Good morning all;

I finally put together what I had noticed since getting my latest M- a6 and 50mm 'cron.

With a roll of 36 Tri-x negs right out of the wash, I can notice what I call a regularity and sparkle to teh 1'x1.5' negs, even without a lupe. They seem to be more uniform and "Of a kind" than strips from other cameras, even expensive/good ones. I would venture to say I can tell a strip of negs from a Leica lens from those from other cameras- nikon f90x and FM, and it is not just exposure. Even more so with slides.

Perhaps this is part of the mystique, and perhaps some white coat in Solms can spout a bunch of MTFs and LP/mm, but I can tell by looking. As Yogi Berra said: "You can see a lot just by looking"

F8 and be there!

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), November 24, 2001

Answers

Impossible, Sir.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 24, 2001.

No, really, Mani, you can se a lot just by looking.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 24, 2001.

The first time I did a shoot for a car magazine, I used both my Nikon and Leica with Fuji Velvia. You could tell the difference in the images, which surprised me. The Leica images seemed to have better shadow detail/tonal range, and the color reproduction was different and more pleasing. My Nikon primes are very sharp, but the images from the Leica had more super fine detail captured. I used a DR 50, a 35 Summaron, and a 90 Elmarit. I don't notice these differences with color neg film, but with slides, I really could.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 24, 2001.

Richard:

I have to agree with you, because I have noticed the same phenomenon myself -- I DO see a difference too. Intuitively however, I have to agree with the naysayers; how can anyone possibly detect any differences in only 1.5 square inches of film? The naysayers (and Canon shooters)will then tell us we see it only because we want to justify the added (extraordinary) expense of our equipment; Leicaphillia perhaps. But for me the expense need not be justified, only the results, and my Leica optics deliver their results in spades. Every time.

Leicaphallicly(?) yours ;-)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 24, 2001.

I know that some will say there is no discernable difference between Leica and Nikon, Canon, and even Zeiss. However, I agree about the Leica difference. While I don't see it on the negative strips, I can readily see it in 6x9 proof prints. So can my wife, and she doesn't have the "Leica bias" that I do. I am back to printing Delta 400 negatives on Ilford fiber based glossy paper these days. They are sparkling and gorgeous. I never got these with My Contax/Zeiss gear, Nikon either. I am a believer!

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 24, 2001.

Richard,

All negative strips glow when they are out of the wash. If you see it then it is good enough. It is the photographer's confidence in his/her equipment that matters.

With Leicas I prefer the motto "F/1 and be there"!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 24, 2001.

I do believe Mani has been to that famous Southern charm school, where they teach them to say "impossible" or "amazing" instead of "Bullshit."

-- Wilhelm (bmitch@home.com), November 24, 2001.

Rebutal Your Honour:

I first saw this in August and waited thru about 12 rolls of B&W to make sure I was not trying to justify the big bucks. I am as big a skeptic as any about pseudo-science and "wishing makes it so", but I can see the difference in the overall look of the strip of negs- wet or dry- the uniformity and overall tonality as if the strip were one neg.

I will still use Nikons and LF, as well as Konica RF, but..... .

Could I do a double-blind test with 20 strips of negs and get better than 52-48%? I don't know but would love to try some day if someone elde set it all up.

In the meantime I am about to go out with 2 rolls of B&W and a roll of Ektachrome. The chrome is for the Christmas tree here in Singapore: a 20 M high fake tree covered with magic snow that hasn't melted yet in 30 Deg temperature, and reindeer and Biblical scrolls.

Last week it was the Hindu Deepavali festival of lights.

Click click

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), November 24, 2001.

Ray wrote: >With Leicas I prefer the motto "F/1 and be there"!<

But Ray, didn't you sell your Noctilux?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 24, 2001.

Jack,

Sadly I will arrive only when someone yell: f/1.4 and be there.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 25, 2001.

I too thought it was just pride when I thought I could tell the difference between chromes shot with my Leica and those with my Nikons. But a few years back I worked for a motorsport magazine. Of course this is the realm of long lenses and was what I used my Nikons for. But once, when shooting a rally that required on one corner for me to be in the ditch with a 28mm, I thought what the heck, I'll use the M4. Everything else shot that day was with Nikon glass - 105mm upto 300mm. All shot on the same film. To my surprise the magazine, upon receiving the days shoot asked if from then on could I not use the film I shot from the ditch, as it had so much more sparkle and snap (their words).

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 25, 2001.

Richard,

Just one thought - apart from myths and solid facts - couldn't it just be that, with time, the Leicas educate us to measure up with their high level of precision? The Ms are extremely demanding - at first. Lacking most every kind of automatism they squeeze all our knowledge about framing, focussing, dof, exposure out of us - if we resist (Stefan...!;o). So we eventually grow in the process and become better and more conscious masters of the potentials of these tools. They teach us to think - and ultimately this might translate into better pictures. N'est ce pas?

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), November 25, 2001.

Hi, Richard. As most of you regulars know by now, I purchased an R8 and several new lenses this year. Recently we were viewing some wildlife/scenic slides taken with my previous Nikon 400/f3.5 ED lens (a top quality lens). Then put on a tray of slides taken with the Leica 50/1.4 and 90/2 using the same K64 film. I have hesitated to tell people this because of expected rebuttals/denials/derision, etc. BUT there was a discernible "difference" in the slides. It wasn't just sharpness but was possibly more of a tonal or contrast improvement. Whatever, my friend also saw it and we both commented on it. Each to his own purpose but I am very satisfied and happy with the results from my Leica lenses. LB

-- Luther Berry (lberrytx@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

Yes, there is a difference in the appearance of pictures made with different lenses. That's what all the fuss is about "Bokeh." I started noticing a few years ago that my newer Canon lenses had that Leica look, especially their 28-105 zoom. I'm with Mani in doubting that it can be spotted from a filmstrip.

-- Wilhelm (bmitch@home.com), November 26, 2001.

I run a photolab and I can honestly say that in my Leicaflex's negs look more evenly balanced and consistant (and damn easier to print) than the Nikon F users I print for.

I did some 'zone' experiments years ago, and the Nikon lenses always seem to be more contrasty compared to Leica. I always had a theory that Leica make lenses suited for even tone mono exposure.

Anybody else have this thought?

-- Philip Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), November 27, 2001.