[Leica] Camera-Lens comparisons

[tgray at 125px.com (Tim Gray)]

On Nov 17, 2010 at 05:40 PM -0600, James Laird wrote:
> Yeah I don't get it. Why didn't they put a good 50mm on the 1Ds? They
> compared apples and oranges (mind you, I am NOT a Canon fan, but hey?)
> Would have been much more interesting. The Summilux did shine though!

I just want to state this: I'm not picking on you specifically here.

This is one of my biggest beefs with the internet: "They compared apples and 
oranges."  I hear that all the time.  You're damn right they compared apples 
and oranges.  They are both valid options.  And they have differences and 
similarities, which makes it a good set of things to compare.  I like 
apples; my girlfriend prefers oranges.  When I pack my lunch in the morning, 
I think about which fruit I'd like to deal with during the day.  Maybe I 
have a taste for a banana, but they don't travel so well, so if things are 
going to get banged up, maybe the apple is a better choice.  Maybe the 
orange is too messy to eat today.  Etc.  It'd be really boring if every 
comparison out there was a comparison of one Gala apple to another Gala 
apple.

The dude who owns the 1Ds probably wanted an AF, zoom, super automated 
camera to match up with his medium format system.  It's a valid comparison 
because it's probably his typical usage scenario: Do I want the $40k big 
bulky, high quality, slow working camera, or the 'small' nimble fast working 
camera today?  What do I give up in making that choice?

There are 'better' lenses than the 24-105.  Most of them aren't as flexible. 
Frankly, the EF 50/1.4 is nothing write home about.  It's one of the main 
reasons I starting shooting M's to begin with.  Sure, some will say, 'Put on 
a Zeiss ZE!' but frankly, if I'm going to shoot manual focus, I'd prefer to 
do it on a camera that is actually designed to be used in that manner.  I 
find MF on DSLRs to be an annoying experience.

I will say this: It must have been nice to run comparisons in the days of 
film.  Then at least you could attempt to control all the variables except 
for the one you were varying.  Nowadays, it's near impossible to separate 
the lens from the camera brand from the sensor from the post processing.  We 
are really talking about testing integrated systems and need to somehow try 
to separate out various factors in our mind.  That's a hard thing to do. 
Very little of this testing is any where near scientific, even when it 
claims to be.  And when it is scientific, it's hard to interpret the 
results, because they don't always translate to the real world.

There's a current discussion on fredmiranda that had a bit of talk about how 
the Zeiss ZE line is superior to the Zeiss ZM line.  I was somewhat 
surprised about those comments, but never once did anybody mention the 
possibility of sensor differences between the 5DII and the M9 having any 
influence.  Not that they have to, it was just an oversight that I 
observed...