Getting a Rangefinder

[szekiat]

*still relevant cos we're still talking about gear acquisition *
I'm a sucker for the clinically sharp look. Bokeh is actually the least of my worries but subject sharpness is always critical for me. Sad to say, i'm also one of those fools who constantly does 18x12 prints for my digital, b/w and color negs. I know, such a sucker when i can just view it at 100% on my screen but its not quite the same. I guess we all have different preferences in the end, u obviously like a lower contrast look but i clearly prefer details to be well defined. Flare is NOT an option for me.

Buyers beware, this is what happens when u go into a system that only offers a limited focal range. U start being anal about how each lens renders the scene. Oh and anyone who says leica lenses are about par with nikon and canon and zeiss should try shooting more during chinese new year. So far for me, leica lenses seem to be the only one that consistently render reds faithfully. The others either are over saturated or have too high contrast, resulting in patchy colors during enlargement.

 

[student]

Buyers beware, this is what happens when u go into a system that only offers a limited focal range. U start being anal about how each lens renders the scene.

Buyers!

Rest assure that not everyone gets anal about how each lens renders a scene. Only the weak-minded will succumb to such inconsequential minutae.

Such minutae that requires a side by side comparison to tell the difference. How many viewers can tell the difference between the reds, if different reds are shown one at a time with a 5 minute interval? And is preference of different shades of reds a constant between viewers?

And does such minutae matters of the subject is strong? Or is it because the image is not strong then one talks about minutae?

 

[Wisp]

Urm I got no preference actually. I just use whatever lens I have. Most of my expenditure still goes into what the young do everyday: enjoy life.

Oh and a ton of paper and films.

 

[szekiat]

Buyers!

Rest assure that not everyone gets anal about how each lens renders a scene. Only the weak-minded will succumb to such inconsequential minutae.

Such minutae that requires a side by side comparison to tell the difference. How many viewers can tell the difference between the reds, if different reds are shown one at a time with a 5 minute interval? And is preference of different shades of reds a constant between viewers?

And does such minutae matters of the subject is strong? Or is it because the image is not strong then one talks about minutae?

it doesn't really take a side by side comparison more than the fact that the pictures do actually stand out of the series when laid out on the table. As for the reds issue, well i sure would notice if a dress thats normally got many tones appear as a patch of red. Problem gets even more severe on digital unfortunately.
Does the minutae details matter when the subject is strong? I personally feel it is more important than ever that the fine details are noticed when photographing a strong subject. From an editorial point of view, often more than one person will have photos of that same subject and the image that eventually gets chosen will be the one that stands out not just because of the subject (for there are many) but because of the other small things like the background, contrast, exposure (for there are few). From a moral standpoint, i feel that i owe it to my subject to render the scene faithfully, in terms of colors and contrast. To take a photo that will do them justice. This burden does not lessen with a strong subject. I am a firm believer that my photos are what people will see of my subject and hence it is my duty to try my best to make it/him/her look good/accurate.

 

[student]

it doesn't really take a side by side comparison more than the fact that the pictures do actually stand out of the series when laid out on the table. As for the reds issue, well i sure would notice if a dress thats normally got many tones appear as a patch of red. Problem gets even more severe on digital unfortunately

Wow! You must have an incredible visual memory! Your occipital lobes and the neural integration centres must be very well developed!

Well, I did a nonscientific "study" many years ago, taking the same scenes with Leica 35mm f1.4 Asph with Canon L 35mm f1.4. Metering done with a hand held meter. Photographed with transparency (can't remember which one). The images were put on a color corrected light box for viewing.

I showed this to writers, painters, photographers as well as "ordinary" people. I must admit though, that these people are not Leicaphiles, so they may not know what is the "best". I told them Leica Lenses are the "best", and that the images were taken with the best Leica lenses and with Canon lenses.

I asked them which color is the most natural? I asked them which one they prefer? I asked them which is the "better" of the two? Of course without telling them which image was taken with which lens. I had a friend to make codes so that even I did not know which is what. Is this what you call a double-blind study? And because I kept switching the images around, would that be something like a "cross-over" or maybe "multiple cross-overs" study?

Anyway, whatever one call this, these were the interesting findings.

First of all, there is no uniformity agreement as to which color is more "natural".

Secondly, the preferences were more or less divided between the Leica and Canon.

Thirdly, which one is better was so hilarious that the arguments led to some some animated "quarreling"!

Fourthly, the ones that was rated the "best" was actually Canon images!
.

Does the minutae details matter when the subject is strong? I personally feel it is more important than ever that the fine details are noticed when photographing a strong subject.

