Need Advice: H4D-40 or Fuji GFX 50

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[fredjeang2]

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?

[Jim Kasson]

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

[fredjeang2]

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.

[Jim Kasson]

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

[eronald]

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. 

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 

Edmund

[fredjeang2]

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?"

[eronald]

"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

[KLaban]

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.

[eronald]

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 

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.

[Bo_Dez]

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.

[KLaban]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[KLaban]

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.

[fredjeang2]

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.

[pschefz]

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.....

[eronald]

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

[KLaban]

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.

[KLaban]

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!

:-)

[Bo_Dez]

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.