Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rollsman44 on May 02, 2018, 09:22:35 am
-
I am pretty much retired and looking for something I can use for my Personal use. I have these 2 cameras in mind and would just need a Portrait lens( which can be
a Manual focus lens and a wide angle lens with AF( the Hassy 80.2.8) would work for me or a little wider. I don't need ISO Higher than 1600. The price on both of these cameras are pretty much the same. The GFX is NEWER Technology and lighter in weight than the Hassy. I will use it primarily for Portraits and Group shots and very little Landscape. Thank you Dennis
-
what about the X1d?
then potentially you could use H glass on it which you could keep, should you decide you wanted the H4D after all and sell the X1d?
-
Too much money in comparison top the other 2
-
new or used?
used, they seem to be price overlap
but I take your point
-
GFX is lighter, more compact, has a better sensor (IQ) , better glass, much better AF and faster overall handling, dont know what the H4D-40 goes for but if it is anywhere near the fuji price, this should be a no brainer.....unless you have to have a mirror....
if price is an issue, the A7RIII or 850 are pretty amazing and i would take them over the H4D-40 any day, but once you start adding up bodies and lenses, the difference to a GFX system is not that big....
-
GFX all the way
I used an H4D-40 for years. While I loved it, the GFX is much more capable camera for your needs. Off the top of my head, it’s smaller, lighter, great lenses that are as expensive new as H lenses are used, better high ISO, movable focus point will go a long way for portrait and group shots, AF adapter with cheaper third party lenses, better AF, , etc etc etc
-
GFX!!!!!!!
I have used most of the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras, and gfx is much much better in most areas.
You will be very happy with it.
The new Fuji-lenses are amazing!! Compared to the Hasselblad H lenses you will be surpriced how good they are. Better and good prices.
The 110 f.2 is one of the best lenses I have ever used!!
-
is the GFX supported in capture one?
if not, what's the workflow?
-
GFX!!!!!!!
I have used most of the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras, and gfx is much much better in most areas.
You will be very happy with it.
The new Fuji-lenses are amazing!! Compared to the Hasselblad H lenses you will be surpriced how good they are. Better and good prices.
The 110 f.2 is one of the best lenses I have ever used!!
Of course, Fuji manufactured lenses for Hassy, and sold them under its own brand name in Japan :)
Edmund
-
Thank you everyone. I know the GFX is the ONE. I appreciate all the information you have posted. Dennis
-
Hi,
Capture one only supports Team Phase One MFD backs.
Hasselblad owners have "Phocus" while the rest needs to use Lightroom or one of the many other raw developer options.
Best regards
Erik
is the GFX supported in capture one?
if not, what's the workflow?
-
Hi,
Capture one only supports Team Phase One MFD backs.
Hasselblad owners have "Phocus" while the rest needs to use Lightroom or one of the many other raw developer options.
Best regards
Erik
I was very concerned about loosing C1. After using it for some time, I think Lightroom is very good.
I don´t miss C1 at all anymore. Also Lightroom tethered with the gfx, try focus stacking. So easy😊😊
Henrik
-
GFX!!!!!!!
I have used most of the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras, and gfx is much much better in most areas.
You will be very happy with it.
The new Fuji-lenses are amazing!! Compared to the Hasselblad H lenses you will be surprised how good they are. Better and good prices.
The 110 f.2 is one of the best lenses I have ever used!!
I agree. After I tested the GFX, I sold all my HxD bodies and HC lenses (act quickly if you're thinking about doing the same -- I was amazed by how much I got for them, but I don't know if that's gonna last). Not only is the 110/2 spectacular, so is the 23/4. And the 32-64 is the best zoom I've ever used. The 120 macro is excellent, though I wish it went to 1:1. The 45 and the 63 are fine lenses, but not quite to the off-the-charts, sell-your-Otus level. I've said it before, and I'll say it here: there's absolutely nothing wrong with the GFX, but the best thing about the camera is the lenses.
Jim
-
I agree. After I tested the GFX, I sold all my HxD bodies and HC lenses (act quickly if you're thinking about doing the same -- I was amazed by how much I got for them, but I don't know if that's gonna last). Not only is the 110/2 spectacular, so is the 23/4. And the 32-64 is the best zoom I've ever used. The 120 macro is excellent, though I wish it went to 1:1. The 45 and the 63 are fine lenses, but not quite to the off-the-charts, sell-your-Otus level. I've said it before, and I'll say it here: there's absolutely nothing wrong with the GFX, but the best thing about the camera is the lenses.
Jim
I agree about the macro. Very very good, but only 1/2. Do you think the new macro-rings will be good for getting closer? Or will we loose any image-quality when adding the rings?
-
I agree about the macro. Very very good, but only 1/2. Do you think the new macro-rings will be good for getting closer? Or will we lose any image-quality when adding the rings?
I don't know the answer to either question, but I am surely interested.
Jim
-
is the GFX supported in capture one?
Helpful flow chart below. Complete article here (https://digitaltransitions.com/faq-when-will-capture-one-support-camera-x-raw-files/).
(https://digitaltransitions.com/wp-content/upload/FlowChart-v7.png)
-
Thanks Doug, I am not sure 'helpful' is the right word ;)
besides, never say never
-
Helpful flow chart below. Complete article here (https://digitaltransitions.com/faq-when-will-capture-one-support-camera-x-raw-files/).
Never say never again :)
When (if?) Phase withdraws from the general photo hardware field they will become much more platform agnostic :)
Edmund
-
is the GFX supported in capture one?
if not, what's the workflow?
to be honest, the GFX LR tether solution is the most rock solid set up i have ever used....i have never been able to simply pull the cord, plug it right back in, save to card AND to computer, go back and forth between tether and not tethered so seamlessly....even more surprising since LR tethering was unusable with canon, nikon and everything else i have tried in the past....i guess it comes down to the fuji LR plug in....
i understand that C1 is C1 and LR is not, but i know more and more people who are using both nowadays and adobe is pushing hard....at this point i think both have advantages.....the latest update with the profile workflow is really nice.....
but then, i also really like LR CC (cloud) and hope to see tethering support there soon....
-
Hi,
I guess that the new Fuji lenses are new designs and they are said to be developed for the 100 MP sensors. Many of the designs are quite complex and I would guess they have new glass that may have not been available when the H-series lenses were designed.
Best regards
Erik
GFX!!!!!!!
I have used most of the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras, and gfx is much much better in most areas.
You will be very happy with it.
The new Fuji-lenses are amazing!! Compared to the Hasselblad H lenses you will be surpriced how good they are. Better and good prices.
The 110 f.2 is one of the best lenses I have ever used!!
-
Hi,
I guess that the new Fuji lenses are new designs and they are said to be developed for the 100 MP sensors. Many of the designs are quite complex and I would guess they have new glass that may have not been available when the H-series lenses were designed.
Best regards
Erik
That makes sense. I have used many of the H lenses and these new Fujifilm lenses are a lot better.
Henrik
-
They are better in some ways, very sharp yes. But Im not a fan of the way the GFX lenses render, which tonally seem quite two dimensional. It's not that they are bad, just pretty plain and common looking. The Fuji rendering has the appearance of a dSLR to me.
-
They are better in some ways, very sharp yes. But Im not a fan of the way the GFX lenses render, which tonally seem quite two dimensional. It's not that they are bad, just pretty plain and common looking. The Fuji rendering has the appearance of a dSLR to me.
yes, fuji abandoned the "3D" look when they stopped making lenses for hasselblad....it just does not work well with the overall fuji look and rendering.....this was also true about fuji film....they somehow managed to make it look more flat....
