Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In response to Mark's most eloquent post: > Walt have you tried getting two cameras out at the same time and shoot the same > damn tree with both cameras and go home to your darkroom and knock out two 11x14 > matching prints? > You'd really see the difference then i think especially if you are using modern > Leica optics!. > (and real old crummier Vietnam era glass with the other:) > > > Mark Rabiner Well, Mark, you caught me...no, I've NEVER done this...REALLY!!! first, I don't have any "modern" (asph) Leica lenses...latest one is just BEFORE the current ones... and it's a REAL DOG....a 90 Summicron, just pre-asph....in fact, I'm considering throwing it away now that the ASPH one is out....My other junk dates from 60s, 70s, 80s---stuff that Erwin taught me (thank GOD) is now all but unusable for photography. Also, I'd simply be comparing ancient, extinct Leica stuff to that even MORE inferior 60s-80s Nikon junk...so I'm sure there would be NO conclusive results from such a test... Having USED the same gear for 20+ years, I don't KNOW what the edges of the print would look like at 8x from tech pan or velvia...I'd GUESS that the better Nikon stuff would be better than the lesser Leica! (105 Nikkor vs 90 summicron)... likewise, I KNOW that the 35 summicron would KICK THE NIKON 35s ASS> PERIOD> I do know that both are superb, and I can't pull negatives from years ago and say conclusively what I shot it with. (I have used Canon/Nikon SLR/RF, LTM, M, Contax/Zeiss/ and mixed lenses frequently between pedigrees) The 50 summicron and Nikkor I >did< test, scientifically (in college)....BOTH exceeded the max resolution of the test I did at the distance I did it!!! (better than 150 lines/mm at most stops)...at this point I made the STUPID assumption that both were so damn good it didn't even matter anymore...again, until the "LUG"... when I "found the truth"... I've told students for a long many years that as long as they buy MAJOR BRAND, fixed focal length lenses, and used them at high speeds or on a tripod, that the manufacturer of the lens (among MAJOR ones) had the LEAST to do with their results...the reliability of the gear and its repairability has MUCH MORE RELAVENCE to the photographer than "optical quality". Like Ted, I buy good stuff, it works well for me, I don't question it...my prints are sometimes ridiculously sharp, sometimes mush--MY FAULT, not the lens... Nikon, Canon, and Leica are all superb in these aspects, with of course longevity-- and HIGHEST PRICES--going to Leica. I sleep well at night continuing to tell them this. Even if the 100 R macro is better than the 105 Nikkor, under NORMAL 35mm working conditions (doubtful), it STILL wouldn't matter to the pros, because it doesn't fit on a camera body that they would own. As soon as there is competition for the M-camera (Mechanical, manual,with the same level of reliability/repairability, i.e. NOT Konica or Bessa) then I'd say it's a day to rejoice, as we no longer have to worship at the Leica alter to have a decent manual pro RF...but I'm not holding my breath. I may do your test tho...with the (1970s) 105 vs the MUCH later 90 Summicron, at f4 to make it a fair test...I don't think you want the results, tho!! :) :) :) Walt - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html