Your statement reminds me very much of Michael Reichmann of Luminuous-Landscape. He is one for the most exact technical quality and fine details. But well, I do not think much about his detailed imageries because they are so ho-hum!

From an editorial point of view, often more than one person will have photos of that same subject and the image that eventually gets chosen will be the one that stands out not just because of the subject (for there are many) but because of the other small things like the background, contrast, exposure (for there are few).

This is most amazing! We were talking about qualities of lenses, but you now digress from quality of lenses to things like background, contrast, exposure, etc. Please keep to the subject! we are now not talking about coated versus non-coated lenses which will cause differences in contrast, but modern multi-coated lenses.

But I had used uncoated Leitz lenses, and I do like the rendition more than many of the coated ones!

From a moral standpoint, i feel that i owe it to my subject to render the scene faithfully, in terms of colors and contrast. To take a photo that will do them justice. This burden does not lessen with a strong subject. I am a firm believer that my photos are what people will see of my subject and hence it is my duty to try my best to make it/him/her look good/accurate.

For those who make images to please clients, is this not expected? So to you, to be "moral" and be true to your clients is, by extending your logic, to use the "best" lenses, meaning Leica glass. And if another photographer, if he chose not to use Leica glass (assuming he could well afford leica) he might be guilty of ignorance, or worse, guilty of not giving his subject the "best?


But let me digress a little. What do you mean by rendering the scene faithfully? Of course we are talking about lens quality here. Not skills in composition etc. Since you talked about colors. Which film render scene faithfully? Velvia? Provia? Reala? (Well I am Fuji-bias) or the many other excellent Kodak films?

Any films will have their own characteristics. What is rendering the scene "faithfully" anyway? Can any camera system, digital or film, render a scene "faithfully"?

Or are we fooling ourselves?

Mind you. I am not disparaging Leica. I love and use Leica M & R.

 

[szekiat]

Just a quick reply. Btw, student i PM'd you earlier on.
I'm not too sure what student's test really involved, was it a test chart you shot, a landscape, or an ang pao? As mentioned above, i am referring to specific qualities of the lenses like its rendering of reds and its sharpness wide open. Perhaps we can talk more about this via email.

Not really familiar with Michael Reichmann beyond the fact that his website seems to be touted as rather good. Personally, i do my own testings and whatever i say is based on my own experience.

Re: Contrast, background rendition, etc. Are not a lot of those factors very dependent on the lens in use? For me at least, it seems that way. I believe student alluded to that in his own reply.

Re: Making images for clients. I think thats generalizing what i do. I am not always shooting for clients, a lot of my work is really for myself. I think it is also overextending it by saying that leica makes all the best lenses in the world. Perhaps i have confused you. What i really mean to say is that one should always pick one's best tools for the job. For me at least, that just happens to be my leica lenses MOST of the time. Also, notice that i said TRY MY BEST in the same paragraph as "render faithfully". Indeed film in itself is already a major variable and no film is ever 100% accurate. As such, it is my opinion that i should reduce as much as possible all the other variables and try not to introduce more.

Anyway, i'm digressing and really we should just continue this over coffee or email or both

 

[fattlee]

///From a moral standpoint, i feel that i owe it to my subject to render the scene faithfully, in terms of colors and contrast. To take a photo that will do them justice. This burden does not lessen with a strong subject.////

I agree to the above,but I feel that its only a personal perception and/or desire to record image color/contrast nearest to the actual scene by so call best deliverable lens which you own.Its not absolute right or wrong choice.
And then we show others the results prints and explained to them the prints color is quite accurate to the actual by our eyes sighting that day.

But its only personal satisfaction of our desire,just like high end sound system(I played tube/transistor system)
However the viewers mostly appreciate more on the strong image subjects or nice composition,with of course acceptable color/contrast/fine detail whether we use best or second best lens.
Cos viewer is not at the photo scene to witness and only can listen to your description of actual color/detail.
And best equipment can deliver nearer but not exactly similar to the actual scene by default.

I look at the national geography pic,I am not finding the detail /color but just amazed by the subjects as a common viewer,but when I shoot I will tend to look more at how good the color/detail is by my new expensive lens,though I know I should look more at my composition.
I think this mix feeling with the practicality is quite usual for most photobug.

 

[student]

Just a quick reply. Btw, student i PM'd you earlier on.
I'm not too sure what student's test really involved, was it a test chart you shot, a landscape, or an ang pao? As mentioned above, i am referring to specific qualities of the lenses like its rendering of reds and its sharpness wide open. Perhaps we can talk more about this via email.

Not really familiar with Michael Reichmann beyond the fact that his website seems to be touted as rather good. Personally, i do my own testings and whatever i say is based on my own experience.

