Re: Manual or Automatic SLR??

(E-Mail Removed) (MAK) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> Hello,
>
> I would like to be good photographer. I am too in this classic
> dilemma. Buy automatic (AF) camera or Manual SLR camera and need
> advise.

If you want to be a good photographer, study composition, light, and
color. Study the great artists, and then the great photographers.
Once you are familiar with these, the lens and film are secondary, and
the camera takes third place.


Alan

(E-Mail Removed) (Alan) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> (E-Mail Removed) (MAK) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to be good photographer. I am too in this classic
> > dilemma. Buy automatic (AF) camera or Manual SLR camera and need
> > advise.
>
> If you want to be a good photographer, study composition, light, and
> color. Study the great artists, and then the great photographers.
> Once you are familiar with these, the lens and film are secondary, and
> the camera takes third place.

My photography became better when I moved to Leica. The notion that
equipment doesn't matter misses the point of what the technical limits
are. In any given system, the better the lens, the better the color,
tonality, and 'sharpness' that can be obtained. Can you see the
difference between Leica lenses and say Nikon or Canon? Of course you
can. I can, and I have shown the difference to many people over the
years.

Take the 50mm 1.4 normal lens, for example. In 1971, I did a test
between the Nikon 50mm 1.4 (at that time it sold for about $150) and
the Leicaflex 50mm 1.4 ($441) using Panatomic-X film (ASA 32) and a
Paterson test chart. That test chart has various patterns on it to
show the deficiencies in lenses, such as astigmatism, coma,
distortion, resolution, contrast, curvature of field, vignetting, etc.

Looking at the chart, you can even see the astigmatism in your own
eyes!

The results were not even close. The Nikon lens had noticeably lower
contrast and higher astigmmatism, (but higher resolution, which
unfortunately is of no value whatsoever in a high-speed taking lens).
The astigmatism was particularly noticeable, and it degraded fine
detail by reducing the contrast.

The Leicaflex lens had a bit less illumination in the far corners, but
only slightly less. It also had a bit of curvature of field, but
considering that a high-speed lens is NOT going to be used to
photograph newsprint for reproduction, this is of not the slightest
importance.

All in all, no contest. The Leicaflex lens was visibly, markedly,
superior. The Leica lens designers obviously recognized that a
high-speed taking lens needed contrast above all, because of the kind
of environment it would be used in. The Nikon designers had it all
backwards, going for resolution at flatness of field at the expense of
contrast. The eye needs as much contrast as possible to see details.

No amount of photographer's skill can make up for the differences in
equipment.

(E-Mail Removed) (Michael Scarpitti) writes:

> My photography became better when I moved to Leica. The notion that
> equipment doesn't matter misses the point of what the technical limits
> are. In any given system, the better the lens, the better the color,
> tonality, and 'sharpness' that can be obtained. Can you see the
> difference between Leica lenses and say Nikon or Canon? Of course you
> can. I can, and I have shown the difference to many people over the
> years.

Interesting. My one experience with people who thought they could see
the difference ended with the friend who got me into Leicas in the
first place incorrectly identifying as having been taken with a 90mm
Summicron a shot I'd actually taken with a Tamron zoom on a Pentax
Spotmatic. (This was around 1974)

(This is not to complain about either the Leica system, or my friend;
I took many very nice photos with that Leica, and it could certainly
do many things that SLRs of the period could never do -- starting with
having a 90mm f2 lens in the first place, and continuing through
focusing it in the light conditions I could shoot pictures in with it,
and making little enough noise that nobody much cared if I did.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd-(E-Mail Removed)>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>

(E-Mail Removed) (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> You miss the point. Everything that 'makes a great photograph' depends
> upon tonal quality, differentiation of colors, countours, etc.

We live in a culture that thinks that sex is love, education is
intelligence, reproducing is parenthood, money is class, and church
going is morality. I guess it's only natural that some would think
that cameras are photography.

On 16 Jul 2003 10:07:40 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> (E-Mail Removed) (Michael Scarpitti) writes:
>>
>> > My photography became better when I moved to Leica. The notion that
>> > equipment doesn't matter misses the point of what the technical limits
>> > are. In any given system, the better the lens, the better the color,
>> > tonality, and 'sharpness' that can be obtained. Can you see the
>> > difference between Leica lenses and say Nikon or Canon? Of course you
>> > can. I can, and I have shown the difference to many people over the
>> > years.
>>
>> Interesting. My one experience with people who thought they could see
>> the difference ended with the friend who got me into Leicas in the
>> first place incorrectly identifying as having been taken with a 90mm
>> Summicron a shot I'd actually taken with a Tamron zoom on a Pentax
>> Spotmatic. (This was around 1974)
>>
>> (This is not to complain about either the Leica system, or my friend;
>> I took many very nice photos with that Leica, and it could certainly
>> do many things that SLRs of the period could never do -- starting with
>> having a 90mm f2 lens in the first place, and continuing through
>> focusing it in the light conditions I could shoot pictures in with it,
>> and making little enough noise that nobody much cared if I did.)
>
>
>
>If it 'could not' be seen, it doesn't exist. It can be seen.

