Optical-photographer related question

[dtohs]

What’s everybody's take on leica lens in terms of optical superiority really? I see lots of nice pics taken with leica and non leica lens. I am a sucker for leica gears to be frank but frankly I can't tell for sure any shots taken by a leica lens. This brings about my next point, leica glow, it always puzzles me.. I see some ‘glow’ in some pics here, I think… (Some like it while some don’t but that’s not what this discussion is abt),

My 2 questions are;

1. Knowing how experienced most of u here are, has it ever occur to u that such nice glow could have been credited to yr understanding of natural lights & not the leica lens? If so you should give a pad on own shoulder.

2. Could it be RF users were ‘forced’ to understand lights due to the RF’s designs.. which resulted a more in-depth natural-lights knowledge. (I mean SLR users also understand lights too ofcoz.. this thread is not for this argument).

Am fairly new to RF photography, just really hope to understand optical-photog relation in order to excel in this hobby (I wish…). Am just wondering if anyone else had such thoughts previously.. cause this may affect my future buying trend.. ofcoz leica will always be a leica.

PS, this is not a agruement thread for leica or non-leica, RF or SLR.
Thanks all, Happy Lunar New Year!

 

[mamypoko]

I think the glow is attributed more to the optical formula of the older lenses, which has a higher tendency to give the glow when shot wide open. I've mostly seen them on old Nikkors and early luxes.

Bokeh wise, also mostly depends on the background as well as the lens itself to render a pleasing OOF area, at least to my eyes. I've seen smooth bokeh from "harsh lenses" and harsh bokeh from "smooth lenses".

 

[hookonclassic]

Your question 1
Depending on the your term of "Leica glow"...see my thread on this topic discussionhttp://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=622759&highlight=red+october...I found out that some older lenses exhibit such signature characteristic...

Your question 2
Hmm...I don't think so...I like RF because of the simplicity in operation, manual point of focus in precision...wide range of good lenses to use...small and handy...a beautiful mechanical/optical masterpiece with "soul" :lovegrin:

 

[dankwan]

Your question 1
Depending on the your term of "Leica glow"...see my thread on this topic discussionhttp://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=622759&highlight=red+october...I found out that some older lenses exhibit such signature characteristic...

Your question 2
Hmm...I don't think so...I like RF because of the simplicity in operation, manual point of focus in precision...wide range of good lenses to use...small and handy...a beautiful mechanical/optical masterpiece with "soul" :lovegrin:

bravo Thomas, well put, point 2. Glow or not, a simple shot made with soul better than technical perfection.

 

[Jed]

Glow or not, a simple shot made with soul better than technical perfection.

I recognise and respect that there is no intention to turn this into a pro or anti battle. But just like to find out... why is a simple shot made with soul better than technical perfection?

The part that you quote to explain this soul is

'because of the simplicity in operation, manual point of focus in precision...wide range of good lenses to use...small and handy...a beautiful mechanical/optical masterpiece with "soul"'

Just like I don't think a "glow" should make or break a picture, I personally do not feel that the fact that something was taken with a beautiful mechanical/optical masterpiece, or a rangefinder or some other camera, should matter one jot.

It might fairly enough make your picture taking experience more pleasurable, but making the shot better?

 

[LowLights]

Firstly .. A Happy Chinese New Year To All

My take
Point 1
The "Glow" is a design/optic flaw and also not forgetting the coating of the lenses back then was as good as they gets.
This glow is most evidences on the 35mm f1.4 type 4 aka Bokeh King, any Leica user will know the attribute of this lens
It the "inability" to handle bright lights on shiny surfaces that produces the so call "Leica Glow".
I wish it was a case of us "understanding of natural lights" as you put it but if it was the case, then all of us should be able to get some sort of glow with model lenses.
And it actually the thing that makes model lenses "glowless" if I may.. it the optic design and coating of the lenses has greatly improved. But that say.. there are but a couple of model lenses that "glows"

Point 2
As photographer (as a hobby or Pros) the journey will/Should ultimately bring us to enlighten -The understand light

The understanding of the Equipment that you using and Natural Light is unfortunately intertwined (at least that is to me)

PS : I also have problem tell the differences with was shot with a Leica lens.. but shot from the more exotic ones sometime I can :sweat:

Ultimately.. it the end product that counts the PHOTO :thumbsup:

Cheers

 

[dankwan]

I recognise and respect that there is no intention to turn this into a pro or anti battle. But just like to find out... why is a simple shot made with soul better than technical perfection?

The part that you quote to explain this soul is

'because of the simplicity in operation, manual point of focus in precision...wide range of good lenses to use...small and handy...a beautiful mechanical/optical masterpiece with "soul"'

Just like I don't think a "glow" should make or break a picture, I personally do not feel that the fact that something was taken with a beautiful mechanical/optical masterpiece, or a rangefinder or some other camera, should matter one jot.

It might fairly enough make your picture taking experience more pleasurable, but making the shot better?

