Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thomas Kachadurian wrote: > But the Leica images looked like > they were made in a normally lit room, good shadow detail, backgrounds > that could be easily placed. The Canon images were obscured by contrast, > dim sides of faces became detailless blobs. This is what I have always noticed about the Leica galss. Where Nikon and Canon have dark (read no detail here) shadow areas and blown out highlights the Leica glass holds the detail. What made me first switch to Leica back in 1990 was a test I did using Nikon and Leica. I used the Nikon 300 2.8 and the Leica 280 2.8 and took chromes of my wife with our dog on a sunny spring day in Atlanta. The dog is black and my wife was wearing a very bright outfit. In the Nikon photos the dog was black. In the Leica photos the dog was black also, BUT there was detail in his fur. The dog was in the shadow side of the photo so I was not expecting much detail and when I saw this I was blown away. I also repeated the same test using the 1.4 converters on both lenses and the Leica STILL held detail in the shadow areas. Same photographer same film same processing and exposures. Only difference was the glass. As far as why don't more pros shoot Leica....well I would wager that when you get into the magazine field you will find more of us using the Leicas than the newspaper and wire guys because 1) we shoot Chrome and the difference is important there. 2) in most cases the increased quality will show up in better printing. Harrison McClary http://people.delphi.com/hmphoto