Hilarious amusement over in other brand forums...

Its a lot of fun to browse the other forums and read some of the ridiculous posts. Just like here in our forum, there are threads devoted to the "special" nature of the brand.

One of the more hilarious current threads is moving along nicely over in the Leica forum as the dedicated try and rationalize their devotion to their brand via their so called "Leica" look. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=35397816

I don't mean to pick on the loyal Leica brand fans. Threads of the same nature appear here in our forum with the "Oly colors" as well as the Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Sigma and others.

I highly recommend perusing the other forums from time to time for a little levity. While it can be amusing how we may tend to express our feelings/beliefs about our respective brands, it can also get easily out of hand as you can see as you read some of the nonsense.

I don't have a problem with favoring a particular manufacturer up to a point, but our actual loyalties might be better served through devotion to the craft and less to the gear at times.

Dan

--

Will I learn from life's lessons or will I lose my faith in the goodness life's promise had to offer?

i think there really is something known as the Leica look, im pretty sure you wont find it in their contract assembled P&S though

more to do with fast M lenses than sensors

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

"our actual loyalties might be better served through devotion to the craft and less to the gear at times."

Amen...smartest thing I've read all day!

There is a Leica glow, a gentle, soft flare around highlights, but it only really shows up on older lenses that predate modern multicoatings. And subsequently, this effect can actually show up on any lens of the same vintage regardless of the manufacturer--it's just that the Leica lenses have better-than-average resolution to boot.

Anytime anyone ever mentions "3d effect" in association with the Leica look though, I usually find it to be a combination of good lighting that separates the subject from the background (regardless of depth of field), and good sharpening for the display medium. Or, in other words, nothing to do with the camera.

About a year back there was also a topic discussing Olympus blue. Now, it may be true that Olympus processes blue a bit differently in their pipeline; but in this topic, where everyone was posting their examples of Olympus blue, and every single so-called "Olympus blue" had a completely different hues and tones and rendition. I was forced to dismiss the whole discussion as BS.
--
http://www.photoklarno.com

...watching threads in this forum about how small sensor size is not realy an issue with things like MTF, noise and DOF.

don't forget the Sigma greens (courtesy of Foveon). with this though, I do think there is a difference, from the construction of the sensor to the outputs I've seen. sometimes even have issues where the output of my DP2 has too much green cast, but of course that's from mis-set settings. if done right, the output to me seems unique.

as for the "leica look," I do agree that it's more to do with the technology in use at the time of rangefinder heyday, and Leica being the poster manufacturer then, and it's continued existence as one of the few rangefinder manufacturers today. also, don't forget that the rangefinder photography style lends itself to a particular type of photography that I think produces images of a slightly different composition/nature. can be mimicked of course, but it's got a distinctive feel to the images, to the point that other images are referred to as being rangefinder-esque.

seems more appropriate to use "leica look" for the pre-modern M's than the current-production lenses and especially the digital bodies, but being rangefinders, I think it still is a valid descriptor. but as for the Leica R series, does this also have the "leica look?" (nevermind that many components were Minolta-designed.) similar for rebranded stuff like P&S models, the Digilux 1/2, the 4/3-mount Digilux 3, etc. saying that these produce the same "leica look" as an M3 with same-era glass would seem preposterous. if true, then the term is too all-encompassing and not useful anymore.

small sensor size most certainly is a MAJOR ISSUE for DOF. It lets you shhot telephoto at smaller apertures and actually get more than a hair's breadth in focus. Terrible, isn't it....
--
Blogs and galleries at http://www.snowhenge.net
E-System photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/snowhenge/

davidrm said:

small sensor size most certainly is a MAJOR ISSUE for DOF. It lets you shhot telephoto at smaller apertures and actually get more than a hair's breadth in focus. Terrible, isn't it....

Click to expand...

Well it is terrible when you want to shoot telephoto and blur the background. So it's a benefit for Macro - but it works against you for subject isolation - say in sports.

That's the problem with rationalization. The key is actually understanding individual needs. For the macro shooter it's a benefit. For the sports shooter, it's a bane.

For portrait and such it's manageable. But I think those are two of the extreme cases where the smaller sensor is noticeably better or worse than the competition.

..Pinnacle did say that we had our own issues with this, and was keen to point out that he wasn't singling out the Leica forum for any particular reason
N
--
http://www.npmimages.com
http://www.npmimages.blogspot.com

Klarno said:

About a year back there was also a topic discussing Olympus blue. Now, it may be true that Olympus processes blue a bit differently in their pipeline; but in this topic, where everyone was posting their examples of Olympus blue, and every single so-called "Olympus blue" had a completely different hues and tones and rendition. I was forced to dismiss the whole discussion as BS.

Click to expand...

Not only different hues, but in many cases, all processed from RAW with non-Olympus tools. That's not "Olympus Blue". For that you need to see the out of camera JPGs from the models with Kodak sensors (primarily the E-1).