See, the thing is, people can "see" all sorts of things that aren't
there. Once upon a time, doctors believed in all sorts of "cures"
that flat-out didn't work, and, much of the time, made things worse.
Our minds play tricks on us, and we tend to see what we want to see.

That's why, when drugs are tested, they use double-blind tests.
Neither the patients nor the doctors administering the drugs know
whether they're receiving the drug or a placebo.

Leica makes fine camera equipment, and the lenses made to fit Leica
cameras are first rate. Obviously, you're happy with what you've got,
and that's great. But I'm skeptical of pronouncements by somebody
whose attachment to a particular brand of camera appears to have taken
on many of the trappings of a religious cult.
--

Pete McCutchen

(E-Mail Removed) (Alan) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> > You miss the point. Everything that 'makes a great photograph' depends
> > upon tonal quality, differentiation of colors, countours, etc.
>
> We live in a culture that thinks that sex is love, education is
> intelligence, reproducing is parenthood, money is class, and church
> going is morality. I guess it's only natural that some would think
> that cameras are photography.


Again, you've missed my point. Again, read and try to follow.

Any 'great photograph' (whatever that means) MUST employ photographic
means (lens, film, etc) to accomplish its goals. If the 'great photo'
is great because it captured a 'fleeting moment', is not the shutter
reponse lag time important? The Leicaflex has the shortest response
time of any SLR. This means that the user can react faster to that
'crucial moment' to create that 'great photo'. Does the 'great photo'
employ subtleties of light and shadow, with minute variations of shade
in the shadows to accomplish its effects? Then a lens with greater
contrast (Leica) will differentiate those tones better. Does the
'great photo' depend on the contours of a child's face? If so, the
greater edge definition of Leica lenses will bring out the intent of
the photo better.

The limitations of lesser equipment become hindrances once you become
used to the superb performance of Leica equipment. our 'great photos'
will become more numerous, not just rarities.

Yes, 'great photos' can be taken with any equipment. And, that's not
the point. There is a magnitude of quality that is undeniable. Try
some Leica gear and see for yourself.

x-no-archive: yes
"Michael Scarpitti" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> The limitations of lesser equipment become hindrances once you become
> used to the superb performance of Leica equipment. our 'great photos'
> will become more numerous, not just rarities.
>
> Yes, 'great photos' can be taken with any equipment. And, that's not
> the point. There is a magnitude of quality that is undeniable. Try
> some Leica gear and see for yourself.

While I have absolutely nothing but respect for Leica optics, it appears
that you have chosen to reject other lens designers' products, as being
somehow less-than-adequate.

Even Erwin Puts has gone on record as saying that the major lens designers
all know how to make great lenses--and that they each have their unique
vision of what characteristics make up their idea of a perfect lens.

Leica has gone through several changes in designs since they started. So,
which "Leica gear," is it that you find to be so superior?

Just one example, of many that I could offer, is Zeiss. They have a
different notion of what makes an ideal lens. Pentax, my own favorite, has
historically based their prime lens designs more on the Zeiss model.

Do you honestly believe that people would be able to see--with any degree of
regularity-- the differences between identical photos shot with Zeiss, Leitz
and Pentax lenses? I am aware of a number of such trials, and the evidence
suggests that there is little difference in the final images.

I would stack the current Pentax "Limited" series of lenses against Leitz's
any time. Nikon and Canon make some very credible stuff, too. And let's
not forget Minolta--they supplied several bodies and lenses to Leitz, which
were re-badged with the Leica nameplate.

If you really want to see major improvements in the quality of images, I
suggest that you compare almost any brand of medium format against Leica.
(Especially, compare the Rollei MF stuff against Leica 35mm). The results
will blow Leica away. Not that I want to put down Leica--but the cost of
good MF equipment is going to probably be less than buying Leica. So, if
money is any measure of quality, Leica may not be that much of a bargain.

My point is that comparing Leica to Pentax/Nikon/Canon/Minolta will not
result in nearly as much difference in image quality as would be apparent by
comparing Leica to virtually any medium format gear. There is only so much
that one can squeeze out of a 35mm negative . . .

>From: (E-Mail Removed) (Michael Scarpitti)
>Date: 17-Jul-2003 18:23 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <(E-Mail Removed) >
>

<snip>

>Yes, 'great photos' can be taken with any equipment. And, that's not
>the point. There is a magnitude of quality that is undeniable. Try
>some Leica gear and see for yourself.