-
yes, fuji abandoned the "3D" look when they stopped making lenses for hasselblad....it just does not work well with the overall fuji look and rendering.....this was also true about fuji film....they somehow managed to make it look more flat....
I donˋt agree on this. The 110mm f.2 is very much «3D»
I have allways be a fan of Zeiss but these new Fujinon lenses (at least the 23mm and 110mm)
are very special. «3D» is more a feeling like religion..🙈
-
I donˋt agree on this. The 110mm f.2 is very much «3D»
I have allways be a fan of Zeiss but these new Fujinon lenses (at least the 23mm and 110mm)
are very special. «3D» is more a feeling ...🙈
-
I donˋt agree on this. The 110mm f.2 is very much «3D»
I have allways be a fan of Zeiss but these new Fujinon lenses (at least the 23mm and 110mm)
are very special. «3D» is more a feeling like religion..🙈
sorry, i thought the sarcasm was obvious....
i have never been a great fan of zeiss rendering, but a huge fan of fuji glass (and cameras) since their own MF offerings....i have never bought into the leica, zeiss 3D (religion) and everything else just isn't.....
some of the same people who praised the H series lenses (made by fuji) somehow dislike fuji glass now....
i have shot with great (for different reasons) glass from all manufacturers and have had favorite lenses with all my cameras....some of the worst lenses i have owned were canon, zeiss and leica (as well as nikon,...) but honestly i have never owned a lens i just disliked from fuji....some are better, some worse.....
i have also yet to canoe across a negative review of the fuji GF glass....other then.....well, religious belief based ones....
-
3D is not a feeling. It's a quantifiable thing and part of lens design.
-
sorry, i thought the sarcasm was obvious....
I thought it was sarcasm, but I wasn't sure, and I didn't want to make some crack and tick you off.
Jim
-
For me it's the mother of all sarcasms. 😂
sorry, i thought the sarcasm was obvious....
i have never been a great fan of zeiss rendering, but a huge fan of fuji glass (and cameras) since their own MF offerings....i have never bought into the leica, zeiss 3D (religion) and everything else just isn't.....
some of the same people who praised the H series lenses (made by fuji) somehow dislike fuji glass now....
i have shot with great (for different reasons) glass from all manufacturers and have had favorite lenses with all my cameras....some of the worst lenses i have owned were canon, zeiss and leica (as well as nikon,...) but honestly i have never owned a lens i just disliked from fuji....some are better, some worse.....
i have also yet to canoe across a negative review of the fuji GF glass....other then.....well, religious belief based ones....
-
3D is not a feeling. It's a quantifiable thing and part of lens design.
What are the units of 3D?
-
What are the units of 3D?
thank you for that, glad my mouth wasn’t full when i read it:)
-
to be honest, the GFX LR tether solution is the most rock solid set up i have ever used....i have never been able to simply pull the cord, plug it right back in, save to card AND to computer, go back and forth between tether and not tethered so seamlessly....even more surprising since LR tethering was unusable with canon, nikon and everything else i have tried in the past....i guess it comes down to the fuji LR plug in....
i understand that C1 is C1 and LR is not, but i know more and more people who are using both nowadays and adobe is pushing hard....at this point i think both have advantages.....the latest update with the profile workflow is really nice.....
but then, i also really like LR CC (cloud) and hope to see tethering support there soon....
Thanks for this, is there any way you can elaborate on this process and what I need for it? Am pretty new to tethering in general...
It is only the jpeg's that are viewed this way though right? Is there any tethering solution that uses the GFX Raw files?
Thanks in advance!
-
I thought it was sarcasm, but I wasn't sure, and I didn't want to make some crack and tick you off.
Jim
;D ;D ;D
-
thank you for that, glad my mouth wasn’t full when i read it:)
This is the very sort of comment and attitude that keeps forum boards the domain of the uninformed sock photographer.
-
What are the units of 3D?
I think 3D aka volume is measured in cubic meters over here by a simple trick: There is a weight in a vault near where I live which weighs 10E-3 of a 3D unit of water, allowing 3D volume, and even linear dimensions to be derived from mass. But then I never understood all that cr*p because it's physics and I wasn't gifted for it so I turned to maths. Over in the US I believe they have cubic feet, but mine have toes. I don't know how one measures 3D in a belief space warped by a reality distorsion field.
Edmund
-
What are the units of 3D?
Something you are not testing for, evidently.
-
I think 3D aka volume is measured in cubic meters over here by a simple trick: There is a weight in a vault near where I live which weighs 10E-3 of a 3D unit of water, allowing 3D volume, and even linear dimensions to be derived from mass. But then I never understood all that cr*p because it's physics and I wasn't gifted for it so I turned to maths. Over in the US I believe they have cubic feet, but mine have toes. I don't know how one measures 3D in a belief space warped by a reality distorsion field.
Edmund
A shoulder doesn't have a blade it has a scapula. Why didn't they call it a shoulder lever since that's what it is? It used to be called a wing bone of all things. Since we don't fly, that was confusing for people too. How we settled on blade is still a mystery since the idea of cutting anything is just as stupid as flying. It's been named as several things such as shovel bone as well. Why the hell don't we just call it a Scapula? We can waste time scoffing at lay terminology or we can just get on with the more important things in our life. 3D, similarly, is a lay term and also an umbrella term because there are a number of distinctly measurable traits that model the dimensionality of an image. Since it's a collection of things, but produces an effect that people can actually recognise, it needs to be given a name so people can argue about it with sock photographers on forum boards.
It's a combination of lens design characteristics, some of which are either neglected through poor design, eliminated for budget, or not important or relevant to the lens designer and/or their market... For some, it's a contribution of design aesthetic. It's considered a luxury in terms of optics and has only gained relevance in design in more recent times. Why does a Ferrari look so much better than a Toyota? There's lots of reason, but mostly because it's more expensive.
-
Thanks for this, is there any way you can elaborate on this process and what I need for it? Am pretty new to tethering in general...
It is only the jpeg's that are viewed this way though right? Is there any tethering solution that uses the GFX Raw files?
Thanks in advance!
I can't comment on the Fuji system, but the trick with tethering in LR is to separate the physical tethering process from the photo-capture process. By this, I mean a piece of software (which the Fuji plug-in effectively does) that sits between LR and the camera. Otherwise it's SLOW and painful.
When using LR with Nikon, using Nikon Capture Pro or Sofortbild dumping to a hot folder that LR looks to import images from as they are deposited, is MUCH, MUCH faster and makes hot-swapping the camera, etc., painless. NCP also allows you to simultaneously capture to, and display images on, the camera while tethered.
Only pain is that it means opening two pieces of software & creating a new hot folder every time as for some $%^& reason LR mandates that hot folder be virginal.
-
If you ask me, the way an image looks, and the testable quality in terms of MTF etc of the lens used are antithetical. The more one introduces a battery of normative tests into lens evaluation, the less one should expect a lens to look "special".
I own two 85mm 1.4 Nikon lenses, the old and the AF-S design. When I went to visit Norman Koren in Boulder some years ago, I took the new one and my D3s, and we ran the lens through Imatest, which Norman probably knows how to use as well as most people on this forum, and as he said it was then the best lens he'd ever tested. It basically outresolved the sensor, edge to edge, mounted on what was at the time a bleeding edge dSLR. And yet, another image geek I know, Iliah Borg, had the same impression as me about the "new lens, if I remember rightly he called it politely "sterile".
