Re: [Leica] Re: R vs L lenses (WAS: moving to Leica SLR)

[jimbrick@photoaccess.com (Jim Brick)]

Well Francesco, you either have an incorrectly seated ground glass screen
(a probability if you had the screen out and didn't use the tool during
replacement), a non-focused diopter (keeps you from being able to focus) or
a very bad case of the shakes (was your subject nude?). A shutter speed of
1/125 or greater will give you visually sharp slides, unless you are
shaking. The heaver R camera is an advantage because (as all competition
gun shooters know, heaver is better) of its added weight. The 100/2.8 APO
lens is a landmark lens in Leica's stable. The 50/2 M lens is certainly not
a better (sharper) lens. The R7 is a refined, last version, we finally got
everything correct, R camera.

Francesco, it is either you personally, or some mechanical problem. With an
R camera, if it's sharp on the GG, it's sharp on the film. Unless the GG is
out of alignment. Rare, but possible. Or perhaps your eyes cannot focus
properly on a GG screen. The diopter does indeed make a huge difference.
Follow the instruction manual for setting the diopter.

I have used, exclusively until this past February, Leica R cameras. I have
Cibachrome prints up to 20x24 that jump right off of the paper. We are
talking sharp. And I didn't use the 100/2.8 APO. One of my best is with the
350/4.8 Telyt. The Leica R cameras are absolutely wonderful and capable
cameras. But you should have used a 50/2 on the R camera as well.
Especially since you are hand holding.

Jim

PS... you can tell the difference between camera movement and an out of
focus lens.


At 09:56 AM 10/8/98 -0700, you wrote:
>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.
>

http://www.photoaccess.com
Jim Brick, ASMP, BIAA
Photo Access
(650) 470-1132
Visual Impressions Publishing
Visual Impressions Photography
(408) 296-1629