Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Disregarading the possiblities of focussing malfunctions and your personal ability to hand-hold, to achieve the same degree of sharpness as a shutter speed of 1/250-1/500 with 50/2 on an M6, you would need 1/2000-1/4000 with the 100 APO-R on an R7. I'm adding 1 stop for the M6/R7 difference (rfdr vs. SLR-mirror bounce), 1 stop for the weight differential (the 100 APO is a heavy lens) and 1 stop for the increase in magnification. Next, to achieve the avantage of the same depth-of-field as the 50 at f5.6-f8 you would need to stop the 100 down smaller than f/32 (guaging from my 50 and 105 Nikkors' DOF scales as I write this). So your results are not surprising, and moreover, you shouldn't attempt to draw conclusions from that test, other than that at equal speeds and apertures, a 50mm lens on a rangefinder camera will give sharper handheld results than a 100mm lens on an SLR. Regards, Nigel On Thu, 08 Oct 1998 09:56:36 -0700 Five Senses Productions <fls@san.rr.com> writes: >I just may keep the M6 after all. >I performed a non-scientific test of my own yesterday. >I took out my M6 and my R7 together, handheld, >and shot the same things with both cameras. >On the M6 I used the 50/2, and on the R7 I used the >100/2.8. On both cameras I used an aperture of >5.6 to 8, depending upon light. >I found that my M6 slides were WAY sharper and >clearer than the R7 shots. Now I know it may not be entirely fair >because I used different focal lengths, but the difference was >absoultely dramatic. The M6 shots were stunningly sharp >for being handheld (1/250 to 1/500), and looked as if they >were tripod shots. The R7 shots were fuzzy, with not much appearing >to be focused sharply. The results were consistent throughout all the >R7 slides, not just on a few. In some, it seemed that the point that >I had >focused on was not in focus, but another point was. Very >disappointing. > >I have determined the following, and maybe you can comment on >whether these things may or may not be true. >Either: >(a) I have a hard time handholding the R7 (weight, size?) >and the M6 is better suited for my style of shooting because >of size and ergonomics >or >(b) Something is wrong with the focusing screen or diopter >setting on my R7 > >Can someone comment? > >Francesco > > > > > > >At 12:52 PM 10/6/98 +0200, Pascal wrote: >>On 06-10-1998 00:29 Francesco Sanfilippo wrote: >> >>>I just worry because I hear so much about the lens tests and ratings >>>of M lenses, but not much on R lenses. I want to make sure I am >getting >>>THE BEST of Leica.....if the best lenses are M, I will go with M. >>>If R lenses are coming out ahead, I will choose R. >> >>Francesco: >> >>no need to worry. Maybe M lenses do get more attention because they >>belong to the legendary Leica M system. By comparison, the R system >is >>less "legendary". The French photo magazine Chasseur d'Images treats > > >>both series the same way without favoritism. >>As far as optics are concerned, there is really no meaningfull >difference >>between the two product lines. >> >>During my visit to the Leica factory in Solms last week, we were >showed >>both R and M lenses production rooms, as well as the M6 manufacturing >and >>finetuning rooms. >>I asked a couple of questions on lenses, while we were being shown >the >>production process of aspheric lenses, like why the M series get all >the >>ASPH treatment, unlike the R series (until the Japanese made zoom >>35-70/4.0 -where the aspheric element is not even advertised- and the >new >>Solms made 35-70/2.8 ASPH). >>The reason is quite simple: until recently it was practically >impossible >>to have excellent quality aspherical glass for such large diameters >as is >>needed for R lenses. This has changed now, with a new method of >grinding >>the lenses (instead of the way the Summilux-M 35 ASPH, Summicron-M 35 > >>ASPH, Elmarit-M 21 ASPH and Elmarit-M 24 ASPH were made), which makes > >>things practical for R lenses as well with the same high quality as >the >>aspheric treatment for M lenses. Maybe Erwin can tell the difference >>between these two production methods. >> >>The main practical consequence of this is that we may expect to see >some >>more ASPH's in the R lenses, like e.g. the much-awaited and >much-rumored >>replacement of the Summicron- R 90 with an ASPH version in the very >near >>future, and the replacement of the Summilux-R 35 with an ASPH version >a >>bit further off. I am not sure whether the addition of an ASPH >element in >>the Summilux-R 80 is seen as an urgent need, although it would >certainly >>be useful (I myself am not too satisfied with its performances at the >two >>widest f-stops). >> >>It looks like there are a couple more exciting things to come from >Leica >>in the future ! >> >>BTW, I wanted to try out the new 35-70/2.8 ASPH zoom, but not even >the >>Leica Akademie had this lens available. It apparently only exists in >very >>small numbers for now. Rollout should follow in Q1 of 1999. But the >price >>in the new Leica pricelist brochure (German version) is pretty steep >and >>well over 5,000 DEM. >> >>Pascal >> >>-------------------------------------------------------- >>Check out: http://members.xoom.com/cyberplace/ >>------------------------------------------------------- >>Who else than Leica could make a camera like the R8 ? >>With that unique design and above all: that ergonomics. >>Nikon ? Canon ? Nobody but Leica ! >>------------------------------------------------------- > >><<< PGP public key available on request >>> >> > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]