Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Mike Johnston>>>>Note that I didn't say that MTF data is invalid--I merely >>said that starting with this data and extropolating what "should" happen in a >>print based on this data is a wrongheaded approach--and I >>believe it is. >> > >In his 1987 Leica M book (page 55), Osterloh states that Leica lenses are designed for photographing three-dimensional objects and that "Those who attempt to evaluate the performance capabilities of Leitz lenses with the help of test charts and MTF curves will -- to put it in photograhic terms -- easily get the wrong picture. That is also the reason why test verdicts published by respected magazines and institutes do not always agree with the experience of recognized photographic experts and photographers." > >Or is this the (old) Leitz company rather than the (new) Leica company of the ASPH age? > >--Mitch > >--Mitch > > ############ Osterloh's opinion was and is controversial. Remember that he was (and he still is) a Leitz's employee. In the '80, serious MTF tests began to be published by photographic reviews (in 1983, for Chasseur d'images). The result was that some Leitz lenses were not the first in the class-room :e.g. 2.8/28 m ; 2/35 m ; 2.8/90m ; 4/135m (the latest supposed to be "the best " according to Leitz propaganda).The Myth around the Noctilux was severely defeated too. The first reaction was to deny any scientific ground to the tests made by "commercial" reviews. As that first reaction was rather stupid because readers and customers are not stupid, Leica Camera reacted intelligibly by producing new outstanding lenses. Dominique M. Dominique Pellissier Maître de conférences en économie Université de Nancy2 13, place Carnot C.O. n°26 F-54035 Nancy cedex France phone : 0383261702 mobile : 0612240885 fax :0383192601