--



E-Five-Ten/E-One/E-Three-Hundred/E-Ten/C-Twenty-OneHundred-UZ/E-OneHundred-RS
DZ Eleven-TwentyTwo/DZ Fourteen-FiftyFour/DZ Fifty-TwoHundred
EC-Fourteen/FL-Fifty/FL-Forty
Oldma-cdon-aldh-adaf-arm-EI-EI-O

Subtle, but definitely there. Even the PL25 shows elements of it.

It's the 'leica price' that I have a problem with.

Far too much bandwidth has been expended on Oly blue. But, it's there. I've shot with several cameras, and blue skies just look 'better' when Olympus is doing the rendering.

Yes, that's a terribly subjective and competely unquantifiable judgment, but that's my judgment and I'm sticking to it.

But they aren't necessarily in producing better images.

The biggest and most important reason to buy a Leica is because you want one, and you can afford it. It makes no sense to ignore the "status" value of the brand, when we openly admit that other goods command high prices due to their brand status. Think Rolex, Posche, Gucci, etc. Cameras are no immune to this human urge to have status.

The Leica brand has plenty of status.
The Samsung brand doesn't.

These are just simple facts.

The other good reason to buy Leica is for their lenses. They truly are excellent. If you want the best of anything, you must pay money to get it. Whether they are worth ten times the price of high end lenses by other makers is open to debate. But no sensible person can say that Leica doesn't make outstanding lenses.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

Midnighter said:

...watching threads in this forum about how small sensor size is not realy an issue with things like MTF, noise and DOF.

Click to expand...

...or having a glimpse at transient posters with no credible portfolio, claiming any particularly camera statistic is clearly a failure in photography.

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/7-14/12-60/35-100/150/50-200/25/EC14/EC20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

O.K. people...

I wasn't trying to pick on Leica fans. I simply used their thread because it is a current topic in their forum and has some humorous posts. Leica products have their nicer attributes like each of the other brands have their unique qualities. If I had come across a similar Canon thread, I would have used that as a point of reference.

These threads come and go. My point is to enjoy the interesting ways that users of each brand try to promote their perceived value edge within the brand offerings. Many Leica users for example maintain their perception of a unique "Leica look" or Leica glow" Some Olympus users promote their perception of "Oly colors" or "Oly blue skies".

Its all in good fun. I'm just recommending checking out the humorous posts will you come across in the various forums from time to time.

Dan
--

Will I learn from life's lessons or will I lose my faith in the goodness life's promise had to offer?

The only time I ever had issues with DOF was in the use of large format cameras, I dont mind the so called 'DOF issues' of 4/3 at all... its a storm in a teacup that gets the most airplay in this forum because its easy to see and understand. Because of that it overshadows sensor photosite density affecting ISO noise and sensor size relationship to the MTF, which are also physics issues but with no up side like the one you mentioned for DOF.

Personally I got the biggest kick out learning from the thread that Leica's can apparently take "non-color" images.

My crappy Olympus only does color and monochrome!

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.

"Rationalization is the second strongest human motivation." I'm not sure what the first is though... I enjoy reading up on other brands as I become more knowledgeable on cameras in general.

Absolutely!

Leica has and does make outstanding lenses. I'm sure that many brands now have lenses that can compete with Leica glass but I've never heard anyone trounce Leica based on the quality of their lenses.

As to your other argument about "status"... that's where I have a tendency to inform the emperor he is scantily clad. If one buys a camera, or anything else, for that matter just to impress... well that's what we call being shallow. In the case of Leica, Contax and other brands popular with the Hamptons crowd there is unfortunately a great deal of that at work.

"Templeton! fetch my Leica from the Bentley!"

You can imagine the stunned faces and the sound of bone china tea cups hitting an Italian marble floor if one were to replace Leica with Kodak in the previous sentence.

That is the main reason Leica commands such absurd prices for products that are often purposely lacking in the technological innovations found in those owned by the "little people". Read the reviews on some of the latest from esoteric brands like Leica... not stellar even in the image quality department.

I have nothing against good cameras of any brand but when prices are driven to extremes simply because it sets them apart from people who have actually been on a bus.... well there we get back to the whole shallow thing...

Yes... we've all tried to impress at one time or another, but isn't that something you're supposed to grow out of as you mature? Certain products base their entire pricing structure not on their quality so much as the shallow nature of their customer base... they're free to do that but isn't it a little sad?

I would buy a Leica if the price differential equaled the dramatic difference in quality from other brands. I have yet to see an example of that equation balancing.



--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.

I want my camera to take as accurate a photo as possible. Unless you're purposely looking for distortions like tilt-shift... isn't that the basic goal of a camera? I don't want anybody's look. Olympus, Leica or otherwise.

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.

Sitting on my shelf.
--
Glen