Re: Contrast, background rendition, etc. Are not a lot of those factors very dependent on the lens in use? For me at least, it seems that way. I believe student alluded to that in his own reply.

Re: Making images for clients. I think thats generalizing what i do. I am not always shooting for clients, a lot of my work is really for myself. I think it is also overextending it by saying that leica makes all the best lenses in the world. Perhaps i have confused you. What i really mean to say is that one should always pick one's best tools for the job. For me at least, that just happens to be my leica lenses MOST of the time. Also, notice that i said TRY MY BEST in the same paragraph as "render faithfully". Indeed film in itself is already a major variable and no film is ever 100% accurate. As such, it is my opinion that i should reduce as much as possible all the other variables and try not to introduce more.

Anyway, i'm digressing and really we should just continue this over coffee or email or both

I received your pm.

No, it is really not necessary to stretch this further. I know you are sincere and meant well. I am just giving another point of view.

This are my opinions regarding rangefinder.

1 Without any hesistation, I think the Leica M is the best there is. Contax is now out of the consideration.

2 Taken as a group, Leica lenses have the best resolution of any make, and the best construction.

3 However, preferences for color and contrast is extremely subjective. Although A Leica user, sometimes I do prefer the rendition of Zeiss lenses.

4 The rangefinder way of photography offers many special advantages over SLR, such as a "quieter' Shutter (not quiet! the digicams are more quiet!).

But to me, the most important advantage is that the scene is never blacked-out at any time! In SLR/DSLR, the scene is outof focus before focussing, and the scene disappears at the timeof image taking. What Ralph Gibson, a LEica master, called "VISUAL COITUS INTERRUPTUS!"

5 But finally, depsite the advantages offered by the rangefinder, this method of image making does not appeal to all. And I would suggest one interested in rangefinder photography, to borrow or rent one to see if it is to your liking.

 

[fattlee]

What i really mean to say is that one should always pick one's best tools for the job. For me at least, that just happens to be my leica lenses ////

I fully agree on above,best tools deliver better bonus of detail/color (rule out other variables)after the primary importance of strong subjects.

 

[student]

What i really mean to say is that one should always pick one's best tools for the job. For me at least, that just happens to be my leica lenses ////

I fully agree on above,best tools deliver better bonus of detail/color (rule out other variables)after the primary importance of strong subjects.

Actually, assuming that "job" means doing something for pay (not for pure enjoyment for photography) you should give up Leica!

Let me explain. I cannot give an exact quotation of the price. But let me make a reasonable hypothetical assumption.

For the price of an M6/M7 and a 50 summilux, you can get a Contax 645 with a 80 mm lens. Let me assure you that the great Leica Master, Ralph Gibson, had acknowledged to me that his Leica cannot compete with the Contax 645 with its CZ lenses, for details and clarity.

So if your purpose to give your client the "best" are you not short-changing your client? because with the amount of money you are prepared to spend on equipment, you can actually buy an equipment to give better results? Rememer, colors are subjective, given personal preferences and characteristics of color films.

Why does Ralph Gibson continue with the Leica? Because he was taking pictures for himself. Not for any clients. And the Leica M is a great tool for what he wated to do.

 

[szekiat]

student, u are not considering the fact that the contax is a f2.8 lens and if the job requires a shoot in low ambient light, the 50 f1.4 is probably still the better tool for the job. In terms of quality, i'm not too sure the lux asph is really inferior to the contax.

 

[fuwen]

student, u are not considering the fact that the contax is a f2.8 lens and if the job requires a shoot in low ambient light, the 50 f1.4 is probably still the better tool for the job. In terms of quality, i'm not too sure the lux asph is really inferior to the contax.

Hi! Szekiat, for the same enlargement say 8R, it should be very clear that Contax on 645 film will beat Leica on 35mm film hands down.

 

[fattlee]

Hi! Szekiat, for the same enlargement say 8R, it should be very clear that Contax on 645 film will beat Leica on 35mm film hands down.

Fully agree that if the ultimate detail/clarity is the only variable,then bigger format always win at larger print out,even at cheaper set.
And even normal 35mm format pro for normal reportage etc uses SLR,how many we see on TV/magazine pro shooter carry Leica to shoot nowadays?(rule out the tele lens usage for sports by default)

I can say that leica is one best quality lens in 35mm format only.And best for some personal taste of course.I personally like leica lens over zeiss after try as novice.

 

[student]

student, u are not considering the fact that the contax is a f2.8 lens and if the job requires a shoot in low ambient light, the 50 f1.4 is probably still the better tool for the job. In terms of quality, i'm not too sure the lux asph is really inferior to the contax.

