Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From my observations I'd have to preliminarily agree with Simon. I got into Leica looking for good sharpness and less contrast, and that's what I think I've found. Dave Yoder Eric Welch wrote: > At 11:07 AM 8/31/99 -0400, you wrote: > >I suspect that Leica's approach is an expensive one. Without the high > >resolution lower contrast images would look awful. > > Actually, Leica's lenses are not that outstanding in the resolution > area. Some are, some aren't. They're all great, but not much more than the > competition. They tend to have high contrast. You are mistaking subject > contrast for lens contrast. That is, the ability to discriminate the edge > of a line, not the differences in the highlights and shadows and the "local > contrast" as Ansel Adams and other refer to it, or tonal modulation from > one brightness level to another. That's contrast controlled via film and > processing. Contrast in a lens is controlled in the designer's computer. A > decent lens in terms of low resolution, but great in terms of high > contrast, will tend to make pictures that look sharper than the other way > around. > > Any lens test that says Leica lenses are, as a class, low contrast, needs > to be fixed. > > Eric Welch > St. Joseph, MO > > http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > > Okay, who put a stop payment on my reality check?