Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter and Nathan: I did find it a bit hard to believe because of all the talk a year+ ago about the dumb-down filters. I wonder if it isn't seen now because of better sensors in the newer cameras. I have a Kodak/Nikon DCS460, vintage about 1996.. with 6 mp and a cropping factor of 1:3. I can use my best Nikkor lenses on it, or a crappy Sigma zoom used years ago on a Spotmatic... there is no difference in the results, the sensor is of such early design that it picks up "Christmas Tree" artifacts when used outdoors, (trees, railings) with any lens. Jim Nathan Wajsman wrote: > Peter Klein wrote: > >> Jim: I have no examples. It just follows logically. On humble Web >> Jpegs, I can see drastic differences, wide-open or nearly so, between the >> 35 'Lux asph and its predecessor, or even the pre-asph 35/2 Summicron >> wide-open. Even the humble 3 megapixel 1/1.8 sensor on my Nikon Coolpix >> 990 can resolve greater detail than can be shown on a Web jpeg, so I'm >> certain a 6mp DSLR can show it, too. Ergo. . . >> >> Also note that Nathan (and others) have noted that they can see the >> difference on Canon DSLR shots between their Leica R lenses and the Canon >> or Sigma lenses. >> > Peter is right. The difference is clear. I don't care what the science > says, I don't know about what kind of anti-aliasing filter or whatever > my Canon 10D has. But I do know that when I put the 100mm Apo Macro on > it I get better pictures than I do with the Canon 85mm lens (which is no > slouch either), and when I put my newly aquired Canon 17-40mm L zoom on > it, the pictures are much better than those I got with the (now sold) > Sigma 17-35mm. All this talk about how with digital sensors lens quality > does not matter is bunk, based on my experience. > > Nathan >