Let me assure you that in terms of tonality and clarity (do talk about colors -as I mentioned, there are simply too many variables) the 645 80 mm planar will run circles around the lux.

Do not confuse the ease of use of the "small camera" with quality. To stretch the example further, you take a picture with the lux and I take the "same picture" with an 11x14 camera. You enlarge the 35 mm negative to 11x14 and I do a contact print.
Now want to talk about comparison?

But of course there are inherent advantages and disadvantages in all systems. With my Leica M (BTW, I routine use aperture less than f1.4 . I know what a combination of a high speed film and the Noctilux can do), I can make more compositions etc. etc. It take me ages to make a shot on my 11x14 camera.

But you were talking about "fine details" etc. About picking the best tools for the "job". Now let us use the word "job" in its more generic manner. Meaning to take a picture.

If I were a documentary or street photographer in the 80s, making assignments for myself and say, Life, my choice would be Leica M. And indeed, that was what I use. I carry three Leicas, two Ms with a 35 mm and a 50 mm fixed, each slung over a shoulder. And a Leica R with a the 100 mm macro apo-elmarit for tighter composition.

But if the "job " involves studio/ portraits, then a camera such as the Hassy or the Mamiya RB/RZ would be better.

If the "job" involves architecture, with faithful rendering of perspective, the a view camera is near indispensable, even today with perspective changes available on photoshop.

 

[szekiat]

I do not dispute any of the above but fail to see how it relates to whether the leica system is the best for the job. You mentioned not bringing in colors as it introduces too many variables, yet are we doing a proper comparison by varying the negative size, etc. If you were to crop a 35mm section out of a 6x6 neg, i think u will find that your best zeiss lens will have a lower resolution than a 35mm lens. Do try it out really. I tried it once using a drum scan of a hassy 120mm shot vs a nikon 105mm f2.5. But at full frame, the MF will render it nicer simply because the magnification factor is less so less of the film artifacts (grain, etc) will appear.
The MF 80mm will give me a slightly different distortion level to my 50mm lens on 135 film even if the field of view is relatively similar. This becomes a bit of an issue if distortion is desired. My point of the whole thing being that its really not a just comparison to pit a 135 photo against a 120 photo. Oh and as far as gibson's works goes, i'm not that big a fan

 

[student]

I do not dispute any of the above but fail to see how it relates to whether the leica system is the best for the job.

Specify what job you are talking about.

Street photographer? Photojournalism?

Studio portraits?

Architectural?

Blowing the image to a mural size?

Sheeze! What the hell are you talking about?

Using a needle to release the psoas abscess?

What job are you talking about? Without clarifying the job reqiuremnet, how can you decide what tools to use?

You mentioned not bringing in colors as it introduces too many variables, yet are we doing a proper comparison by varying the negative size, etc.

As I said, the colors of an image is not determined solely by the lens. The colors are also determined by the emulsion of the film. And if you were to use Velvia as a test, the colors are unnatural anyway! "Bokehs", "glow" etc are so subjective. What can be measured is resolution and construction quality.

And even then, my Contax 645 120 mm macro is so solid that it survived a one-storey fall onto solid concrete!

Besides what is a good "red" and not so good "red" is so subjective anyway. As was shown by my "nonscientifc" test. The subject was a colorful multi-colored building set in foliage.

If you were to crop a 35mm section out of a 6x6 neg, i think u will find that your best zeiss lens will have a lower resolution than a 35mm lens. Do try it out really. I tried it once using a drum scan of a hassy 120mm shot vs a nikon 105mm f2.5. But at full frame, the MF will render it nicer simply because the magnification factor is less so less of the film artifacts (grain, etc) will appear.
The MF 80mm will give me a slightly different distortion level to my 50mm lens on 135 film even if the field of view is relatively similar. This becomes a bit of an issue if distortion is desired. My point of the whole thing being that its really not a just comparison to pit a 135 photo against a 120 photo.

Please! Are you daft or what?

I was trying to give you some credit to a measure of intelligence as a medical student. You may had scored many "As" in your "A" level, but your line of argument is getting more and more idiotic, to use a very gentle description.

Who in the right mind would take a 6x6 negative for the purpose of cropping into a 35 mm format for printing?

Who in his right mind, would take a Ferrari to race with a Corolla, but then remove the wheels of the Ferrari?

You use a larger format because you want the large negative. I use a 11x14 because I want a contact print.

We are taking about a "moral' obligation to the client - to use the best in order to deliver the best. The client does not care a damn "S**T" how you take the image. Your client do not care a damn about which lens is better than what.

