with the wrong angles of incidence / refraction / reflection. The most Leica DNA you'll ever get is Leica M on Leica M, Leica SL on Leica SL, Leica Q on Leica Q, etc.

If the issue is about trying to figure out ways to be cost efficient as a primary goal, then the goal of retaining the most Leica DNA is abandoned, sacrificed, reduced, compromised, retarded and/or otherwise deteriorated to varying degree.


If Leica DNA is what one desires, Sony and Sigma are not the answer to achieving that (imo). It is the answer to getting Sony / Sigma DNA, though.

Which, BTW ... I wrote sometime back that I thought some of Sigma (L Alliance) was revealing hints of taking a page from Leica. But, having had my stint with some of Sigma's better glass, it still isn't Leica DNA.

That's like wanting a Stradivarius and buying any other violin. It's still not a Strad. Even if you can play the same songs with it ... it doesn't have the same sound. Some folks don't notice the difference ... others can't escape it.
Nikon, Canon, Hassy, Zeiss, Leica, Sigma, Oly, Mamiya, etc. ... they all have their own DNA. I've shot and adapted all of them over the years. Plenty of good glass and I have some fav's. But, (imo) only Leica has Leica DNA.


Quid Pro Quo ... $$$ vs. Leica DNA.










Oct 29, 2023 at 01:16 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: Leica M11-P announced


Stephen G wrote:

It doesn't feel to me like it has enough "Leica DNA".


Lovely lenses, though now they are blessing Sigma lenses you can mount on a Sony as Leica for 2x the price.. so why not put them on the superior Sony body for your use case and save money?.

You're still NOT getting the Leica optical DNA.

Folks want to focus on the body, but (imo), the reason for owning a Leica that makes a Leica, Leica ... is the optical formulation in ethos approach to both optics and photographic subjects.

Even, those folks who adapt Leica glass on other sensors are NOT getting the fullness of the optical properties that decades of optical design by Leica's ethos have brought to us. Mixing Leica lenses with the WRONG sensor / microlenses, diminishes the fullness of the Leica DNA that is designed into the optical projection that proceeds through the lens, microlens, cover glass / bfa (or not for mono), etc.

The extreme precision of optics doesn't get improved by jacking around with the wrong angles of incidence / refraction / reflection. The most Leica DNA you'll ever get is Leica M on Leica M, Leica SL on Leica SL, Leica Q on Leica Q, etc.

If the issue is about trying to figure out ways to be cost efficient as a primary goal, then the goal of retaining the most Leica DNA is abandoned, sacrificed, reduced, compromised, retarded and/or otherwise deteriorated to varying degree.


If Leica DNA is what one desires, Sony and Sigma are not the answer to achieving that (imo). It is the answer to getting Sony / Sigma DNA, though.

Which, BTW ... I wrote sometime back that I thought some of Sigma (L Alliance) was revealing hints of taking a page from Leica. But, having had my stint with some of Sigma's better glass, it still isn't Leica DNA.

That's like wanting a Stradivarius and buying any other violin. It's still not a Strad. Even if you can play the same songs with it ... it doesn't have the same sound.
Nikon, Canon, Hassy, Zeiss, Leica, Sigma, Oly, Mamiya, etc. ... they all have their own DNA. I've shot and adapted all of them over the years. Plenty of good glass and I have some fav's. But, (imo) only Leica has Leica DNA.


Quid Pro Quo ... $$$ vs. Leica DNA.










Oct 29, 2023 at 01:15 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: Leica M11-P announced


Stephen G wrote:

It doesn't feel to me like it has enough "Leica DNA".


Lovely lenses, though now they are blessing Sigma lenses you can mount on a Sony as Leica for 2x the price.. so why not put them on the superior Sony body for your use case and save money?.

You're still NOT getting the Leica optical DNA.

Folks want to focus on the body, but (imo), the reason for owning a Leica that makes a Leica, Leica ... is the optical formulation in ethos approach to both optics and photographic subjects.

Even, those folks who adapt Leica glass on other sensors are NOT getting the fullness of the optical properties that decades of optical design by Leica's ethos have brought to us. Mixing Leica lenses with the WRONG sensor / microlenses, diminishes the fullness of the Leica DNA that is designed into the optical projection that proceeds through the lens, microlens, cover glass / bfa (or not for mono), etc.

The extreme precision of optics doesn't get improved by jacking around with the wrong angles of incidence / refraction / reflection. The most Leica DNA you'll ever get is Leica M on Leica M, Leica SL on Leica SL, Leica Q on Leica Q, etc.

If the issue is about trying to figure out ways to be cost efficient as a primary goal, then the goal of retaining the most Leica DNA is abandoned, sacrificed, reduced, compromised, retarded and/or otherwise deteriorated to varying degree.

If Leica DNA is what one desires, Sony and Sigma are not the answer to achieving that (imo). It is the answer to getting Sony / Sigma DNA, though.

Which, BTW ... I wrote sometime back that I thought some of Sigma (L Alliance) was revealing hints of taking a page from Leica. But, having had my stint with some of Sigma's better glass, it still isn't Leica DNA.