Much as I agree with you often Mike I would just like to add that it isn't the
case that all Leica gear is superior to /all/ other gear regardless of period
etc. The Jupiter 8M I use outperforms the original Leica Elmar (to be truthful
I've read that the Elmar is a not-particularly-favoured lens amongst Leica
owners). However in ng speak, anything soviet is by definition utter junk and
anything made by Leica is outstanding. I would seriously love to run a few
films through a Leica at some time though, just to see what it's like! Give me
a bell next time you're in SW Scotland!

(E-Mail Removed)ercial (Duncan Ross) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> >From: (E-Mail Removed) (Michael Scarpitti)
> >Date: 17-Jul-2003 18:23 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <(E-Mail Removed) >
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >Yes, 'great photos' can be taken with any equipment. And, that's not
> >the point. There is a magnitude of quality that is undeniable. Try
> >some Leica gear and see for yourself.
>
> Much as I agree with you often Mike I would just like to add that it isn't the
> case that all Leica gear is superior to /all/ other gear regardless of period
> etc. The Jupiter 8M I use outperforms the original Leica Elmar (to be truthful
> I've read that the Elmar is a not-particularly-favoured lens amongst Leica
> owners). However in ng speak, anything soviet is by definition utter junk and
> anything made by Leica is outstanding. I would seriously love to run a few
> films through a Leica at some time though, just to see what it's like! Give me
> a bell next time you're in SW Scotland!



I live in Ohio. Not planning to come to Glasgow any time soon.

Pete McCutchen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
> On 16 Jul 2003 10:07:40 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Michael
> Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> >David Dyer-Bennet <dd-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> >> (E-Mail Removed) (Michael Scarpitti) writes:
> >>
> >> > My photography became better when I moved to Leica. The notion that
> >> > equipment doesn't matter misses the point of what the technical limits
> >> > are. In any given system, the better the lens, the better the color,
> >> > tonality, and 'sharpness' that can be obtained. Can you see the
> >> > difference between Leica lenses and say Nikon or Canon? Of course you
> >> > can. I can, and I have shown the difference to many people over the
> >> > years.
> >>
> >> Interesting. My one experience with people who thought they could see
> >> the difference ended with the friend who got me into Leicas in the
> >> first place incorrectly identifying as having been taken with a 90mm
> >> Summicron a shot I'd actually taken with a Tamron zoom on a Pentax
> >> Spotmatic. (This was around 1974)
> >>
> >> (This is not to complain about either the Leica system, or my friend;
> >> I took many very nice photos with that Leica, and it could certainly
> >> do many things that SLRs of the period could never do -- starting with
> >> having a 90mm f2 lens in the first place, and continuing through
> >> focusing it in the light conditions I could shoot pictures in with it,
> >> and making little enough noise that nobody much cared if I did.)
> >
> >
> >
> >If it 'could not' be seen, it doesn't exist. It can be seen.
>
> See, the thing is, people can "see" all sorts of things that aren't
> there. Once upon a time, doctors believed in all sorts of "cures"
> that flat-out didn't work, and, much of the time, made things worse.
> Our minds play tricks on us, and we tend to see what we want to see.

You doubt you or I can see astigmatism on a test designed to reveal
it?
I have the Paterson test chart, and looking at it you can see the
astigmatism in your own eyes!

> That's why, when drugs are tested, they use double-blind tests.
> Neither the patients nor the doctors administering the drugs know
> whether they're receiving the drug or a placebo.
>
> Leica makes fine camera equipment, and the lenses made to fit Leica
> cameras are first rate. Obviously, you're happy with what you've got,
> and that's great. But I'm skeptical of pronouncements by somebody
> whose attachment to a particular brand of camera appears to have taken
> on many of the trappings of a religious cult.

Why do you say that? If I still had the test pictures, I could show
you what I'm talking about. The Leica lens designers are very
creative. You should read Erwin Puts 'Leica Papers' pages just so
you'll have an understanding of the history of Leica lens design. (see
below)

One of the crucial points is that since no lens can be made perfect
(though the limitations of the 60's and 70's materials are being
challenged) it was often desirable for the designer to leave some of
the basic aberations undercorrected so that other qualities could be
maximised. I'm speaking in particular of curvature of field. Some
Leica lenses have ever so slight curvature of field (in particular the
50mm 1.4 reflex lens) so that other properties can be outstanding. For
this reason, tests made of 'lens charts' that are perfectly flat may
give an erroneous impression of the lens's true capabilities when used
on 3-dimensional objects, where the minor curvature of field is of no
practical importance.

(You don't usually use a 50mm 1.4 lens wide open to photograph postage
stamps).

The difference may be only a few millimeters from perfect flatness at
15 feet, but it's enough to skew the test results. In any event, the
Leicaflex 50mm 1.4 BLEW AWAY the Nikkor in all picture-taking
criteria.

See:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/rs...tr/r14-50.html

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/te...sdesign01.html

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/ma.../threegen.html