Hi jed, good point, perhaps I phrased it too strongly and it came out a bit misunderstood, for that I apologise. I fully appreciate technical perfection and laud the pros out there who are brilliant at it. I dont think I am a "fan-boy", however as all enthusiasts go, we sometime get carried away with our choices.

At least IMHO, soul is only what we hobbyist and amateurs have, at least at the start and most probably will only have, throughout our photographic journey. I dont think we will ever reach the level of "soul/passion" balanced with technical perfection that the real working pros have. At the end of the day, we just take snapshots and best if, at least I, try put some love into it.

I also completely agree with your point that it does not matter if it was taken with a RF or box camera, a great shot is a great shot.

So again, the word should be "more pleasurable" rather than "better", so please pardon my inappropriate choice of words...

 

[Jed]

Hey, nothing to apologise for

I was just making a small point that how much we like or hate our cameras shouldn't influence the results we get from them. In the same way that even though we shouldn't, very often we let the difficulty in obtaining a shot colour our appreciation of it.

And, there are plenty of amateurs who achieve technical excellence, and plenty of pros who sadly do not.

 

[dankwan]

Hey, nothing to apologise for

I was just making a small point that how much we like or hate our cameras shouldn't influence the results we get from them. In the same way that even though we shouldn't, very often we let the difficulty in obtaining a shot colour our appreciation of it.

And, there are plenty of amateurs who achieve technical excellence, and plenty of pros who sadly do not.

and point well accepted, good reality check, thanks Jed

 

[gommy]

Your question 1
Depending on the your term of "Leica glow"...see my thread on this topic discussionhttp://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=622759&highlight=red+october...I found out that some older lenses exhibit such signature characteristic...

Your question 2
Hmm...I don't think so...I like RF because of the simplicity in operation, manual point of focus in precision...wide range of good lenses to use...small and handy...a beautiful mechanical/optical masterpiece with "soul" :lovegrin:

bravo Thomas, well put, point 2. Glow or not, a simple shot made with soul better than technical perfection.

Agree with Dan & Thomas.

The older lens "glow" because of inherent abberations. Modern lenses are technically better because they are better corrected. I started with Leica modern lenses. At first, I find them technically very good-very sharp & contrasty. Optically almost perfect! But after a while, they have the same 'clinical' look & that's about it. When I tried the older lenses, I find them to have more character & "soul", people talk about their signature, bokeh etc... but this is subjective. My biase is toward older lenses, maybe I'm old. However, they are others here that will opt for technical perfection in lens design.
Sir Dan is right here:
Wisdom from Sir Dan: "Glow or not, a simple shot made with soul better than technical perfection"

 

[dankwan]

Agree with Dan & Thomas.

The older lens "glow" because of inherent abberations. Modern lenses are technically better because they are better corrected. I started with Leica modern lenses. At first, I find them technically very good-very sharp & contrasty. Optically almost perfect! But after a while, they have the same 'clinical' look & that's about it. When I tried the older lenses, I find them to have more character & "soul", people talk about their signature, bokeh etc... but this is subjective. My biase is toward older lenses, maybe I'm old. However, they are others here that will opt for technical perfection in lens design.
Sir Dan is right here:
Wisdom from Sir Dan: "Glow or not, a simple shot made with soul better than technical perfection"

Doc!!! you gonna get me in trouble again!!! I do not know this man...i repeat, I do not know this man!!! :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[gommy]

Doc!!! you gonna get me in trouble again!!! I do not know this man...i repeat, I do not know this man!!! :bsmilie::bsmilie:

Oops...getting u into trouble all the times.:bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[Jed]

Sir Dan is right here:
Wisdom from Sir Dan: "Glow or not, a simple shot made with soul better than technical perfection"

The point I am trying to make is,

A simple shot with soul is better than technical perfection.

That I absolutely concur. The shot itself should be the defining factor, not if something was "made with soul" or "made with gear with soul" or anything like that.

Does it matter if a shot was made with a disposable camera or a Leica or a 1D Mk IV? Does it matter if the shot was made by HCB, gommy, or dankwan? It shouldn't. The shot should stand on its own.

 

[dankwan]

The point I am trying to make is,

A simple shot with soul is better than technical perfection.

That I absolutely concur. The shot itself should be the defining factor, not if something was "made with soul" or "made with gear with soul" or anything like that.

Does it matter if a shot was made with a disposable camera or a Leica or a 1D Mk IV? Does it matter if the shot was made by HCB, gommy, or dankwan? It shouldn't. The shot should stand on its own.

hear hear.....

 

[dtohs]

Thanks guys, u guys really took the words out of me, thats exactly how i felt but couldnt find the vocab to describe it, a "soulful shot", thats what i was looking for..and still havent found..sounds familiar..) doesnt really matter the shot was taken by a utimate gears or just a camera phone..its really the shots that count. Of coz "gears ownerships" are nice, but its a totally diff issue, i posted this mainly as a gear users reality check, just wanted to hear others' views on RF, being relatively new to this & already buying quite a bit, didnt think that i may need all that i have for now, (i dont own much gears anyway..)

 

[gommy]

The point I am trying to make is,

A simple shot with soul is better than technical perfection.