Each of the above lenses has its uses, I guess. For repro use or for night photography *against* lights, the new lens with its flat rendering, incredibe sharpness and zero flare is perfect. I actually used it all the time because the images are ok, it focuses super-quickly, and it works perfectly in any context. But if what you want is painterly rendering the old lens is better, and it even has very good sharpness.
People who critique a lens should mention the intended usage to provide context for their opinions.
Edmund
A shoulder doesn't have a blade it has a scapula. Why didn't they call it a shoulder lever since that's what it is? It used to be called a wing bone of all things. Since we don't fly, that was confusing for people too. How we settled on blade is still a mystery since the idea of cutting anything is just as stupid as flying. It's been named as several things such as shovel bone as well. Why the hell don't we just call it a Scapula? We can waste time scoffing at lay terminology or we can just get on with the more important things in our life. 3D, similarly, is a lay term and also an umbrella term because there are a number of distinctly measurable traits that model the dimensionality of an image. Since it's a collection of things, but produces an effect that people can actually recognise, it needs to be given a name so people can argue about it with sock photographers on forum boards.
It's a combination of lens design characteristics, some of which are either neglected through poor design, eliminated for budget, or not important or relevant to the lens designer and/or their market... For some, it's a contribution of design aesthetic. It's considered a luxury in terms of optics and has only gained relevance in design in more recent times. Why does a Ferrari look so much better than a Toyota? There's lots of reason, but mostly because it's more expensive.
-
If you ask me, the way an image looks, and the testable quality in terms of MTF etc of the lens used are antithetical. The more one introduces a battery of normative tests into lens evaluation, the less one should expect a lens to look "special".
I agree, except for the Heisenberg-ish way you phrased it (the testing of the lens doesn't affect the "look" of the lens except for atomic-scale lenses). I have long been fond of saying that the "look" of a well-loved lens is attributable to what I call "adorable flaws". A diffraction-limited lens with zero SA, LoCA, LaCA, coma, etc wouldn't have a "look" at all.
Jim
-
If you ask me, the way an image looks, and the testable quality in terms of MTF etc of the lens used are antithetical. The more one introduces a battery of normative tests into lens evaluation, the less one should expect a lens to look "special".
I own two 85mm 1.4 Nikon lenses, the old and the AF-S design. When I went to visit Norman Koren in Boulder some years ago, I took the new one and my D3s, and we ran the lens through Imatest, which Norman probably knows how to use as well as most people on this forum, and as he said it was then the best lens he'd ever tested. It basically outresolved the sensor, edge to edge, mounted on what was at the time a bleeding edge dSLR. And yet, another image geek I know, Iliah Borg, had the same impression as me about the "new lens, if I remember rightly he called it politely "sterile".
Each of the above lenses has its uses, I guess. For repro use or for night photography *against* lights, the new lens with its flat rendering, incredibe sharpness and zero flare is perfect. I actually used it all the time because the images are ok, it focuses super-quickly, and it works perfectly in any context. But if what you want is painterly rendering the old lens is better, and it even has very good sharpness.
People who critique a lens should mention the intended usage to provide context for their opinions.
Edmund
I agree that just because a lens is sharp, corrected etc doesn't make it a nice lens or a lens that is suitable for certain instances. That is contrary to what I'm speaking of. I'm talking about lenses which are designed to be well corrected and yet still have gone that extra measure of creating pleasing aesthetics. Many older lenses are pleasing, not by design, but by mix of luck in design, and also interesting aberration. Many modern lenses are corrected for aberrations but designing aesthetics into them as well comes at extra R+D and manufacturing cost that is often beyond what their customer will buy or have the budget for.
If you need to keep medium format affordable, because that is the design objective, then there is only so much you can do before budget caps things. The focus is on other things. It's easy to fly under the radar with these designs by optimising the things that are tested in mainstream testing such as sharpness, CA etc. But "the lenses are really sharp" only means the lenses are sharp and often nothing more.
It seems the ideal to design to is a lens that is free from aberration but aesthetically pleasing. A lens that doesn't get in the way but still heightens reality. Some of course want aberrations too which is fine. A design that heightens dimensionality through tonality does generally carry widespread praise. 99% of people don't even know what they are seeing and say things like "it renders the light nicely" but can't say why.
I go for aesthetically pleasing designs but there are no absolutes either as taste is subjective. What I find pleasing others might dislike.
-
I agree, except for the Heisenberg-ish way you phrased it (the testing of the lens doesn't affect the "look" of the lens except for atomic-scale lenses). I have long been fond of saying that the "look" of a well-loved lens is attributable to what I call "adorable flaws". A diffraction-limited lens with zero SA, LoCA, LaCA, coma, etc wouldn't have a "look" at all.
Jim
Well that is a broad and far reaching statement but with plenty of caveats I could disagree and say yes it would if you consider other factors. It's just that your testing parameters are all you are basing things on.
-
I agree, except for the Heisenberg-ish way you phrased it (the testing of the lens doesn't affect the "look" of the lens except for atomic-scale lenses). I have long been fond of saying that the "look" of a well-loved lens is attributable to what I call "adorable flaws". A diffraction-limited lens with zero SA, LoCA, LaCA, coma, etc wouldn't have a "look" at all.
Jim
Jim, please read my comment as Darwinian rather than Heisenbergian. Relentlessly added and publicised laundry-lists of lens tests operate as selective pressure breeding the "adorable flaws" out of the lens designs even before they are fabricated and enter the market.
Although of course, one might consider it demonstrated that in some cases observation retroactively affects a facet of a system, I believe, but that point of view would rather be called "Einsteinian" (Einstein, Podolsky Rosen) or entanglement or something like that.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/how-to-build-your-own-quantum-entanglement-experiment-part-1-of-2/
Edmund
-
Jim, please read my comment as Darwinian rather than Heisenbergian. Relentlessly added and publicised laundry-lists of lens tests operate as selective pressure breeding the "adorable flaws" out of the lens designs even before they are fabricated and enter the market.
Gotcha, Edmund. I was pretty sure that's what you meant. Always fun seeing your perspective on things.
Jim
-
Well that is a broad and far reaching statement but with plenty of caveats I could disagree and say yes it would if you consider other factors. It's just that your testing parameters are all you are basing things on.
What I'm saying is independent of testing. It's about the inherent characteristics of the lens. I have written a lens simulator, though I haven't used it in a while and it would take me some time to dust it off. If I feed it a ray-traced image and set all the knobs but diffraction to zero, there's no "look" at all, at least, no look that I can see.
Jim
-
Jim, please read my comment as Darwinian rather than Heisenbergian. Relentlessly added and publicised laundry-lists of lens tests operate as selective pressure breeding the "adorable flaws" out of the lens designs even before they are fabricated and enter the market.
Although of course, one might consider it demonstrated that in some cases observation retroactively affects a facet of a system, I believe, but that point of view would rather be called "Einsteinian" (Einstein, Podolsky Rosen) or entanglement or something like that.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/how-to-build-your-own-quantum-entanglement-experiment-part-1-of-2/
Edmund
Bingo.
More broadly if you build a camera system or camera system component based on specifications (“teach to the test” “paint by numbers” or “built for bragging rights” rather than wholistic utility you tend to get garbage.
