Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:39 PM 8/30/97 -0400, you wrote: > > I think that there is some qualitative difference to the feel of >the images produced with Leica lenses, a difference that some people are >more sensitive to than others. I wouldn't go so far as to proclaim that Yes, there is a difference. Certainly not superior in any sense for many people. I have used Canon EOS and the latest Nikon glass, and there is a clear difference in the image quality (not good or bad, different) between the two lines. Nikon's much warmer and contrastier. Canon's lenses see to have higher resolution. (Sorry, I don't shoot newspapers on walls, these are subjective evaluations with my 20/10 20/15 eyes). Leica is also different. It's easy to see after using them for over 10 years, much of it professionally. In fact, where Leica lenses really shine (forgive me for repeating what I've said in years past on this list), is when the chips are down. Nasty, flat lighting, horrid backlighting, etc. In those situations (and I have done side-by-side comparisons with a colleague and Canon L series where his stuff was totally unusable and mine was wonderful and he said so) Leica stands out above the rest - that I've used. (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Leica, Contax). I have little experience with Contax lenses. And I didn't like the color bias. - --------------------- Eric Welch Grants Pass, OR Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.