Please!! Do you think you alone possess knowledge about how good the Leica-or for that matter any high-end 35 mm N/C/O/M/lenses are? Most of these high-end 35 mm lenses have resolution that surpass the the average medium and large format lenses? They had to. Otherwise the images will be so "shi**y"!

Come back to your assertion about delivering the best to your clients.

Oh and as far as gibson's works goes, i'm not that big a fan

Fine.

He is a Master. Leica recognises that. There is a Leica MP -Ralph Gibson Edition.

Leica does not know you exist.

You are an authority on using Leica?

As far as equipment talk is concern. Who should we listen to?

Ralph Gibson?

or Szekiat? (er, what is that?)

 

[fuwen]

Hi! Gentlemen, I think we are too much OT already! Let's do not confuse kentay anymore. His objective is simple to get a rangefinder to play with. So let us contribute on this expect. I believe he is not looking at medium format. I guess we should contribute more on the selection and usage of a range finder, its pros and cons, what to look out when buy 2nd hand etc etc. Finally what brand he gets will very much depend on his budget, the physical appeal of that brand of body to his liking, and how crazy he is at the moment to jump into range finder.

He is unlikely to be very wrong if he finally gets into Leica system, but maybe we should stop comparing image quality across the brands but just to let him know what to look out for for a particular brand.

My 2 cents.

 

[waileong]

My observation is that there are people here who love to argue a lot... and denegerate into insults and name-calling too... rather than spend time shooting or making money...

 

[Wisp]

*Zzzzz...all this talk about resolution...did I not mention I'm not a gearhead ?*

All student is saying is there are different tools for different jobs. Perhaps he misphrase it a lil about the 645, but mainly, the right piece of equipment for the right job.

Would you use a leica M for a studio portrait shoots? Yes there are good portraiture lenses for leica m, but you got all the time in the world. Apply the zone system, whatever controls, whatever you want. Why not use a medium format or a large format to ensure quality?

However, if you are engaged in an event or enviroment, where things happen in a split second. A rally, an up close live shot of a concert, or simply a skirt around a dodgy neighbourhood. You need something small, compact and doesn't intrude. That's where rangefinders come in. Sometimes things are happening so fast I couldn't even meter or focus in time. That's the time when fustrated, I forced myself to learn estimated exposure and hyperfocal distance.

For me. it's not about comparing which red or whatever are rendered faithfully. Honestly if I have to worrry about that, I rather go out and experience real life. Or watch TV.Each photograph made for the sake of art, like a painting, is an illusion, an isolated viewpoint. It's up to the photographer on how it should turn out.

Well depends on whatever cooks your goose. Just another personal viewpoint: Actually if I wanted any line up of the leica and zeiss lenses, I could probably do it with a snap of the finger. Not all of it at one shot of course, but any one after a period of time. Hell, I could even buy a noctilux sooner or later within this year and next year. However I already came to terms with the fact that a 50 is still going to be a 50, a 90 is still going to be a 90, summicron or noctilux or summilux. So I just bought whatever I really needed and I'm very happy with it. I've long ago lost the excitement of getting a new high performance lens, unless it's a different focal length then the ones I have the challenge of getting used to.

(Or if it were going for cheap. I'm a sucker for bargains. I had to resist myself from splurging $500 on a DR summicron with eyes not too long ago...stupid ebay! )


(P.S:
Personally, in the jazz stints I did a while back,I probably am about the only one preferred to go up to the singer live due to the fact I can operate with no flash. If I remember correctly, photographers got kicked out because of the fact they use flash. Of course after the concert it's fine. )

 

[student]

My observation is that there are people here who love to argue a lot... and denegerate into insults and name-calling too... rather than spend time shooting or making money...

I love to argue a lot!

I also love to give appropriate names to those who deserve it! Yes, I admit to a personal character flaw!

I also love to make money! Otherwise how can I buy my M6s and R. And fabulous lenses to go along with them? Unlike some, I do not have rich parents, and have to make every single cent to support my hobby.

I also love to "shoot" a lot. Spent last evening photographing a Brazilian beauty.

And this weekend I will be photographing a beauty who had graced a certain well known publication! (Sorry, no assistance needed!)

Now how about that!

And to the threadstarter, my apologies.

But my suggestion to you is to borrow/rent a rangefinder and see if you like the way of photography with a rangefinder. And if you like it, and have the monies to buy into Leicas, then do it.

If not, get a cheaper rangefinder for the time being. I assure you that the average person on the street and the average SCer will not know the difference between leica lenses and others. And if there indeed is a difference, the difference will be of little consequence anyway.