It takes a first product manager motivated by long-term thinking and wholistic real-world use, r+d folks who are shooters and want to use the product (not just engineers looking to collect a paycheck), and a lot of guys to build a system that is best for actual use, not just best on paper or according to the specs and numbers.
In my (heavily biased) opinion Leica and Phase One do the best job of this.
-
at least, no look that I can see
Because you can only see what your simulator has been programmed to simulate.
A lens with zero SA, LoCA, LaCA, coma, etc can still be designed to manipulate tonality.
-
Because you can only see what your simulator has been programmed to simulate.
A lens with zero SA, LoCA, LaCA, coma, etc can still be designed to manipulate tonality.
Please elaborate, quantitatively if you can. When the sim is set up with the knobs at zero, the spectral transfer function is flat.
Jim
-
Thanks for this, is there any way you can elaborate on this process and what I need for it? Am pretty new to tethering in general...
It is only the jpeg's that are viewed this way though right? Is there any tethering solution that uses the GFX Raw files?
Thanks in advance!
when you tether the GFX to LR classic, you will need the (now free) fuji plug in, once that is installed, one simply activates tethering within LR and sets the parameters.....you can shoot raw, jpeg,...whatever you like....files are transferred over to the computer as well as stored on the internal card (which is great, great, great...instant back up)...works really well.....
if you are happy with just jpegs, there is also the fuji iOs app which lets you control the camera as well as pull images over a direct to camera wifi connection....it might work for raws (?) but in reality i dont see the point, even large jpegs take a few seconds each to pop up....you can shoot raw to one card, jpeg to the other and use the fuji app in this case to get a quick idea of the shots on the iPad (or iPhone) and still have the raws on the card.....this works well but i dont really care much about jpegs, it adds another layer to my workflow that i dont need.....
hope that helps
-
This is the very sort of comment and attitude that keeps forum boards the domain of the uninformed sock photographer.
i think you are taking this way to serious....Jim's comment just made laugh out loud at my screen, which does not happen that much....
-
Please elaborate, quantitatively if you can. When the sim is set up with the knobs at zero, the spectral transfer function is flat.
Jim
Your simulator isn't accounting for everything in photography and lens design, it's just removing some things. It can't account for modern design processes, modern coatings, modern manufacturing processes and materials.
-
A shoulder doesn't have a blade it has a scapula. Why didn't they call it a shoulder lever since that's what it is? It used to be called a wing bone of all things. Since we don't fly, that was confusing for people too. How we settled on blade is still a mystery since the idea of cutting anything is just as stupid as flying. It's been named as several things such as shovel bone as well. Why the hell don't we just call it a Scapula? We can waste time scoffing at lay terminology or we can just get on with the more important things in our life. 3D, similarly, is a lay term and also an umbrella term because there are a number of distinctly measurable traits that model the dimensionality of an image. Since it's a collection of things, but produces an effect that people can actually recognise, it needs to be given a name so people can argue about it with sock photographers on forum boards.
It's a combination of lens design characteristics, some of which are either neglected through poor design, eliminated for budget, or not important or relevant to the lens designer and/or their market... For some, it's a contribution of design aesthetic. It's considered a luxury in terms of optics and has only gained relevance in design in more recent times. Why does a Ferrari look so much better than a Toyota? There's lots of reason, but mostly because it's more expensive.
Scapula is just a latin word scientists agreed on using for a very specific part of the body so everybody regardless native language knows what everybody is talking about.....
if you ask 1000 photographers what they consider the 3D look, most would probably bring bokeh into this discussion....
i disagree that there is a quantifiable 3D look that lenses can be designed for.....
i agree 100% that there is much more to lenses then numbers and to me the best lenses have character.....if "3D" is part of that character for you, i totally get it....
-
3D is not a feeling. It's a quantifiable thing and part of lens design.
i am not sure how you make this statement but then dismiss quantifiable testing.....
i agree with character, i am not sure how much of it is part of lens design (more likely to be a flaw in design)
and if 3D is (like you say) a quantifiable thing, we are doing a full circle:
what are the units?
-
Your simulator isn't accounting for everything in photography and lens design, it's just removing some things. It can't account for modern design processes, modern coatings, modern manufacturing processes and materials.
It can model the effects of all those things, although setting it up to do so can be very laborious. If you can quantify the effects (at least the ones that you consider relevant) on the image, please do so.
Jim
-
i am not sure how you make this statement but then dismiss quantifiable testing.....
i agree with character, i am not sure how much of it is part of lens design (more likely to be a flaw in design)
and if 3D is (like you say) a quantifiable thing, we are doing a full circle:
what are the units?
I'm not sure how you can be so continually snarky and expect people to share info with you.
Just because you haven't learned about something doesn't mean that those who have are having "religious belief experiences" or what ever you called it.
-
I'm not sure how you can be so continually snarky and expect people to share info with you.
Just because you haven't learned about something doesn't mean that those who have are having "religious belief experiences" or what ever you called it.
i would like to see a snarky comment i made?
i wont get into this further since i already stated several times that i absolutely believe in "character" or what ever you want to call it....i personally have and use technically crappy old lenses for that reason....
if that personal opinion reaches the realm of "religious beliefs"...as in brand X or Y is better because of non measurable qualities like..."3D"....and at the same time brand Z is being criticized for lacking some non measurable qualities.....
but if i got it right you are saying that 3D is measurable and a design feature, but then jump on Jim for trying to put design and performance into absolute numbers?
lets not forget that this is a discussion about hasselblad H4D vs fuji GFX....my "snarky" remarks refer to the phenomenon that some "true believers" always praise the "3D" in the hasselblad H glass (when it was made by fuji)....and now only see the incredible "3D" in files from the X1D (with lenses not made by fuji) and comment on the "lack of 3D" by fuji lenses on the GFX.....
and it is usually the same people who will put leica glass (and even bodies?!) over everything else....even if they are not, because of....3D...
also: good design is never expensive...never...good design is maximizing available resources in order to maximize functionality....good design can often cost a lot of money but it does not have to and good designers are always trying to keep it simple.....
-
I own two 85mm 1.4 Nikon lenses, the old and the AF-S design. When I went to visit Norman Koren in Boulder some years ago, I took the new one and my D3s, and we ran the lens through Imatest, which Norman probably knows how to use as well as most people on this forum, and as he said it was then the best lens he'd ever tested. It basically outresolved the sensor, edge to edge, mounted on what was at the time a bleeding edge dSLR. And yet, another image geek I know, Iliah Borg, had the same impression as me about the "new lens, if I remember rightly he called it politely "sterile".
I tested the G version of the Nikon 85/1.4 and found it to measure nowhere near as well as the Otus 85/1.4:
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-otus-nikon-loca/
Doesn't look as good, either:
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-f1-4/
But the Leica 90mm f/2 Apo-'cron ASPH was also in that test; it measured so-so, but looked almost as good as the Otus overall, and better for some things.
I have heard some people complain about the look of the CO 60/4, and I think that's a commentary on how good the LoCA is (although it has other foibles). We're not used to seeing lenses that good wrt LoCA.
So I'm agreeing with you about the use case being important.
And, to bring this back around to MF, the CO 60 works very well on the GFX, except in the distance range which has the sensor reflection issue.
Jim
-
Let’s not forget that the back and forth here was sparked by someone who failed to genuflect to the insistence of the GFX Shooters that everything about the GFX lenses is PERFECT. If anyone dares to dissent even slightly, the same prime defenders of the faith descend. Not just here. It’s everywhere, though the DP Review MF Forum is the worst. The very same people are trying to enforce the faith here.
