K5 getting noticed by the Leica crowd

zoltan1983snapper · 05-09-2011, 04:27 PM

OK, here's an example of a few shots from this weekend, using the two cameras in the same building, within an hour of one another, that shows their complementary strengths. I was shooting my graduate students' end-of-the-year reading using the K-5 with SMC 135/2.5, from the auditorium seats. Then, afterward, I mingled with the students and their friends and families with the M9 and Canon 50/1.2. The K-5 let me capture stuff from a distance, with stabilization, at high ISO with a not-so-fast lens; the M9 and Canon excelled at unobtrusiveness and a thin DOF that let me pick out specific subjects from a crowd. FWIW, I consider the Canon's flare and jittery bokeh features, not bugs, so don't get on my case ;-)

K-5:

M9:

RyanW · 05-10-2011, 08:51 AM

Pentax makes some good lenses, but Leica are at a whole 'nother level. And they should be. Quality costs money, money should get you quality. Leica lenses typically out perform others, especially wide open as far as sharpness is concerned. No doubt the engineering/manufacturing needed to get there to that point is where the cost comes in.

Emacs · 05-10-2011, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by RyanW

Pentax makes some good lenses, but Leica are at a whole 'nother level. And they should be. Quality costs money, money should get you quality. Leica lenses typically out perform others, especially wide open as far as sharpness is concerned. No doubt the engineering/manufacturing needed to get there to that point is where the cost comes in.

It isn't the case this time )
The bokeh is plain simply ugly at the first M9 shot. Looks very Canon 50 f1.4ish )

zoltan1983snapper · 05-10-2011, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Emacs

It isn't the case this time )
The bokeh is plain simply ugly at the first M9 shot. Looks very Canon 50 f1.4ish )

If you're referring to my pictures, you should read the text. It isn't a Leica lens, it's indeed a Canon.

Emacs · 05-10-2011, 09:37 AM

I was referring to RyanW who talked about leica lenses

Kim C · 05-10-2011, 10:43 AM

Leica do indeed make some very nice lenses and in the past I have owned/used quite a few of them. However, although I still prefer the Leica bodies, all the Leica lenses have gone.

My favourite lens for RF work is in fact a Pentax one. The 43mm Ltd in Leica thread mount. Otherwise I tend to use the Zeiss lenses unless I need very low light performance in which case I use the Voightlander ones. It's horses for courses really and personal preference.

The Leica lenses do have their own "look" but their performance is not that greater than some of the other RF lenses.

Kim

Originally posted by RyanW

Pentax makes some good lenses, but Leica are at a whole 'nother level. And they should be. Quality costs money, money should get you quality. Leica lenses typically out perform others, especially wide open as far as sharpness is concerned. No doubt the engineering/manufacturing needed to get there to that point is where the cost comes in.

RyanW · 05-10-2011, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by mabelsound

If you're referring to my pictures, you should read the text. It isn't a Leica lens, it's indeed a Canon.

Emacs knows his bokeh. That bokeh, while maybe not great looks better than a lot of seen from the Nikon's. Though Nikon does have some truly great bokeh on certain lenses. The 24mm comes to mind.

zoltan1983snapper · 05-10-2011, 01:56 PM

I am with you about actual Leica lenses, though, RyanW. The few I have render with extraordinary beauty, particularly in out of focus areas. I don't really mind harsh/nervous/whatever bokeh in some situations, though--I like lenses that you can recognize immediately from the photos they take.

In my limited experience, my favorite bokeh comes from the Pentax 77 and the Canon rangefinder 100/2.

I'd love a copy of the LTM 43 Limited...I haven't been able to use the 43 full-frame since I gave up film. It's great on the K-5 but not quite the same as the old LX.

Kim C · 05-10-2011, 02:16 PM

The 43mm in K mount is nice full frame on the Pentax film bodies.

It may just be me but the Leica LTM version actually seems even nicer.

Kim

Originally posted by mabelsound

I'd love a copy of the LTM 43 Limited...I haven't been able to use the 43 full-frame since I gave up film. It's great on the K-5 but not quite the same as the old LX.

DogLover · 05-10-2011, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Kim C

The 43mm in K mount is nice full frame on the Pentax film bodies.

It may just be me but the Leica LTM version actually seems even nicer.

Kim

It does look a little nicer. Kinda reminds me of current Zeiss'.

Kim C · 05-10-2011, 03:34 PM

I was referring more to the way the pictures look than the look of the lens but you're right, it is similar in apperance to the Zeiss lenses. Probably the biggest difference is the puul out hood.

Kim

Originally posted by DogLover

It does look a little nicer. Kinda reminds me of current Zeiss'.

zoltan1983snapper · 05-10-2011, 04:48 PM

really nice M3, Kim

usayit · 05-10-2011, 05:08 PM

New around here... (registered a while back though)

Interesting thread from the viewpoint of a long time Pentax fan (K10D, LX, ME 645, etc.. Takumars collector too) who shoots Leica (M3, M8, M9). Yes.. Leica shooters (Huff Especially) has a deep respect for all brands that deliver quality stuff but I didn't expect the type of response seen here.

In my experience, there's no point in "proving" the worthiness of shooting with a Leica. So much is subjective ranging from the obvious SLR versus Rangefinder, wonderful glass, onto to the peeping of pixels It would be a lie to say its a camera for everyone (no rangefinder is) but when it fits.. it sure does fit nicely.

cheers

PS> no I'm not wealthy.... I simply choose to spend on the 1 hobby I enjoy and skimp on everything else.

As much of the samples are of people in difficult lighting....

**rparmar** · 05-10-2011, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Kim C

The Leica lenses do have their own "look" but their performance is not that greater than some of the other RF lenses.

I have never used a Leica but certainly look at the pictures taken by their lenses in appreciation. That said, most of the appeal is down to the photographer, choice of subject, lighting and all the other usual photographic variables. I have tried to eliminate these factors and see the Leica magic. To be honest, yes, I am sure I can, but without handling and using such a lens myself I will never know.

That said, the amazing Leica rendering I think I see seems on par with the amazing FA Limited rendering I know I see. The difference being that I have used the latter not the former.

A little curiosity is a dangerous thing. I have now spent the money needed to get a Leica lens for my K20D. I can then shoot it alongside lenses I know well, with identical body and all other factors as consistent as possible.

Soon I will know. Part of me prays the Limiteds are just as good. Otherwise I might be in for quite an expensive little diversion!

jstevewhite · 05-11-2011, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

I have never used a Leica but certainly look at the pictures taken by their lenses in appreciation. That said, most of the appeal is down to the photographer, choice of subject, lighting and all the other usual photographic variables. I have tried to eliminate these factors and see the Leica magic. To be honest, yes, I am sure I can, but without handling and using such a lens myself I will never know.

That said, the amazing Leica rendering I think I see seems on par with the amazing FA Limited rendering I know I see. The difference being that I have used the latter not the former.

A little curiosity is a dangerous thing. I have now spent the money needed to get a Leica lens for my K20D. I can then shoot it alongside lenses I know well, with identical body and all other factors as consistent as possible.

Soon I will know. Part of me prays the Limiteds are just as good. Otherwise I might be in for quite an expensive little diversion!

Well, get ready. I think the Pentax comes the closest (amongst the japanese marques) to that Bavarian "feel" or "look". To really appreciate the Leitz and Zeiss lenses (and some of the Schneider ones) back in the day, you had to engage in the film equivalent of pixel peeping. That's when you stick a negative in a carrier, rack the enlarger to the top, and put a 25x or 50x grain focuser down on the easel and peer into it, arm twisted above you to turn the knob on the focusing bellows. Not all Zeiss, nor all Leitz, are stunners, but when they get it right, there's no comparison. From the feel of the lens to the look of the image, they're incomparable. When I decided to get back into photography as a hobby, I remembered some tests I did of Pentax lenses against Zeiss, Leitz, Nikkor, Canon, and Oly (never was a Minolta fan); the Pentax came the closest, in 35mm, in 645, and in 6x7. Leitz has this presence to the reds and the sky looks like a polarizer was used; Pentax comes close, very close.

I had a very expensive revelation once, when a "friend" loaned me a Hasselblad to shoot side-by-side with my Mamiya RB-67.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Diverse Crowd at the Buffet	acbees	Post Your Photos!	3	10-18-2010 04:51 PM
People In the Crowd	Kenn100D	Post Your Photos!	6	01-19-2010 12:12 AM
Landscape Three's company, four's a crowd	Myoptimism	Photo Critique	8	12-20-2009 11:02 AM
One In Every Crowd	Nowhere Matt	Post Your Photos!	2	09-23-2009 12:25 PM

05-09-2011, 04:27 PM	#91
zoltan1983snapper Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 240	OK, here's an example of a few shots from this weekend, using the two cameras in the same building, within an hour of one another, that shows their complementary strengths. I was shooting my graduate students' end-of-the-year reading using the K-5 with SMC 135/2.5, from the auditorium seats. Then, afterward, I mingled with the students and their friends and families with the M9 and Canon 50/1.2. The K-5 let me capture stuff from a distance, with stabilization, at high ISO with a not-so-fast lens; the M9 and Canon excelled at unobtrusiveness and a thin DOF that let me pick out specific subjects from a crowd. FWIW, I consider the Canon's flare and jittery bokeh features, not bugs, so don't get on my case ;-) K-5: M9:

05-10-2011, 08:51 AM	#92
RyanW Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 583	Pentax makes some good lenses, but Leica are at a whole 'nother level. And they should be. Quality costs money, money should get you quality. Leica lenses typically out perform others, especially wide open as far as sharpness is concerned. No doubt the engineering/manufacturing needed to get there to that point is where the cost comes in.

05-10-2011, 09:09 AM	#93
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by RyanW Pentax makes some good lenses, but Leica are at a whole 'nother level. And they should be. Quality costs money, money should get you quality. Leica lenses typically out perform others, especially wide open as far as sharpness is concerned. No doubt the engineering/manufacturing needed to get there to that point is where the cost comes in. It isn't the case this time ) The bokeh is plain simply ugly at the first M9 shot. Looks very Canon 50 f1.4ish )

05-10-2011, 09:20 AM	#94
zoltan1983snapper Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 240	Originally posted by Emacs It isn't the case this time ) The bokeh is plain simply ugly at the first M9 shot. Looks very Canon 50 f1.4ish ) If you're referring to my pictures, you should read the text. It isn't a Leica lens, it's indeed a Canon.

05-10-2011, 09:37 AM	#95
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	I was referring to RyanW who talked about leica lenses

05-10-2011, 10:43 AM	#96
Kim C Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lincoln, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 229	Leica do indeed make some very nice lenses and in the past I have owned/used quite a few of them. However, although I still prefer the Leica bodies, all the Leica lenses have gone. My favourite lens for RF work is in fact a Pentax one. The 43mm Ltd in Leica thread mount. Otherwise I tend to use the Zeiss lenses unless I need very low light performance in which case I use the Voightlander ones. It's horses for courses really and personal preference. The Leica lenses do have their own "look" but their performance is not that greater than some of the other RF lenses. Kim Originally posted by RyanW Pentax makes some good lenses, but Leica are at a whole 'nother level. And they should be. Quality costs money, money should get you quality. Leica lenses typically out perform others, especially wide open as far as sharpness is concerned. No doubt the engineering/manufacturing needed to get there to that point is where the cost comes in.

05-10-2011, 11:44 AM	#97
RyanW Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 583	Originally posted by mabelsound If you're referring to my pictures, you should read the text. It isn't a Leica lens, it's indeed a Canon. Emacs knows his bokeh. That bokeh, while maybe not great looks better than a lot of seen from the Nikon's. Though Nikon does have some truly great bokeh on certain lenses. The 24mm comes to mind.

05-10-2011, 01:56 PM	#98
zoltan1983snapper Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 240	I am with you about actual Leica lenses, though, RyanW. The few I have render with extraordinary beauty, particularly in out of focus areas. I don't really mind harsh/nervous/whatever bokeh in some situations, though--I like lenses that you can recognize immediately from the photos they take. In my limited experience, my favorite bokeh comes from the Pentax 77 and the Canon rangefinder 100/2. I'd love a copy of the LTM 43 Limited...I haven't been able to use the 43 full-frame since I gave up film. It's great on the K-5 but not quite the same as the old LX.

05-10-2011, 03:14 PM	#100
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Kim C The 43mm in K mount is nice full frame on the Pentax film bodies. It may just be me but the Leica LTM version actually seems even nicer. Kim It does look a little nicer. Kinda reminds me of current Zeiss'.

05-10-2011, 03:34 PM	#101
Kim C Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lincoln, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 229	I was referring more to the way the pictures look than the look of the lens but you're right, it is similar in apperance to the Zeiss lenses. Probably the biggest difference is the puul out hood. Kim Originally posted by DogLover It does look a little nicer. Kinda reminds me of current Zeiss'.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-10-2011, 04:48 PM	#102
zoltan1983snapper Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 240	really nice M3, Kim

05-10-2011, 05:08 PM	#103
usayit New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New Joisey Posts: 13	New around here... (registered a while back though) Interesting thread from the viewpoint of a long time Pentax fan (K10D, LX, ME 645, etc.. Takumars collector too) who shoots Leica (M3, M8, M9). Yes.. Leica shooters (Huff Especially) has a deep respect for all brands that deliver quality stuff but I didn't expect the type of response seen here. In my experience, there's no point in "proving" the worthiness of shooting with a Leica. So much is subjective ranging from the obvious SLR versus Rangefinder, wonderful glass, onto to the peeping of pixels It would be a lie to say its a camera for everyone (no rangefinder is) but when it fits.. it sure does fit nicely. cheers PS> no I'm not wealthy.... I simply choose to spend on the 1 hobby I enjoy and skimp on everything else. As much of the samples are of people in difficult lighting....

05-10-2011, 05:13 PM	#104
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,817	Originally posted by Kim C The Leica lenses do have their own "look" but their performance is not that greater than some of the other RF lenses. I have never used a Leica but certainly look at the pictures taken by their lenses in appreciation. That said, most of the appeal is down to the photographer, choice of subject, lighting and all the other usual photographic variables. I have tried to eliminate these factors and see the Leica magic. To be honest, yes, I am sure I can, but without handling and using such a lens myself I will never know. That said, the amazing Leica rendering I think I see seems on par with the amazing FA Limited rendering I know I see. The difference being that I have used the latter not the former. A little curiosity is a dangerous thing. I have now spent the money needed to get a Leica lens for my K20D. I can then shoot it alongside lenses I know well, with identical body and all other factors as consistent as possible. Soon I will know. Part of me prays the Limiteds are just as good. Otherwise I might be in for quite an expensive little diversion!

05-11-2011, 12:48 AM	#105
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by rparmar I have never used a Leica but certainly look at the pictures taken by their lenses in appreciation. That said, most of the appeal is down to the photographer, choice of subject, lighting and all the other usual photographic variables. I have tried to eliminate these factors and see the Leica magic. To be honest, yes, I am sure I can, but without handling and using such a lens myself I will never know. That said, the amazing Leica rendering I think I see seems on par with the amazing FA Limited rendering I know I see. The difference being that I have used the latter not the former. A little curiosity is a dangerous thing. I have now spent the money needed to get a Leica lens for my K20D. I can then shoot it alongside lenses I know well, with identical body and all other factors as consistent as possible. Soon I will know. Part of me prays the Limiteds are just as good. Otherwise I might be in for quite an expensive little diversion! Well, get ready. I think the Pentax comes the closest (amongst the japanese marques) to that Bavarian "feel" or "look". To really appreciate the Leitz and Zeiss lenses (and some of the Schneider ones) back in the day, you had to engage in the film equivalent of pixel peeping. That's when you stick a negative in a carrier, rack the enlarger to the top, and put a 25x or 50x grain focuser down on the easel and peer into it, arm twisted above you to turn the knob on the focusing bellows. Not all Zeiss, nor all Leitz, are stunners, but when they get it right, there's no comparison. From the feel of the lens to the look of the image, they're incomparable. When I decided to get back into photography as a hobby, I remembered some tests I did of Pentax lenses against Zeiss, Leitz, Nikkor, Canon, and Oly (never was a Minolta fan); the Pentax came the closest, in 35mm, in 645, and in 6x7. Leitz has this presence to the reds and the sky looks like a polarizer was used; Pentax comes close, very close. I had a very expensive revelation once, when a "friend" loaned me a Hasselblad to shoot side-by-side with my Mamiya RB-67.