Are LEICA good?

wrote:
I appreciate every every comments and learning from them.

The camera that I have in mind, at this time, is the Panasonic DMC-FZ50K.
In Canada the regular price is $799.99.
DSLR would probably be better. But to get a good zoom for bird photography
I would have to carry a 400mm telephoto lens.
This adds up to the carrying bag. This Panasonic DMC-FZ50K has a 12X
optical zoom. Along with good quality lens I may be able to do away with a
bulky telephoto? The quality may less than using a DSLR?


Yes, you'll save some space and some weight but you won't get anywhere
near the results of a good telephoto and a DSLR.
A friend of mine has one of those PanaLeicas. It is what it is. A
decent carry-around all-in-one design, but nowhere near the quality of
a good DSLR.
Also, be wary of that "12x" designation. That just means the max zoom
range is 12x the minimum zoom. They claim "35mm equivalent 36-432mm."
This is equivalent to 22.5-270mm on a DSLR with a 1.6x crop factor like
my 20D.
That's a pretty wide range for any lens to cover well. Also, note that
my 400mm on my 20D is the film equivalent of a 640mm lens. So for
birding, you'll likely be disappointed with the Panasonic.

Mark² wrote:
Bill Crocker wrote:

wrote in message
...

At one time the Leica lens were the best money could buy. Then
Japan took over and Leica faded away.
Now Panasonic is advertising the use of Leica lens. I wonder what
exactly is the meaning of the Leica name and who makes the lens now?


Ford put the Jaguar name on a glorified Ford Tarus. Enough said.


Not enough...
...They also put "Land Rover" on a glorified Ford Escape(!).
What a joke.

Maybe not. The Wash Post did a graphic (several months ago) on
automobile faults found per 100 vehicles in the first 3 years.

Land Rover were the absolute worst. Badging a Ford can only get their
numbers up ... unless actually built in a Rangerover factory. Then it's
for the dogs.

MercBenz, Audi, Volks, BMW were "sub average" to "average".

Surprising high quality: Mercury. (I don't get it either...)

Toyota/Honda and Lexus/Accura were among the very best, of course.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Bill Crocker wrote:

wrote in message
...

At one time the Leica lens were the best money could buy. Then
Japan took over and Leica faded away.
Now Panasonic is advertising the use of Leica lens. I wonder
what
exactly is the meaning of the Leica name and who makes the lens
now?

Ford put the Jaguar name on a glorified Ford Tarus. Enough said.


Not enough...
...They also put "Land Rover" on a glorified Ford Escape(!).
What a joke.

Maybe not. The Wash Post did a graphic (several months ago) on
automobile faults found per 100 vehicles in the first 3 years.

Land Rover were the absolute worst. Badging a Ford can only get
their
numbers up ... unless actually built in a Rangerover factory. Then
it's for the dogs.

MercBenz, Audi, Volks, BMW were "sub average" to "average".

Surprising high quality: Mercury. (I don't get it either...)

Toyota/Honda and Lexus/Accura were among the very best, of course.

Cheers,
Alan

My son-in-law's cousin runs a Ford dealership's service department. He
says that over the past couple years they've changed their staffing:
several tune-up and repair mechanics were laid off because there
wasn't enough work to justify their employment. Now there are a few
technicians and a few lubers, and a few lot boys.

--
Frank ess

wrote:
I appreciate every every comments and learning from them.

The camera that I have in mind, at this time, is the Panasonic
DMC-FZ50K. In Canada the regular price is $799.99.
DSLR would probably be better. But to get a good zoom for bird
photography I would have to carry a 400mm telephoto lens.
This adds up to the carrying bag. This Panasonic DMC-FZ50K has a 12X
optical zoom. Along with good quality lens I may be able to do away
with a bulky telephoto? The quality may less than using a DSLR?

For long telephoto shots, the Panasonic range is ideal. Yes, you could
get slightly better results and a faster response time with a DSLR, but at
considerably greater expense in money, size and weight. My own camera is
the FZ5 which weighs only about 300 grams and is really compact, but also
has the 432mm equivalent, image-stabilised zoom. It should be a lot
cheaper than CAD $799.

Most DSLRs produce a cut-down image compared to 35mm film, which means
they would typically need a lens of about 290mm focal length to get the
same field of view as the Panasonic 432mm. Being able to operate the DSLR
at a higher ISO might mean that you could do away with the image
stabilisation but, most people who have used IS telephoto lenses do not
wish to go back.

What the lowest price and weight for a DSLR with a 300mm image-stablised
lens?

Try handling both in the shop, and imagine carrying them round all day.

David

Are LEICA good?

NO

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth

That is patently NOT true. Just a few year ago I enlarged some black
and white pictures made with a Leica camera and lens, I believe a 35mm
Summicron lens. The quality was very, very good. And I am picky about
those things, I know the quality of a micro Nikkor, I have seen prints
from Canon prime lenses and all were very good, but the Leica pictures
were even better.


Well I guess that settles THAT!

Oh by the way, could you perhaps share some of those photos with us so
that we can all be blown away by the Leica quality? Or is the Leica
superiority just an analog thing that doesn't do so well in digital
form? The reason I ask is because I've often challenged Leica users to
show me some pics that couldn't be taken with a different top notch
lens, but I never get a reply. I'm left to conclude that either the
Leica lenses aren't really better, or else that Leica users simply
don't take pictures with them. Most Leicas are worn like jewelry.
Taking pics with them would only hurt their re-sale value.

