Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, Not going to go there with you after this email. Digital sensors are much flatter and, therefore, less forgiving, than film. So lens precision and sensor placement is much more sensitive and important than when we shot film. That's why Alpa provides 0.01mm shims for it's digital back mounts to it's camera. You adjust the distance of the sensor from the lens by 0.01mm to get the back exactly placed. A 0.01mm difference is very noticeable to the eye. So digital precision is more important than you seem to realize. Thus the term "digital precision". If you want to "look it up" look no further than here: http://www.alpa.ch/en/support/photographic-know-how/can-i-fine-tune-the-adjustable-adpaters-for-digital-use.html or here: https://www.youtube.com/user/OptechsDigital As for the rest of your email, I have no idea what you're talking about... Seems to have zero relevance to the initial thread or my responses... Best, Bob On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > Wow Bob! "Digitally precise!" Sounds like a pejorative! I can look it up > but > I have a feeling I'm not going to find it! > As in what you get when you get a lens with cutting edge modern glass and > modern coatings and modern lens design? > And as if anyone ever could tell a digital photo from an analog photo. > A digital photo has no soul!!! > You get that well known hated "digital" look instead of the revered > "analog" > look. Which most people just chalk up to smoother bokeh and lower contrast. > And my god a lens with measurable micro contrast is probably a very bad > thing. Steals the soul! > We should be shooting tri x with single coated glass and making a real > photograph. > Bad equals good. > A premise which shoots the hell out of any intelligent conversation you're > ever going to try have about the materials and practice of photography. > > > > On 4/3/15 4:24 PM, "Bob Adler" <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I didn't complain that the old lenses make better images. I don't think > > lenses make images. > > The 0.95 is stellar: Sharper at 0.95 than the f/1 is at f/1 and a truly > > contrast-less bokeh. But I prefer the older less perfect look over the > > newer, more digitally precise. > > > > Dare you to say my preference is wrong! ;-) > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > wrote: > > > >> I would also like to see side by side comparisons but the meantime I'd > >> think > >> the new lens is better than the old one (which I have) on all accounts. > >> This > >> is a key lens in the Leica lineup with high visibility promo value and > the > >> last lens Dr. Andreas Kaufmann is going to mess up in any respect. > >> The f1 has trouble with digital. A huge embarrassment for the Leica > >> company. > >> This one costing three times more money and having the fastest design > >> available is not going to have any glitches in it. Its going to be worth > >> it. > >> Leica has the resources to make sure this is the case. > >> > >> Its common on at least this the list to assume that a lens with an > aspheric > >> element in it has a harsh look with ruined bokeh. Leica went to bed and > >> woke > >> up stupid. > >> Its as if it goes without saying so that people will make solid > statements > >> to this effect without even seeing this first hand on a new lens it not > >> questioned by anybody. > >> I've have four M lenes with aspherics in them and have found that first > >> hand > >> to not be true. Each generation of Leica glass, Nikon too and I'd think > >> Canon gets sharper with better contrast and god forbid they'd forget > much > >> better bokeh. As this aspect of a lens is all anyone cares or knows > about > >> any more. > >> I find this worship of old glass to be puerile. Even multi coating is > >> looked > >> upon with a negative slant and older simpler coatings revered. They even > >> say > >> this improves film speed. Pay extra for a single coated lens. Less > contrast > >> means better shadow detail. Like never. > >> The lens or camera companies are highly competitive and none of them are > >> stupid. The general level of optical engineering improves every minute. > >> I always with few exceptions get the latest a camera company has to > offer > >> unless I cant afford it or its no longer made or its more compact or > >> something. If I get old glass I don't claim they make better images. > They > >> make cheaper images. > >> > >> > >> On 4/3/15 3:18 PM, "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > >> > >>> The f1 can create 'dreamier' images, the f0.95 is a bit harsher. I read > >> a few > >>> years back about someone who had both; he used the f0.95 if he was > going > >>> somewhere and had to get a photo (stopped down it is almost as good as > >> any > >>> Leica 50mm) but used the f1 in his own time for personal images. The > >> colours > >>> from the f0.95 and gorgeous but the f1 is also significantly smaller > and > >>> lighter! > >>> > >>> john > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> > >>> > >>> Or maybe it's just nostalgia... > >>> > >>> Even if it's purely emotional, I just can't justify having something > this > >>> expensive that makes me feel guilty not loving it. > >>> > >>> Sue > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Robert Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> There is something lovely and unique about the "older" Notcti's > >>>> indeed! I agree that there is some secret ingredient missing in the > >>>> new 0.95's. I think if I were to see some side-by-side shots I might > >>>> be able to better see a difference. > >>>> Good luck with the sale: many love and produce beautiful images with > it. > >>>> Best, > >>>> Bob > >>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Susan Ryan <skalte at icloud.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I shot maybe 100 images with it. Just don't love it the way I did my > >> 1.0. > >>>>> $9000. Photos available. Paypal preferred but we can discuss > >>>>> alternatives if necessary. Contact me offlist. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sue Ryan > >>>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mark William Rabiner > >> Photographer > >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Bob Adler www.robertadlerphotography.com