That's like wanting a Stradivarius and buying any other violin. It's still not a Strad. Even if you can play the same songs with it ... it doesn't have the same sound.
Nikon, Canon, Hassy, Zeiss, Leica, Sigma, Oly, Mamiya, etc. ... they all have their own DNA. I've shot and adapted all of them over the years. Plenty of good glass and I have some fav's. But, (imo) only Leica has Leica DNA.

Quid Pro Quo ... $$$ vs. Leica DNA.










Oct 29, 2023 at 01:14 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: Leica M11-P announced


Stephen G wrote:

It doesn't feel to me like it has enough "Leica DNA".


Lovely lenses, though now they are blessing Sigma lenses you can mount on a Sony as Leica for 2x the price.. so why not put them on the superior Sony body for your use case and save money?.

You're still NOT getting the Leica optical DNA.

Folks want to focus on the body, but (imo), the reason for owning a Leica that makes a Leica, Leica ... is the optical formulation in ethos approach to both optics and photographic subjects.

Even, those folks who adapt Leica glass on other sensors are NOT getting the fullness of the optical properties that decades of optical design by Leica's ethos have brought to us. Mixing Leica lenses with the WRONG sensor / microlenses, diminishes the fullness of the Leica DNA that is designed into the optical projection that proceeds through the lens, microlens, cover glass / bfa (or not for mono), etc.

The extreme precision of optics doesn't get improved by jacking around with the wrong angles of incidence / refraction / reflection. The most Leica DNA you'll ever get is Leica M on Leica M, Leica SL on Leica SL, Leica Q on Leica Q, etc.

If the issue is about trying to figure out ways to be cost efficient as a primary goal, then the goal of retaining the most Leica DNA is abandoned, sacrificed, reduced, compromised, retarded and/or otherwise deteriorated to varying degree.

If Leica DNA is what one desires, Sony and Sigma are not the answer to achieving that (imo). It is the answer to getting Sony / Sigma DNA, though.

Which, BTW ... I wrote sometime back that I thought some of Sigma (L Alliance) was revealing hints of taking a page from Leica. But, having had my stint with some of Sigma's better glass, it still isn't Leica DNA.

That's like wanting a Stradivarius and buying any other violin. It's still not a Strad. Even if you can play the same songs with it ... it doesn't have the same sound. Nikon, Canon, Hassy, Zeiss, Leica, Sigma, Oly, Mamiya, etc. ... they all have their own DNA. I've shot and adapted all of them over the years. Plenty of good glass and I have some fav's. But, (imo) only Leica has Leica DNA.

Quid Pro Quo ... $$$ vs. Leica DNA.










Oct 29, 2023 at 01:13 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: Leica M11-P announced


Stephen G wrote:

It doesn't feel to me like it has enough "Leica DNA".


Lovely lenses, though now they are blessing Sigma lenses you can mount on a Sony as Leica for 2x the price.. so why not put them on the superior Sony body for your use case and save money?.

You're still NOT getting the Leica optical DNA.

Folks want to focus on the body, but (imo), the reason for owning a Leica that makes a Leica, Leica ... is the optical formulation in ethos approach to both optics and photographic subjects.

Even, those folks who adapt Leica glass on other sensors are NOT getting the fullness of the optical properties that decades of optical design by Leica's ethos have brought to us. Mixing Leica lenses with the WRONG sensor / microlenses, diminishes the fullness of the Leica DNA that is designed into the optical projection that proceeds through the lens, microlens, cover glass / bfa (or not for mono), etc.

The extreme precision of optics doesn't get improved by jacking around with the wrong angles of incidence / refraction / reflection. The most Leica DNA you'll ever get is Leica M on Leica M, Leica SL on Leica SL, Leica Q on Leica Q, etc.

If the issue is about trying to figure out ways to be cost efficient as a primary goal, then the goal of retaining the most Leica DNA is abandoned, sacrificed, reduced, compromised, retarded and/or otherwise deteriorated to varying degree.

If Leica DNA is what one desires, Sony and Sigma are not the answer to achieving that (imo). It is the answer to getting Sony / Sigma DNA, though.

Which, BTW ... I wrote sometime back that I thought some of Sigma (L Alliance) was revealing hints of taking a page from Leica. But, having had my stint with some of Sigma's better glass, it still isn't Leica DNA.

That's like wanting a Stradivarius and buying any other violin. It's still NOT a Strad. Even if you can play the same songs with it ... it doesn't have the same sound.

Quid Pro Quo ... $$$ vs. Leica DNA.










Oct 29, 2023 at 01:09 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: Leica M11-P announced


Stephen G wrote:

It doesn't feel to me like it has enough "Leica DNA".


Lovely lenses, though now they are blessing Sigma lenses you can mount on a Sony as Leica for 2x the price.. so why not put them on the superior Sony body for your use case and save money?.

You're still NOT getting the Leica optical DNA.

Folks want to focus on the body, but (imo), the reason for owning a Leica that makes a Leica, Leica ... is the optical formulation in ethos approach to both optics and photographic subjects.