That I absolutely concur. The shot itself should be the defining factor, not if something was "made with soul" or "made with gear with soul" or anything like that.

Does it matter if a shot was made with a disposable camera or a Leica or a 1D Mk IV? Does it matter if the shot was made by HCB, gommy, or dankwan? It shouldn't. The shot should stand on its own.

hear hear.....

Oops again! I read it as how Jed interpreted, ie without the "made". I'm sure that's what Sir Dan meant.:bsmilie:
But I do find shots taken with older lenses have 'more' soul, however, that's just me.

 

[DoveVadar]

Well, to me a different lens tell a different story. Whether a picture is good or bad is irrelevant here. Same scene taken with a modern or vintage lens can "feel" very different. Take note the choosen word here is "feel".

I think a lens still does make a great difference in one's work and is very personal. Hence different photographers choose their setup differently like the Leica users here, one like the smooth and dreamy Summilux pre-asph, another like the harsh but factual Summicron. I prefer my film images to be of dreamy sort and find it tough to tame a Summicron.

Well, to each his own. Just choose the glass that suits you best. As for the Leica lenses, if you play darkroom, just do a zuiko or nikon vs leica print. One will then realized that all the blacks hidden in the shadows in the tiny negative that your eyes can't see are actually existent in the Leica's print. Try it if you dont believe

 

[DoveVadar]

I also like to correct point 2 that rf and slr users understands and see light differently.

Actually both sides of the users see and relates to light similarly. An RF is different only in the process. This is what I always tell people who ask me about RF:

SLR is the "hunter" who tirelessly seek out his prey no matter how far and fast, it is able to capture them with ease. Very much like an African lion - muscled (long lens (reach) and very focused ("what u see is what u get"), fast shutter speed and rewind.)

RF on the other hand is all about stealth. Like a snake, 1 hit, 1 kill. Kill or miss. we cannot fire like the slr non do we have the reach and speed of an slr. What is great about us is that RF users think before they shoot (of course this applies for slr users as well), RF user shoots with instinct, detecting something interesting way before it takes place and pre-meter, pre-focus and compose properly while waiting for the moment to fall in place (for example, a picture of 2 person crossing path). It is more intimate also.

hence, i think embracing both is healthy for any photographer. just choose the right tools for the right job

 

[ZoomP]

I also like to correct point 2 that rf and slr users understands and see light differently.

Actually both sides of the users see and relates to light similarly. An RF is different only in the process. This is what I always tell people who ask me about RF:

SLR is the "hunter" who tirelessly seek out his prey no matter how far and fast, it is able to capture them with ease. Very much like an African lion - muscled (long lens (reach) and very focused ("what u see is what u get"), fast shutter speed and rewind.)

RF on the other hand is all about stealth. Like a snake, 1 hit, 1 kill. Kill or miss. we cannot fire like the slr non do we have the reach and speed of an slr. What is great about us is that RF users think before they shoot (of course this applies for slr users as well), RF user shoots with instinct, detecting something interesting way before it takes place and pre-meter, pre-focus and compose properly while waiting for the moment to fall in place (for example, a picture of 2 person crossing path). It is more intimate also.

hence, i think embracing both is healthy for any photographer. just choose the right tools for the right job

Well said, bro. :thumbsup:

 

[gommy]

Well, to me a different lens tell a different story. Whether a picture is good or bad is irrelevant here. Same scene taken with a modern or vintage lens can "feel" very different. Take note the choosen word here is "feel".

I think a lens still does make a great difference in one's work and is very personal. Hence different photographers choose their setup differently like the Leica users here, one like the smooth and dreamy Summilux pre-asph, another like the harsh but factual Summicron. I prefer my film images to be of dreamy sort and find it tough to tame a Summicron.

Well, to each his own. Just choose the glass that suits you best. As for the Leica lenses, if you play darkroom, just do a zuiko or nikon vs leica print. One will then realized that all the blacks hidden in the shadows in the tiny negative that your eyes can't see are actually existent in the Leica's print. Try it if you dont believe

I also like to correct point 2 that rf and slr users understands and see light differently.

Actually both sides of the users see and relates to light similarly. An RF is different only in the process. This is what I always tell people who ask me about RF:

SLR is the "hunter" who tirelessly seek out his prey no matter how far and fast, it is able to capture them with ease. Very much like an African lion - muscled (long lens (reach) and very focused ("what u see is what u get"), fast shutter speed and rewind.)

RF on the other hand is all about stealth. Like a snake, 1 hit, 1 kill. Kill or miss. we cannot fire like the slr non do we have the reach and speed of an slr. What is great about us is that RF users think before they shoot (of course this applies for slr users as well), RF user shoots with instinct, detecting something interesting way before it takes place and pre-meter, pre-focus and compose properly while waiting for the moment to fall in place (for example, a picture of 2 person crossing path). It is more intimate also.

hence, i think embracing both is healthy for any photographer. just choose the right tools for the right job

Wa! CO's wisdom. Not a CO for nothing......well said!:thumbsup::angel: