I'm fortunate enough to have 5 - 35mm cameras: T4, F100, Konica Hexar-silver, and two Leicas..0.58 and 0.85 I've looked at alot of pics and chromes and there is a Leica differance. The out of focus areas are spectacular and always amaze me. The sharp areas are razor sharp! Others which I've tried and use seem to have a common thread, good but don't have that special quality which sets Leica from the rest. Leica means work...the work of creating the image while the auto-everything cameras are so much easiler to use with their balanced flash, auto exposure and focus. Still, there really is nothing else...

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), February 26, 2001

Answers

I recently gave my wife an 8x10 I printed of her and our dog. It was shot with Delta 400 and a Summincon 50. The light was very good, and I did an average job of printing it. She commented immediately about how finely detailed the texture of her sweatshirt and jeans looked, and how natural the dog's fur looked. Mind you, most all the pictures she sees come from Nikon and Zeiss lenses. I did not prompt her in any way. I then told her it was one of the Leica images. She remarked that it (the Leica) really did take a better picture. That image is now privileged to hang on the laundry room cork board, a place for prized items only. (Ironically, she was initially against the Leica purchase due to the relatively high cost).

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 26, 2001.

Bullsh*t.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), February 26, 2001.

Excuse me? Bill, were you hoping to convey, with minimal expenditure of words, that at rare moments in the history of photography, that several sharp pictures have been made with non-Leica lenses, such as Nikon and Zeiss? I'd have to agree. Still, a Leica photo still has a certain Je ne sais pas quois ... that Don's wife must have been responding to. But what is it?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 26, 2001.

Since no-one is ever going to give me a show where I hang cameras on the wall,I hope that people see a "Jeff Spirer" difference, something that makes my photographs worth hanging. If it came down to a specific camera, anyone with enough money would get a show. So far, my strategy has worked.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 26, 2001.

Jeff's made a good point by implying that ultimately it's the photographer that makes the greatest difference. However, Don's also correct that there's a distinct difference between the Leica lenses,compared with others. My point being that it's obviously both: the eye of the photographer and the lens that captures the image.

By the way Jeff, not everyone wants a show to hang there photographs. Congratulations on your success though, you certainly make some great images.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), February 26, 2001.

I don't know what the reasons are, but the good pictures I've taken with Leicas in the last few years all look better than the good ones I took for the previous 10 years with Nikon gear. Maybe I'm a better photographer now, maybe the films are better than they used to be, maybe the lenses I'm using have better characteristics, maybe I've talked myself into it - realistically it's a combination of all those factors.

I do notice that my photos these days have a much nicer look. They are still have a "Paul Chefurka" look - composition, choice of subject matter, choice of focal length, choice of perspecive etc. etc. However, it does seem to me that my images look better in a purely technical way that seems to correlate to the lenses. The colours seem to have more shades, smooth areas of tone look smoother, there seems to be more distinction between "in" and "out" of focus areas.

It's not related just to the films, because I see the same effects in chemical prints from negs, inkjet prints from negs, projected slides and inkjet prints from slides.

I have no idea whether this is "the Leica difference", but it's sure part of "my Leica difference" (ceteris bulshittus paribus).

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), February 27, 2001.

Bill seems alittle uptight...go easy pal. Now there's no need to get in a dither now is there...

Don I'm glad you enjoy your Leicas and the images you create with them.

Bob

-- (mac@mcsal.com), February 27, 2001.

Fantastic responses, but I did not wish to create such a stir. My post was just my opinion, nothing else. I have been doing photography for 20+ years and I feel that my images are the best they have ever been. The F5 was good but did not produce the images which I wanted to produce.If you are happy with your images using your equipt., great! For me I prefer the Leica for my type of 35 mm photography. I still do use 120 MF for panoramics (Noblex) but find I am using it less and less.

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), February 27, 2001.

I am with Don. One of the side effects of using the Leica M system is that I stop buying or itching for any 'new' eqipment for six months and continuing on.

-- Kenny Chiu (amchiu@worldnet.att.net), February 27, 2001.

I too agree with Don and Kenny. Over the years I've used Nikon, Olympus, and a few others. I've always had happy clients, but since buying a complete Leica outfit two things have happened. One is that I've stopped pining for new equipment. I've lost that 'gee there's something better out there' feeling. Secondly, whether it's true or not (though I genuinely feel it is), I see a difference for the better in the technical quality of my images. Both of these translate thusly: If I'm happier with my work, and more comfortable with my equipment, I WILL make better images.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 28, 2001.

As usual, well said Jeff!

-- Marke D. Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), February 28, 2001.

When I first bought my M4 and 50/f2, just over two years ago, I did all the usual 'test shot' putting the same film through the leica and a nikon + 50/1.4.. I could detect some difference, but I wondered if it was just me desperately expecting an improvement (with the Leica) But the real proof, of course, came when I used the Leica 'for real' at a musical get together at a hotel in the scottish highlands.. The results, all indoors, but lit by lovely big 'picture windows' were astounding; At last I could 'see' the Leica diference; the colour almost sang from the prints, no-one was looking 'quizically' into the camera, and the sharpness took my breath away.. (sorry I don't have a site to show the pic's.. maybe one day!) Yes I'd agree, there is a leica difference, and it is a different difference for each of us (!)

-- Alastair Cowe (a.cowe@ucl.ac.uk), March 12, 2001.

I graduated from Art Center in L.A. and spent 20 years as a professional photographer before I got a second degree and started a career in computers. I have used Nikons, Canons, Blads, Sinars, etc. Out of the thousands of photos I've taken, I can always tell those which I took with my M3. At one time I did a fairly controlled test with my M3, a Nikon and a Canon. The Leica was not necessarily sharper, but had a distinctive look. Part of "the look" is the out of focus areas of the photograph. There is a Japanese word for this (which I have forgotten). My M3 is still my favorite camera (edging out my Sinar) and I love the images it produces, even though it's more than 40 years old. This is purely a subjective, emotional response. -Doug

-- Doug MacMillan (dougmacmillansr@mindspring.com), April 06, 2001.

Doug The out of focus area is called bokeh

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 07, 2001.