[Leica] Leica lens quality as a forerunner to another "lens" race.

[pdzwig at summaventures.com (Peter Dzwig)]

Peter,

I very much agree with you - and I think that you speak for many of us. 
My M3 is a marvel and produces "that certain something". My IIIf does 
that and, as Steve Gandy described it "is camera as art". There's a 
certain fun in using them but they are an acquired taste. Digital is 
fine, but again digital cameras change so frequently and of course we 
musn't forget the ubiquitous smartphone which in a lot of area are 
evolving faster than cameras and some even have Leica lenses!

I think that, unless I win the lottery, I have bought my last Leica they 
really are rapidly going out of my reach.

However using my M3 lens - or even LTMs - on my Fujis is a hoot.

Peter

On 02/05/2023 04:30, Peter Klein via LUG wrote:
> My love of Leica M cameras started c. 1970, when I discovered that I 
> could focus a rangefinder more accurately and easily than an SLR. At 
> that time, a used M2 was only a little more expensive than a new Nikon 
> F. i bought one. I quickly noticed the better optics. The other stuff, 
> the cult, the glorious history of Leica in photojournalism, I learned 
> later. That was nice, and it made me feel part of something. But what 
> truly mattered was that the camera fit me.
> 
> It's now over 50 years later, and many things have changed. Most medium 
> to high end lenses are sufficient in optical quality. Autofocus can 
> often be more accurate and faster than RF focusing by eye. The change 
> from film to digital taught me that there is no such thing as 
> perfection. The RFs that we thought were perfect on Kodachrome or 
> Panatomic-X were calibrated to a reasonable compromise, which we could 
> easily see once we went digital. Focus shift was real. Film grain and 
> thickness covered up some optical flaws. But many of these flaws can 
> only be seen when we pixel peep. Aside from jerks on Internet photo 
> forums, who cares? Pixel peeping is a false god. There is a point (a 
> zone, really) of diminishing returns on absolute optical quality.
> 
> I too have been to Wetzlar and watched Peter Karbe demonstrate how much 
> better the newest ASPH lenses are, zooming into a flower until we could 
> see the tiniest structures. It was miraculous and inspiring, and we were 
> all in awe. But I also had to ask myself how much all this would help me 
> in my mostly handheld photography. And how many thousands of dollars 
> would I be willing (or not) to spend, just to push a smidge further into 
> that zone of diminishing returns?
> 
> I suspect that solving problems like distortion and smearing in the 
> corners and edges of the frame are not either-or solutions, but a matter 
> of *both* optics and software. Let each craft do what it's best at, such 
> that it annoys the photographer as little as possible. That may not be 
> the best solution for competing with Japan, but it probably is the best 
> photographic solution.
> 
> A big problem is Leica's prices. Most pro photographers left them long 
> ago. Even most serious amateurs no longer aspire to Leica. Wetzlar just 
> smiles, pushes the boundaries further and raises prices again.
> 
> In a way, I'm lucky. I bought most of my Leica lenses when they were 
> more affordable. I'm happy with my M10-P and original "Henri" Monochrom. 
> In some ways I prefer the aesthetics of the classic lenses. A couple of 
> my lenses are (heresy!) Voigtlanders, and I like them. So I don't have 
> to buy anything else if I don't want to. But that doesn't make me a 
> Leica customer. It makes me a Customer Emeritus. I hope there are enough 
> doctors, lawyers, dentists and collectors of expensive things to make up 
> for folks like me.
> 
> --Peter
> 
> Don Dory wrote:
> 
>  > I had the chance to talk to a high ranking individual within the Leica
>  > organization at breakfast.? The gist was that Leica was proceeding on an
>  > optical solution rather than a software enabled solution. Probably the
>  > better solution as if the information is there software can take it 
> to an
>  > even higher level.? However, it puts Leica on a cost effective curve 
> that
>  > makes their products even more exclusive: also, it hurts production 
> volume
>  > as some of their designs have very high defect rates by Leica standards.
>  > Obviously this drives an even higher price point.
>  >
>  > Last, one of the participants received a survey from Leica with one
>  > question about Japanese production of lenses at a (much) lower price
>  > point.? So, Leica is aware of the pricing problem and is trying to 
> work on
>  > it.
>  >
>  > Last, this Leica representative clarified the classic stool of any 
> product:
>  > price, size, performance.? You could have any two.? I am currently 
> weighing
>  > this as I own several of Sigma's most excellent lenses for the FE mount.
>  > Their performance is magnificent however the average weight is in the
>  > neighborhood of 1.5 kilograms compared to my 35 ASPH Summilux in the 
> high
>  > 300 grams.? The Sigma is a better lens but my shoulder and hand don't
>  > appreciate the weight as much as my eyes appreciate the image quality.
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

-- 

Dr. Peter Dzwig