[Leica] obviously subjective - yet interesting

[grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com)]

That is why they have a AF Fine Tune function in their high end DSLRs, so 
you can correct their mass production variances in camera.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 6:42:46 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [Leica] obviously subjective - yet interesting

Part of the reason I sold the Nikon is that most short lenses are not up to 
its sensor IMO. I had a Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 which at f5.6 was close to the 
quality of my Summilux asph at f2.0 ;-) The fussy users on getdpi are 
adapting Leica R (primarily 19mm v2, 28mm and 50mm Summicron) as they are 
still superior to current offerings, Sigmas 35mm is good if you can find a 
well assembled version... Zeiss will one day release their huge 55mm f1.4 
Distagon, their 135mm f2.0 is good but has sample variation - one of the 
things you pay for with Leica, Hasselblad (of old), Linhof etc is tight 
quality control, Japanese manufacturers mass produce and it is luck as to 
whether you get a good one, and whether you complain if not....

john

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> ? With my Canon SLR's, at least, I can focus on any particular point.
> Either use the AE/AF button on the back of the camera instead of on the
> shutter release, in this case to lock on the eyes, or just dial the spot 
> focus
> point around until it lands where you want, e.g., on the eyes.  My guess is
> that there was a more global autofocus in play here.  And it is a guess.  
> This is
> not to say that Leica lenses are anything but the best, obviously they 
> are, just
> to speculate that it was not an apples-to-oranges test.
> 
> Ken
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> What use is it if you cannot focus where you want?
> 
> ;-)  john
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > My Canon L zooms benefit from the micro adjustment for auto focus, but
> > the primes seem OK as is, so far.  I wonder where the auto-focus point
> > was with the Nikon?  Judging from the out-of-focus areas, I'm guessing
> > it was not on the eyes.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Hmmm,
> > A new Nikon 50mm F1.4 G is less than $500 and a new 50mm Summilux
> Asph
> > is $4,000. Perhaps there is some truth that you get what you pay for.
> > :-) Also I have found that all my nikon lenses benefited from being
> > auto focus fine tuned due to variations in assembly. Perhaps the 50
> > Nikkor in this test was not tuned to the body used. Just a thought. I
> > have two Nikkor 50 f1.4 D lenses and they are both softer at f1.8 than
> > my newly purchased and focus tuned 50mm F1.8 G. It cost me $220.00.
> > Howard
> >
> > Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:57:33 -0500
> > From: George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] obviously subjective - yet interesting
> > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> >
> > On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:59 AM, philippe.amard wrote:
> >
> > > Repat the same experiment at, say, 12800 ISO ;-)
> >
> > > Le 7 juin 13 ? 17:46, George Lottermoser a ?crit :
> > >
> > >> <http://www.stephenbartelsgallery.com/blog/nikon-d800e-v-leica-
> > m9.htm
> > >> l>
> >
> > Would if I could.
> > Wish I had both (or either) kits in my possession. ;~(
> >
> > Regards,
> > George Lottermoser
> > george at imagist.com
> > http://www.imagist.com
> > http://www.imagist.com/blog
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
> >
> 

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information