Oh, no. The latest blog entry from DIGLLOYD. Time to call in reinforcements.
-
Let’s not forget that the back and forth here was sparked by someone who failed to genuflect to the insistence of the GFX Shooters that everything about the GFX lenses is PERFECT. If anyone dares to dissent even slightly, the same prime defenders of the faith descend. Not just here. It’s everywhere, though the DP Review MF Forum is the worst. The very same people are trying to enforce the faith here.
Oh, no. The latest blog entry from DIGLLOYD. Time to call in reinforcements.
That terrible Digilloyd ... "in my experience with both, the Fufjilm GF lenses range from grades B+ to 'F', but all the Hasselblad lenses get an 'A'. So I see trouble ahead for Fujifilm GFX 100-S users—see for example the worst lens I ever have come across with one sample of the 110mm f/2. How that one made it out of the factory seems a bit ominous in terms of quality control. The 2nd sample was excellent, but that’s the point."
I think Digilloyd must be a cousin of mine or something, I always get the lemon bodies, he gets the bad apple lenses.
Edmund
-
good design is never expensive...never...good design is maximizing available resources in order to maximize functionality....good design can often cost a lot of money but it does not have to and good designers are always trying to keep it simple.....
Correct
-
Hi,
This is an interesting read: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/02/comparing-the-leica-monochrom-to-a-sony-a7r-ii/
This was a quick and dirty test, with far to much undisclosed info. But it sort of indicated that Leica aficionados sort of had a significant tendency to pick A7rII images as Leica images. The neutral observer was quite good at getting the samples right.
Best regards
Erik
Bingo.
More broadly if you build a camera system or camera system component based on specifications (“teach to the test” “paint by numbers” or “built for bragging rights” rather than wholistic utility you tend to get garbage.
It takes a first product manager motivated by long-term thinking and wholistic real-world use, r+d folks who are shooters and want to use the product (not just engineers looking to collect a paycheck), and a lot of guys to build a system that is best for actual use, not just best on paper or according to the specs and numbers.
In my (heavily biased) opinion Leica and Phase One do the best job of this.
-
Hi,
This is an interesting read: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/02/comparing-the-leica-monochrom-to-a-sony-a7r-ii/
This was a quick and dirty test, with far to much undisclosed info. But it sort of indicated that Leica aficionados sort of had a significant tendency to pick A7rII images as Leica images. The neutral observer was quite good at getting the samples right.
Best regards
Erik
It's funny because I have a recent story about just that. I'm currently looking to switch definatly to mirrorless (from Nikon) and testing 3 systems to see which fits best my needs-style: Panasonic, Fuji and Sony.
First part) I have already got into the G9 and those days was with Sony. I went street photography to get used of the AF, customization and handling as part of the testing, anyway. I quickly ended to use the Sony on monochrome mode with a few other settings. (the Sony are good monochrome cameras by the way)
Second part) I have Leica friends; many die hard Leica friends, with expensive Leica glasses... who mostly use monochrome.
In a meeting I show some of the street shooted with the Sony but without telling what it was. Comments: "Leica look", "so you switch Leica!", "rangefinder shooting style", "Ha! Summilux... uncomparable monochromes..." bla bla bla... I make it short
The only problem is that it was the Sony, with a...kit lens.
When I revealed it, they all went green like Kermit the frog. After that a funny and animated conversation happened, in the style of old Lu-La MF vs DSLRs threads.
So, 3D look? Leica look? Hassy look? cheap or expensive? it's funny. I don't know if it exists to be honest, and I don't care actually. I think there is just photography.
But I can confirm your words: "But it sort of indicated that Leica aficionados sort of had a significant tendency to pick A7rII images as Leica images" with my little anecdote. Unintentionaly tested and approved.
May I suggest then, if one wants the 10000 bucks Leica look, what about a 2000 Sony?
-
It's funny because I have a recent story about just that. I'm currently looking to switch definatly to mirrorless (from Nikon) and testing 3 systems to see which fits best my needs-style: Panasonic, Fuji and Sony.
First part) I have already got into the G9 and those days was with Sony. I went street photography to get used of the AF, customization and handling as part of the testing, anyway. I quickly ended to use the Sony on monochrome mode with a few other settings. (the Sony are good monochrome cameras by the way)
Second part) I have Leica friends; many die hard Leica friends, with expensive Leica glasses... who mostly use monochrome.
In a meeting I show some of the street shooted with the Sony but without telling what it was. Comments: "Leica look", "so you switch Leica!", "rangefinder shooting style", "Ha! Summilux... uncomparable monochromes..." bla bla bla... I make it short
The only problem is that it was the Sony, with a...kit lens.
When I revealed it, they all went green like Kermit the frog. After that a funny and animated conversation happened, in the style of old Lu-La MF vs DSLRs threads.
So, 3D look? Leica look? Hassy look? cheap or expensive? it's funny. I don't know if it exists to be honest, and I don't care actually. I think there is just photography.
But I can confirm your words: "But it sort of indicated that Leica aficionados sort of had a significant tendency to pick A7rII images as Leica images" with my little anecdote. Unintentionaly tested and approved.
May I suggest then, if one wants the 10000 bucks Leica look, what about a 2000 Sony?
People who are serious about wine are quite conscious of the idiosyncrasies of the human sensory system and go to great lengths to deal with such things as confirmation bias. I’ve been tasting wine since the late 60s, and any serious tasting is done double-blind: someone bags, and someone else labels. In addition, there are component tastings, where wine is adulterated with minuscule amounts of important constituents, and the taster learns her threshold for each. This is sometimes combined with triangle tastings, where the taster is presented with three glasses, two of which have the same wine, and challenged to pick out the outlier. There are library tastings where wine made from grapes in the same vineyard are evaluated throughout a period of years, and horizontal tastings, where a single vintage of an appellation are tasted together; in my main group it was de rigueur to sneak a ringer into the tasting and see who could find it.
The point is that serious wine drinkers have a healthy skepticism for the conclusions that they draw, and they continually test their ability to make those conclusions accurately.
It is not so with photographers and lens character, at least in my experience. In fact, almost always the singing of praise for a particular lens is not accompanied by a photograph at all. If it is, there is hardly ever a comparison shot of the same subject shot with another lens. If there is, the viewer is not usually asked to make a blind choice.
Jim
-
People who are serious about wine are quite conscious of the idiosyncrasies of the human sensory system and go to great lengths to deal with such things as confirmation bias. I’ve been tasting wine since the late 60s, and any serious tasting is done double-blind: someone bags, and someone else labels. In addition, there are component tastings, where wine is adulterated with minuscule amounts of important constituents, and the taster learns her threshold for each. This is sometimes combined with triangle tastings, where the taster is presented with three glasses, two of which have the same wine, and challenged to pick out the outlier. There are library tastings where wine made from grapes in the same vineyard are evaluated throughout a period of years, and horizontal tastings, where a single vintage of an appellation are tasted together; in my main group it was de rigueur to sneak a ringer into the tasting and see who could find it.
The point is that serious wine drinkers have a healthy skepticism for the conclusions that they draw, and they continually test their ability to make those conclusions accurately.
It is not so with photographers and lens character, at least in my experience. In fact, almost always the singing of praise for a particular lens is not accompanied by a photograph at all. If it is, there is hardly ever a comparison shot of the same subject shot with another lens. If there is, the viewer is not usually asked to make a blind choice.