Recently, I was able to use the spectacular Canon 85mm f/1.2L. Now
THAT is a lens!
Here's a shot I took with it.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.


I saw a test recently of the Canon 85mm F1.2 and the Pentax 85mm F1.4 and
the Pentax was actually sharper at F1.4, surprised me that the Pentax was
sharper wide open. Actually thinking about it it may have been the 50mm but
I don't think so.

I will see if I can find the link.

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth

That is patently NOT true. Just a few year ago I enlarged some black
and white pictures made with a Leica camera and lens, I believe a 35mm
Summicron lens. The quality was very, very good. And I am picky about
those things, I know the quality of a micro Nikkor, I have seen prints
from Canon prime lenses and all were very good, but the Leica pictures
were even better.


Well I guess that settles THAT!

Oh by the way, could you perhaps share some of those photos with us so
that we can all be blown away by the Leica quality? Or is the Leica
superiority just an analog thing that doesn't do so well in digital
form? The reason I ask is because I've often challenged Leica users to
show me some pics that couldn't be taken with a different top notch
lens, but I never get a reply. I'm left to conclude that either the
Leica lenses aren't really better, or else that Leica users simply
don't take pictures with them. Most Leicas are worn like jewelry.
Taking pics with them would only hurt their re-sale value.

Recently, I was able to use the spectacular Canon 85mm f/1.2L. Now
THAT is a lens!
Here's a shot I took with it.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.


I saw a test recently of the Canon 85mm F1.2 and the Pentax 85mm F1.4 and
the Pentax was actually sharper at F1.4, surprised me that the Pentax was
sharper wide open. Actually thinking about it it may have been the 50mm
but I don't think so.

I will see if I can find the link.


http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax85/index.html

"John Bean" wrote in message
...
On 18 Oct 2006 14:22:34 -0700, "Annika1980"
wrote:


wrote:
The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth

That is patently NOT true. Just a few year ago I enlarged some black
and white pictures made with a Leica camera and lens, I believe a 35mm
Summicron lens. The quality was very, very good. And I am picky about
those things, I know the quality of a micro Nikkor, I have seen prints
from Canon prime lenses and all were very good, but the Leica pictures
were even better.


Well I guess that settles THAT!

It settles it just as effectively as the fool who posted:

"Leica and Zeiss have been living off an old
reputation for a long time now. They are the Cadillac of
lenses. And like today's Cadillacs, they are overrated and
over-priced."

Or for that matter:

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.

Way to go Brett. What a ****wit.

--
John Bean

Actually the F1.2 is not as good as you think.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax85/index.html

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...

John Bean wrote:
Well I guess that settles THAT!

It settles it just as effectively as the fool who posted:

"Leica and Zeiss have been living off an old
reputation for a long time now. They are the Cadillac of
lenses. And like today's Cadillacs, they are overrated and
over-priced."

Or for that matter:

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.

Way to go Brett. What a ****wit.


I note that you didn't refute my statements with some examples or some
test results, but instead just called me a fool and a ****wit. Were
you pressed for time?
BTW, it's "Bret" with one "t."


http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax85/index.html

Your comments are fair enough, my answer should have been more precise
(just as your accusation could have been more precise...). It is true
that the brand is for some buyers rather a display of luxury, much like
buying a Patek Philippe watch.
Still, from an objective, scientific point of view, if you'd look at
lens measurement charts, you would notice that Leica rangefinder lenses
are as good as it gets. I will concede that quite a few Nikkor or Canon
lenses will be just as good as specific Leica counterparts but as a
whole the M-series lenses family are incredibly good. A bad photo will
definitely not be because of the lens.
You asked for a sample. Alas, I can't give you one, back then I made a
few prints for someone I knew with a Leica. Let me rather describe what
we liked so much about them. All good lenses are very sharp, but what
that particular leica lens did very well was give an almost 3d effect,
the picture really seemed to jump out of the frame. It's rather how the
difference between sharp focused objects and fuzzy backgrounds
translates to the end result. The depth of field seemed more
artistically rendered than on the prints that I was used to. This is
not a scientific explanation, I know, but I was definitely not the only
one reacting this way.
As a counterpoint to all this, I made my very best prints with a very
old rolleiflex with Schneider lens. The combination of a very good lens
and the larger film surface yielded results that were better than
anything I ever saw in 35mm, Leica included. The rollei is still my
favorite camera ever, I like it more than my much more versatile D200,
even if I don't use it so often anymore.


Annika1980 wrote:
wrote:
The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth

That is patently NOT true. Just a few year ago I enlarged some black
and white pictures made with a Leica camera and lens, I believe a 35mm
Summicron lens. The quality was very, very good. And I am picky about
those things, I know the quality of a micro Nikkor, I have seen prints
from Canon prime lenses and all were very good, but the Leica pictures
were even better.


Well I guess that settles THAT!

Oh by the way, could you perhaps share some of those photos with us so
that we can all be blown away by the Leica quality? Or is the Leica
superiority just an analog thing that doesn't do so well in digital
form? The reason I ask is because I've often challenged Leica users to
show me some pics that couldn't be taken with a different top notch
lens, but I never get a reply. I'm left to conclude that either the
Leica lenses aren't really better, or else that Leica users simply
don't take pictures with them. Most Leicas are worn like jewelry.
Taking pics with them would only hurt their re-sale value.

Recently, I was able to use the spectacular Canon 85mm f/1.2L. Now
THAT is a lens!
Here's a shot I took with it.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.