Even, those folks who adapt Leica glass on other sensors are NOT getting the fullness of the optical properties that decades of optical design by Leica's ethos have brought to us. Mixing Leica lenses with the WRONG sensor / microlenses, diminishes the fullness of the Leica DNA that is designed into the optical projection that proceeds through the lens, microlens, cover glass / bfa (or not for mono), etc.

The extreme precision of optics doesn't get improved by jacking around with the wrong angles of incidence / refraction / reflection. The most Leica DNA you'll ever get is Leica M on Leica M, Leica SL on Leica SL, Leica Q on Leica Q, etc.

If the issue is about trying to figure out ways to be cost efficient as a primary goal, then the goal of retaining the most Leica DNA is abandoned, sacrificed, reduced, compromised, retarded and/or otherwise deteriorated to varying degree.

If Leica DNA is what one desires, Sony and Sigma are not the answer to achieving that (imo). It is the answer to getting Sony / Sigma DNA, though.

Which, BTW ... I wrote sometime back that I thought some of Sigma (L Alliance) was revealing hints of taking a page from Leica. But, having had my stint with some of Sigma's better glass, it still isn't Leica DNA.

That's like wanting a Stradivarius and buying any other violin. It's still NOT a Strad. Even if you can play the same songs with it ... it doesn't sound the same.

Quid Pro Quo ... $$$ vs. Leica DNA.










Oct 29, 2023 at 01:08 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: Leica M11-P announced


Stephen G wrote:

It doesn't feel to me like it has enough "Leica DNA".


Lovely lenses, though now they are blessing Sigma lenses you can mount on a Sony as Leica for 2x the price.. so why not put them on the superior Sony body for your use case and save money?.

You're still NOT getting the Leica optical DNA.

Folks want to focus on the body, but (imo), the reason for owning a Leica that makes a Leica, Leica ... is the optical formulation in ethos approach to both optics and photographic subjects.

Even, those folks who adapt Leica glass on other sensors are NOT getting the fullness of the optical properties that decades of optical design by Leica's ethos have brought to us. Mixing Leica lenses with the WRONG sensor / microlenses, diminishes the fullness of the Leica DNA that is designed into the optical projection that proceeds through the lens, microlens, cover glass / bfa (or not for mono), etc.

The extreme precision of optics doesn't get improved by jacking around with the wrong angles of incidence / refraction / reflection. The most Leica DNA you'll ever get is Leica M on Leica M, Leica SL on Leica SL, Leica Q on Leica Q, etc.

If the issue is about trying to figure out ways to be cost efficient as a primary goal, then the goal of retaining the most Leica DNA is abandoned, sacrificed, reduced, compromised, retarded and/or otherwise deteriorated to varying degree.

If Leica DNA is what one desires, Sony and Sigma are not the answer to achieving that (imo). It is the answer to getting Sony / Sigma DNA, though.

Which, BTW ... I wrote sometime back that I thought some of Sigma (L Alliance) was revealing hints of taking a page from Leica. But, having had my stint with some of Sigma's better glass, it still isn't Leica DNA.

That's like wanting a Stradivarius and buying any other violin. It's still NOT a Strad. Even if you can play the same songs with it. ... it doesn't sound the same.

Quid Pro Quo ... $$$ vs. Leica DNA.





Oct 29, 2023 at 01:06 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: Leica M11-P announced


Stephen G wrote:

It doesn't feel to me like it has enough "Leica DNA".


Lovely lenses, though now they are blessing Sigma lenses you can mount on a Sony as Leica for 2x the price.. so why not put them on the superior Sony body for your use case and save money?.

You're still NOT getting the Leica optical DNA.

Folks want to focus on the body, but (imo), the reason for owning a Leica that makes a Leica, Leica ... is the optical formulation in ethos approach to both optics and photographic subjects.

Even, those folks who adapt Leica glass on other sensors are NOT getting the fullness of the optical properties that decades of optical design by Leica's ethos have brought to us. Mixing Leica lenses with the WRONG sensor / microlenses, diminishes the fullness of the Leica DNA that is designed into the optical projection that proceeds through the lens, microlens, cover glass / bfa (or not for mono), etc.

The extreme precision of optics doesn't get improved by jacking around with the wrong angles of incidence / refraction / reflection. The most Leica DNA you'll ever get is Leica M on Leica M, Leica SL on Leica SL, Leica Q on Leica Q, etc.

If the issue is about trying to figure out ways to be cost efficient as a primary goal, then the goal of retaining the most Leica DNA is abandoned, sacrificed, reduced, compromised, retarded and/or otherwise deteriorated to varying degree.

If Leica DNA is what one desires, Sony and Sigma are not the answer to achieving that (imo). It is the answer to getting Sony / Sigma DNA, though.

Which, BTW ... I wrote sometime back that I thought some of Sigma (L Alliance) was revealing hints of taking a page from Leica. But, having had my stint with some of Sigma's better glass, it still isn't Leica DNA.


Quid Pro Quo ... $$$ vs. Leica DNA.





Oct 29, 2023 at 12:48 PM





  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16378129 « Official: Leica M11-P announced »
 




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.