Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric, We're talking about viewfinders here... At 6:21 AM -0000 1/17/99, Eric Welch wrote: >>1. The Leicas seem to have a blue tint compared to the Nikons. I consider >>this "feature" a disadvantage as well. I wonder if anyone could explain >>why Leica does this. > >Actually, Nikon lenses tend to be more yellow. Leica is anything but blue. >Contax lenses are bluer than Leica, and they will tell you they are "neutral." > If you look through a Leica R viewfinder without a lens, and do the same with a Nikon body, you'll see a difference. And with 50mm lenses attached, view the same scene with both cameras and tell me if they're the same. >>2. The max. aperature of the lenses has an immediate difference. I might >>imagine that the Nikon lens you use is a 1.4 (very common and inexpensive), >>whereas the Summicron is 2.0 . That one extra f stop makes a difference. >>Likewise the 28 is slower than the 50, right? > >This doesn't make sense at all. How would that show differences between >lenses? How often do most people shoot wide open? And how much are you >going to see a difference between f/2 and f/1.4 in a 50mm lens? Eric, are you telling me that if you took your 35 summilux and a 35 elmarit into a dark room, that you could focus as well with both lenses? With an M, that's true. The image you see is through the rangefinder. But with the R body, the max. aperature indeed makes a difference in ease of focussing. You're using the light that goes through the lens.