Jim
True. And Kurniwan fooled quite a lot of experts. It is very very difficult when senses are involved plus the mind factor and its astrovisions. Mind can easily be fooled. See the university's investigations made on Coca Cola/Pepsi Cola. Mind can "see" unexisting properties just by brand's labels.
-
Mind can "see" unexisting properties just by brand's labels.
A well-known phenomenon in wine tasting. It even has a snarky name: "drinking the label".
Jim
-
A well-known phenomenon in wine tasting. It even has a snarky name: "drinking the label".
Jim
My wine-buying algorithm is simple - get list of years, go to shop, get affordable ($50) Burgundy from known wine merchant from decent year, and keep a bottle of claret in reserve. Works 2 times out of 3. For the other 1/3 use rotten burgundy for cooking or trash it, and drink the claret with the meal. ;D
In my book wine is just something that makes food better ...
I think for cameras one can replace "Burgundy" with full-frame camera, and "claret" with cellphone ;D
Edmund
-
A well-known phenomenon in wine tasting. It even has a snarky name: "drinking the label".
Jim
"drinking the label", quite elegant expression actually. I think it would be suitable for any other context.
I'm going to adopt it in my (endless and unproductive) quest for improving my english language.
PS: Edmund, I'm Bourgogne aussi!
Actually as you live in Paris I guess I can use a more cult french language in Audiard style: "Alors, comme ça on fait dans l'Bourgogne?"
-
"drinking the label", quite elegant expression actually. I think it would be suitable for any other context.
I'm going to adopt it in my (endless and unproductive) quest for improving my english language.
PS: Edmund, I'm Bourgogne aussi!
Actually as you live in Paris I guess I can use a more cult french language in Audiard style: "Alors, comme ça on fait dans l'Bourgogne?"
Fred I always knew you had good taste.
Our American friends may be surprised that Bordeau inflation seems to have brought us affordable mid-range Bourgogne, even in restaurants. I'm not going to complain :)
I remember when I came to Paris, the ritual of going out to get a bottle for dinner, and the fact that cheap wine was cheaper than coca-cola in those days. But then one also went out every morning for breakfast.
Edmund
-
I've been using Leica M cameras and lenses for around five years now and I'm not at all sure the look exists. I'm delighted with the results, the lenses are second to none and the colour is superb, but is that the look? Could I achieve similar results with other systems: the truth is I don't know and have little interest in trying. What I do know is that I enjoy using the rangefinder cameras more than anything else I've ever used.
My gut is that I'm achieving a look but is it the look? I invite anyone that's interested to have a peek at my images - perhaps the Rajasthan galleries as they're all Leica M images - and judge whether the look actually exists.
-
Keith,
Unfortunately, as soon as one looks at the evidence you provide, one forgets the question.
On the other hand, I would like to thank you for tricking me into viewing a superb set of images.
They do seem to have a certain look, the Keith Laban look ;D
Try and suggest to Leica to put them in their magazine ...
Edmund
I've been using Leica M cameras and lenses for around five years now and I'm not at all sure the look exists. I'm delighted with the results, the lenses are second to none and the colour is superb, but is that the look? Could I achieve similar results with other systems: the truth is I don't know and have little interest in trying. What I do know is that I enjoy using the rangefinder cameras more than anything else I've ever used.
My gut is that I'm achieving a look but is it the look? I invite anyone that's interested to have a peek at my images - perhaps the Rajasthan galleries as they're all Leica M images - and judge whether the look actually exists.
-
Keith there are some really nice pictures here.
I would say that some of the Leica look is there in some of the pictures and to some extent. The problem is people try and look for it in all pictures, and in all pictures it just doesn't show. And that is not to say that some of the the look doesn't exist on other lenses of other brands too. The other thing is it that look gets lost quite easily and quickly with poor exposure and bad or over processing - or just style of photography. It easily gets swallowed up in misuse of colour and contrast. One thing the look doesn't do is make a photographers actual ability to take photos any better - yet there are more people buying Leica in the hope that it magically transforms their photography, and they continue with their poor exposure, lighting, processing and boring photos and they may as well be using any camera because the look is left in the radioactive dust of their post processing treatments. There are a hell of a lot of these sort pictures out there, even from people who are declaring themselves as some kind of authority, and again, the look gets lost in a sea of terrible looking photos on the internet.
It's like when people say the Medium Format look doesn't exist. They illustrate this by showing a comparison of a distant landscape shot at f22 and say, "Look! There is no difference!" but this is because they have no idea what the look is and show a comparison that doesn't and never will display the difference.
Same goes for a "lens simulator" it's only ever going to simulate what you program it to simulate. You can't simulate these things if you don't know what they are. You can't know what cutting edge modern design is doing because these things are closely guarded secrets. The "3D look" exists and the things that contribute to it can be measured. If you don't know what these things are then how can you simulate for them?
Saying good design is never expensive is like saying the sun never shines. Good design is often really ridiculously expensive. It costs what it costs. The paperclip is probably one of the most successful and enduring designs ever. But there is no hope in hell I am getting in a rocket ship which has had the design budget of a paper clip.
I'll tell you something for nothing - Those companies trying make lenses that are well corrected and look good are doing it at significant cost. Because it's really, extremely hard to do. They are spending millions alone on simulation, modelling and research. Then even more on manufacturing and inventing new ways of doing things. When something is governed by principle rules of physics you can't just change it you have to work around it. That takes a lot of research and development and that costs a hell of a lot of money. When the design objective for your Medium Format system is "Affordability" you have to stop somewhere.
People see what they see. Sometimes people see what they want to see. The internet is a very entertaining place. Personally, I find those scoffing at such things thoroughly entertaining. It's amusing to me that just because some of these people, "can't see it" haven't learned what t is, somehow means by default it can't possibly be there. The chest puffing hubris, the declaring that these people are stupid, have more money than sense, like they are some kind of clueless dilettante - it's a very funny thing to watch. You should probably do the right thing and tell a person when they are being pranked that they are about to have a pie thrown in their face, but you can't - No matter how many times you've seen it, it just too entertaining.
-
Edmund, Bo, thanks for looking and for your comments, much appreciated.
Bo, I would be really interested to know what it is about some of the images that leads you describe them as having the Leica look and in turn what it is that constitutes that look.
Not a trick question, merely interest.
-
I was going to ask you much the same question, Keith, about your Indian Collection.
Clearly, different light and different subjects make direct comparisons impossible, but that aside, do you note any basic colour differences between your Leica and Zeiss glass?
As I've mentioned before, the only Leica experience I ever had was at my last empoyer's in the winter of '65. I remember we did some room sets for BBC TV up in the Glasgow studios, using an M3 and one of the 21mm lenses, but I can't remember if it was the Schneider or Leitz version. I remember this especially, because all the other 135 work was shot on Nikon F, and the prints that I made from that Leica film were certainly different to the Nikon images I also printed for him. So much so, that I kept a print for my own portfolio when I was about to quit.
So there you have it: same films, same processing and same printer using the same soups, yet the Leica look stood out. Pushed to describe it, I'd offer that even just printed up whole neg onto 8x10, it gave the appearance of having come off 6x6 film. It was something about tonality, nothing to do with crispness of optics.
So, yes, for this non-Leica owner, I do subscribe to the belief that there can be a noticeable difference.
