Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have noted over the years a certain >>reluctance by Leitz to publish the MTF curves. I think that was in part >>related to the company's condescension to its users' intellectual ability >>in undestanding optics. It is only a recent development that some MTF > >That's not likely the case at all. First of all, one MTF chart is almost >meaningless. Why? Because a chart only shows one test, and it takes >hundreds of tests, different parts of the lens (center, edge, half way) >different colors of light, different lp/mm, etc. etc. Showing one MTF chart >is the equivalent, to me, of looking at one line of a food's nutrition >able. Some drinks have 100 per cent of the vitamin C one needs, but not >much else. One chart says how the lens tested out in one way. At least, >that was Leica's argument. Let's not attribute a bad attitude to Leica that >isn't deserved. >Eric Welch After having read the arguments against the mtf test of Leica lenses, especially those developed by Erwin, I must conclude that MTF is not objective because one test is inadequate and because a lot of measures needs a subjective interpretation. Well, as it is the general case in science, I must conclude that science is inadequate or subjective.I think this great post modern discovery deserves a name. I propose : the LUG impossibility hypothesis. Dominique