Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> What is “image quality”? This is a great question, and the one that really counts after all. Who cares if a lens scores great on the MTF charts but renders images in a way you find unattractive? I believe Erwin's point, however, is that if one is to pay the considerable price for Leica quality lenses, one ought to at least be _able_ get the most out of those lenses (otherwise, why pay the premium?). For some traits, like color rendition, there's little the photographer can do to impact it (excepting options in film and processing). For others, like flare resistance, there are some things that can help--using a shade, for example--but so much depends on the lens (no. of elements, coating, etc.). And for resolution, a great deal depends on the ability to achieve accurate focus and to keep the camera still. Here the distance from bayonet flange to film plane (i.e., back focus) can have a real impact. If we only shoot Leica M because it's quiet and unobtrusive, and if resolution were the only factor to image quality, there'd be no compelling reason to buy anything but cosina/voigtlander or Konica lenses for the M. But there _are_ other factors, and in some ways they mean more than sharpness. How do we measure these? User ratings ala http://www.photozone.de/ can help, but ulimately, since image quality is so subjective, it would seem one has to buy and test the lenses for oneself. Having done so, I'm still inclined to keep my Hexar RF despite Erwin's findings regarding the back focus. For my work, in my images, I just don't see any lack of sharpness. Perhaps it would show up if I were to enlarge beyond 13x18? Dan