Rob
-
As I've mentioned before, the only Leica experience I ever had was at my last empoyer's in the winter of '65. I remember we did some room sets for BBC TV up in the Glasgow studios, using an M3 and one of the 21mm lenses, but I can't remember if it was the Schneider or Leitz version. I remember this especially, because all the other 135 work was shot on Nikon F, and the prints that I made from that Leica film were certainly different to the Nikon images I also printed for him. So much so, that I kept a print for my own portfolio when I was about to quit.
So there you have it: same films, same processing and same printer using the same soups, yet the Leica look stood out. Pushed to describe I was going to ask you much the same question, Keith, about your Indian Collection.
Clearly, different light and different subjects make direct comparisons impossible, but that aside, do you note any basic colour differences between your Leica and Zeiss glass?it, I'd offer that even just printed up whole neg onto 8x10, it gave the appearance of having come off 6x6 film. It was something about tonality, nothing to do with crispness of optics.
So, yes, for this non-Leica owner, I do subscribe to the belief that there can be a noticeable difference.
Rob
Rob, the problem is that my Leica lenses are all incredibly sharp with high contrast and by comparison my only Zeiss lens isn't - but that's the reason I bought it. That said I know that many of the Zeiss M fit lenses are considered to be both sharp and contrasty, so, really, I'm not in the position to be able to judge.
What I can tell you is that the 55mm Nikon macro AIS lens I use on the Leica has very different colour rendering but that could be down to any number of reasons including lack of profiling.
-
I've been using Leica M cameras and lenses for around five years now and I'm not at all sure the look exists. I'm delighted with the results, the lenses are second to none and the colour is superb, but is that the look? Could I achieve similar results with other systems: the truth is I don't know and have little interest in trying. What I do know is that I enjoy using the rangefinder cameras more than anything else I've ever used.
My gut is that I'm achieving a look but is it the look? I invite anyone that's interested to have a peek at my images - perhaps the Rajasthan galleries as they're all Leica M images - and judge whether the look actually exists.
Keith, I know your work from the beginning and like it a lot. I actually digged into your site a few weeks ago. Great work.
Answering the X look is easy: no there ain't such thing as the Leica look but yes the Keith look.
You can easily verify this: take a great guitar player, give him a 400 bucks beginner guitar, he still sounds the same. Those tests have been done over and over again with the very same results.
Leica gives you what you need and influences your approach, or more exactly matches your approach, like a good respectful relashionship. But Leica is not doing
anything except helping you to be yourself a bit better maybe than other systems. You feel it's right for you because it is.
Just like a pair of shoes or a partner.
But let's give Keith a 800 euros Fuji with a kit lens on a desert island, you might feel uncomfortable, but your imagery will be exactly the same. The viewer will not notice. Only you will know if the experience was pleasant or not. But you'll adapt to what you get and ultimatly write over and over again the same versus: your signature. The only parameter that is unique.
One unique song that is being rehearsed undefinatly under infinite variations.
It does not matter the studio, the amplifiers or instruments, the song and sound will be the same refrain.
Because if there were such thing as the Leica look, we would be then in big trouble.
I bet a bottle of Bourgogne on that.
-
my first camera was a praktika...i bought it with a 50 and some crazy huge 180?mm from a dad's friend for nothing....never really worried about anything but taking pictures....until i made another friend who happened to have a dad who was a leica fan....and this was how this played out....lots of sitting around fondling their M bodies and always changing lenses....trips to the local vienna leica shops to trade lenses and bodies, moving to R, still keeping M and just fondling equipment....every now and then we would actually go for a stroll with the new stuff....rarely, rarely were actual pictures taken, and if that did happen mostly slides....even more rarely projected and then it was all about the look which i mostly did not get even then....i much preferred shooting B&W and having prints made.....somewhere along the line i switched to an olympus system, later nikon....i always, always enjoyed M leicas, i have owned M3, M4, and digital M8.....along with all kinds of lenses.....at a certain point (m8) it just got ridiculous.....i actually did still liked shooting with the body but other companies just provided better files for a lot less money with more convenience....it got worse years later going to sony and using the same miraculous leica glass on simply better sensors (i do understand all issues involved with these set ups)....a breaking point was when i got a 20$ russian zeiss knock off on eBay and compared it with the same focal length leica lens....i was sitting at the screen at a friends place when we compared the shots.....and the crappy russian lens beat the priceless leica in every regard....sharpness, contrast, color, micro detail, wide open, closed down.....
again: who cares, i have enjoyed many lenses much more because of their flaws then because of their "perfection".....
in the end it all comes down to how one wants to work and what one wants to do.....
honestly the last thing i want to hear when somebody looks at my pics is: what camera did you use? of course we all do this to some extent when talking with colleagues but it really misses the point...completely....
i also drive cars that get me from A to B in the safest way, provide the most space with the least impact on the environment and are the most dependable....i have yet to see a BMW or porsche that might work for those criteria.....
-
Rob, the problem is that my Leica lenses are all incredibly sharp with high contrast and by comparison my only Zeiss lens isn't - but that's the reason I bought it. That said I know that many of the Zeiss M fit lenses are considered to be both sharp and contrasty, so, really, I'm not in the position to be able to judge.
What I can tell you is that the 55mm Nikon macro AIS lens I use on the Leica has very different colour rendering but that could be down to any number of reasons including lack of profiling.
I had a 50mm Zeiss Sonnar with glass bubbles mounted on my Leica for years. It gave me a Leica without the Leica look :)
Edmund
-
Keith, I know your work from the beginning and like it a lot. I actually digged into your site a few weeks ago. Great work.
Answering the X look is easy: no there ain't such thing as the Leica look but yes the Keith look.
You can easily verify this: take a great guitar player, give him a 400 bucks beginner guitar, he still sounds the same. Those tests have been done over and over again with the very same results.
Leica gives you what you need and influences your approach, or more exactly matches your approach, like a good respectful relashionship. But Leica is not doing
anything except helping you to be yourself a bit better maybe than other systems. You feel it's right for you because it is.
Just like a pair of shoes or a partner.
But let's give Keith a 800 euros Fuji with a kit lens on a desert island, you might feel uncomfortable, but your imagery will be exactly the same. The viewer will not notice. Only you will know if the experience was pleasant or not. But you'll adapt to what you get and ultimatly write over and over again the same versus: your signature. The only parameter that is unique.
One unique song that is being rehearsed undefinatly under infinite variations.
It does not matter the studio, the amplifiers or instruments, the song and sound will be the same refrain.
Because if there were such thing as the Leica look, we would be then in big trouble.
I bet a bottle of Bourgogne on that.
Fred, as usual you are kind and insightful by nature.
Truth is I've not a clue if that Leica look is fact or fantasy. The fact is, as you have suggested, that I use the Leica M system because of the working methodology rather than any kind of magical sauce that can be attributed to the bodies and or lenses.
I've found a system that I love using and use it.
-
I had a 50mm Zeiss Sonnar with glass bubbles mounted on my Leica for years. It gave me a Leica without the Leica look :)
Edmund
My Zeiss Sonnar ZM is one of my favourite lenses.
Jeez, I guess I'll never make a Leica ambassador!
:-)
-
Keith, I know your work from the beginning and like it a lot. I actually digged into your site a few weeks ago. Great work.
Answering the X look is easy: no there ain't such thing as the Leica look but yes the Keith look.
You can easily verify this: take a great guitar player, give him a 400 bucks beginner guitar, he still sounds the same. Those tests have been done over and over again with the very same results.
Leica gives you what you need and influences your approach, or more exactly matches your approach, like a good respectful relashionship. But Leica is not doing
anything except helping you to be yourself a bit better maybe than other systems. You feel it's right for you because it is.
Just like a pair of shoes or a partner.
But let's give Keith a 800 euros Fuji with a kit lens on a desert island, you might feel uncomfortable, but your imagery will be exactly the same. The viewer will not notice. Only you will know if the experience was pleasant or not. But you'll adapt to what you get and ultimatly write over and over again the same versus: your signature. The only parameter that is unique.
One unique song that is being rehearsed undefinatly under infinite variations.
It does not matter the studio, the amplifiers or instruments, the song and sound will be the same refrain.
Because if there were such thing as the Leica look, we would be then in big trouble.
I bet a bottle of Bourgogne on that.
No one is questioning wether or not the artist makes the art. No lens can point the camera for you, or frame it, or tell you when to press the button or how to light it. Of course, that's what photography really is. But gear and aesthetic can and does has an impact on a work.
To use you guitar analogy - Many guitarists have whole arsenals of different guitars for their different sounds. A Rickenbacker sounds like a Rickenbacker. Anyone can pick it up and get the same sound - that distinctive old jangle and chime that everyone knows, even if they don't know the name. The Beetles would have been successful without a Rickenbacker, but Rickenbacker would not likely have been as successful without the Beetles. Rickenbacker largely shaped the sound of the 60's, and have continued to deliver an archetypal sound that represents something that guitarists plug into today. It's an unmistakable sound. So much so that many won't use it because it's too distinct.
The guitar won't tell you what to play and how to play it but to say a guitar doesn't have a unique sound is as wrong as saying that a camera or lens, and indeed a Leica doesn't have a unique look.
-
my first camera was a praktika...i bought it with a 50 and some crazy huge 180?mm from a dad's friend for nothing....never really worried about anything but taking pictures....until i made another friend who happened to have a dad who was a leica fan....and this was how this played out....lots of sitting around fondling their M bodies and always changing lenses....trips to the local vienna leica shops to trade lenses and bodies, moving to R, still keeping M and just fondling equipment....every now and then we would actually go for a stroll with the new stuff....rarely, rarely were actual pictures taken, and if that did happen mostly slides....even more rarely projected and then it was all about the look which i mostly did not get even then....i much preferred shooting B&W and having prints made.....somewhere along the line i switched to an olympus system, later nikon....i always, always enjoyed M leicas, i have owned M3, M4, and digital M8.....along with all kinds of lenses.....at a certain point (m8) it just got ridiculous.....i actually did still liked shooting with the body but other companies just provided better files for a lot less money with more convenience....it got worse years later going to sony and using the same miraculous leica glass on simply better sensors (i do understand all issues involved with these set ups)....a breaking point was when i got a 20$ russian zeiss knock off on eBay and compared it with the same focal length leica lens....i was sitting at the screen at a friends place when we compared the shots.....and the crappy russian lens beat the priceless leica in every regard....sharpness, contrast, color, micro detail, wide open, closed down.....
again: who cares, i have enjoyed many lenses much more because of their flaws then because of their "perfection".....
in the end it all comes down to how one wants to work and what one wants to do.....
honestly the last thing i want to hear when somebody looks at my pics is: what camera did you use? of course we all do this to some extent when talking with colleagues but it really misses the point...completely....
i also drive cars that get me from A to B in the safest way, provide the most space with the least impact on the environment and are the most dependable....i have yet to see a BMW or porsche that might work for those criteria.....
I saw a 4 doors Porshe parked next to my car yesterday. It looked like a familly car designed by a german ww2 tank bureau.
An oversized 911 on steroids, shinny black and hugly like hell. But I forgot there was the Versace boutique right next door (good men sneakers handmade in Italy 500 euros...don't mess with shoes!) so I guess the lady driver was not that far. Shoo is opening a new boutique just next to the Versace's and Ferrari now has a Porshe replica, 4x4...yeah...so it's now possible to ride the Ferrari on some desert dunes.
-
No one is questioning wether or not the artist makes the art. No lens can point the camera for you, or frame it, or tell you when to press the button or how to light it. Of course, that's what photography really is. But gear and aesthetic can and does has an impact on a work.
To use you guitar analogy - Many guitarists have whole arsenals of different guitars for their different sounds. A Rickenbacker sounds like a Rickenbacker. Anyone can pick it up and get the same sound - that distinctive old jangle and chime that everyone knows, even if they don't know the name. The Beetles would have been successful without a Rickenbacker, but Rickenbacker would not likely have been as successful without the Beetles. Rickenbacker largely shaped the sound of the 60's, and have continued to deliver an archetypal sound that represents something that guitarists plug into today. It's an unmistakable sound. So much so that many won't use it because it's too distinct.
The guitar won't tell you what to play and how to play it but to say a guitar doesn't have a unique sound is as wrong as saying that a camera or lens, and indeed a Leica doesn't have a unique look.
You are absolutly right Bo_Dez. But this was not really what I pretended to explain. It has to do with what Keith pointed: "because of the working methodology rather than any kind of magical sauce".
My point did not contradicted yours, it just qualified it so to say. If gear have personality, the user in the end rules according to his level, style and set-up. And we end to see "mister X imagery" not a brand imagery. Or I hope so.
-
I think we've gone somewhat offtrack :P
from H4D or GFX 50, to a thread about Leica and now Ferraris and Guitars :o
-
I think we've gone somewhat offtrack :P
from H4D or GFX 50, to a thread about Leica and now Ferraris and Guitars :o
I guess there were sort of metaphors to express a concept discussed here ::) but I agree. Let's come back ontrack with the original topic.
-
This will help merge it a little bit... ;)
https://petapixel.com/2018/04/25/this-200000-lamborghini-is-the-worlds-fastest-camera-car/
-
I guess there were sort of metaphors to express a concept discussed here ::) but I agree. Let's come back ontrack with the original topic.
Not much to say. The choice was between the GFX and the H4D-40. Nobody was arguing for the Hassy. The OP said the X1D was too dear. The OP said he was going to go with the GFX. All that happened by halfway down the first page.
Jim
-
Not much to say. The choice was between the GFX and the H4D-40. Nobody was arguing for the Hassy. The OP said the X1D was too dear. The OP said he was going to go with the GFX. All that happened by halfway down the first page.
Jim
Ha! The love fest was in full swing until someone dissented and said this about the GFX lenses:
"They are better in some ways, very sharp yes. But Im not a fan of the way the GFX lenses render, which tonally seem quite two dimensional. It's not that they are bad, just pretty plain and common looking. The Fuji rendering has the appearance of a dSLR to me."
The rest of the "conversation" was about whether that is true. Is it? I don't know. There are lots of samples at the GFX Facebook page.
-
Ha! The love fest was in full swing until someone dissented and said this about the GFX lenses:
"They are better in some ways, very sharp yes. But Im not a fan of the way the GFX lenses render, which tonally seem quite two dimensional. It's not that they are bad, just pretty plain and common looking. The Fuji rendering has the appearance of a dSLR to me."
The rest of the "conversation" was about whether that is true. Is it? I don't know. There are lots of samples at the GFX Facebook page.
The Hassy has an optical viewfinder and a high sync speed. The sensor has Kodak color. Some lenses eg the 100mm f2.2 are very nice. I don't think the 2 systems have the same uses, and the world would be boring of they were comparable.
Edmund