Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- --------------514F40644A4D588609E20085 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >I had a G1 with the 45, 28 and 90 - which I dumped to get my M6. I did this > for > >only two reasons: the G1 autofocus sucked - sorry, but there's no other > word for > >it. It was slow. It wasn't particularly accurate. And in dim light? > Fagetit! > > I had the same kind of experience and since I had no problem with autofocus > speed, I had a lot with accuracy. > accuracy, can you define that? > > > >The second reason I got rid of it was that the "manual focus" was nothing > more > >than a hand adjusted auto focus. > > Same conclusion here too. > > >Now, having read a fair amount, and having played with a G2, I gather that > the > >autofocus is much better - although the "manual focus" is still not manual. > > I played too with a G2 and since AF was faster, it was as unrealiable than > the G1 one. _This_ was the reason why I sold my G1 set. > come on! The G2 AF is incredible... > > > >As to the lenses - Sorry Mark, but they were terrific. To my eye they were > every > >bit as sharp as their M counterparts. > > This time, I beg to disagree. I often tested my Zeiss 45 and 90 vs. Nikon > lenses (I don't have a Nikon 28 and compared the Zeiss 90 against Nikon > 85/1.8 mm). In no case, at no aperture, the Contax Zeiss even approached > the Nikons performances in terms of sharpness or contrast. In particular, > the full aperture results were far inferior. In the same time, the Leica M > lenses I tested were better than Nikons at full aperture to f/4. Then Nikon > takes the edge again. > > IMHO, the G system is the most pleasant I ever used but the lenses were not > that terrific though good enough. > Here I completely disagree. The Zeiss lenses are much better than any Nikkors own (and they go back for 20+years). They are most definately comparable to my Leica lenses. > > Best regards. > > > --- > Jean-Claude Berger (jcberger@jcberger.com) > Systems and RDBMS consultant (MCSE), Lyon, France > http://www.jcberger.com > To Mark: How would you like that crow, well done or medium? lol - --------------514F40644A4D588609E20085 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <pre>>I had a G1 with the 45, 28 and 90 - which I dumped to get my M6. I did this for >only two reasons: the G1 autofocus sucked - sorry, but there's no other word for >it. It was slow. It wasn't particularly accurate. And in dim light? Fagetit! I had the same kind of experience and since I had no problem with autofocus speed, I had a lot with accuracy.</pre> </blockquote> accuracy, can you define that? <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <pre> >The second reason I got rid of it was that the "manual focus" was nothing more >than a hand adjusted auto focus. Same conclusion here too. >Now, having read a fair amount, and having played with a G2, I gather that the >autofocus is much better - although the "manual focus" is still not manual. I played too with a G2 and since AF was faster, it was as unrealiable than the G1 one. _This_ was the reason why I sold my G1 set.</pre> </blockquote> come on! The G2 AF is incredible... <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <pre> >As to the lenses - Sorry Mark, but they were terrific. To my eye they were every >bit as sharp as their M counterparts. This time, I beg to disagree. I often tested my Zeiss 45 and 90 vs. Nikon lenses (I don't have a Nikon 28 and compared the Zeiss 90 against Nikon 85/1.8 mm). In no case, at no aperture, the Contax Zeiss even approached the Nikons performances in terms of sharpness or contrast. In particular, the full aperture results were far inferior. In the same time, the Leica M lenses I tested were better than Nikons at full aperture to f/4. Then Nikon takes the edge again. IMHO, the G system is the most pleasant I ever used but the lenses were not that terrific though good enough.</pre> </blockquote> Here I completely disagree. The Zeiss lenses are much better than any Nikkors own (and they go back for 20+years). They are most definately comparable to my Leica lenses. <br> <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <pre> Best regards. --- Jean-Claude Berger (jcberger@jcberger.com) Systems and RDBMS consultant (MCSE), Lyon, France <A HREF="http://www.jcberger.com">http://www.jcberger.com</A></pre> </blockquote> <p><br>To Mark: How would you like that crow, well done or medium? lol <br> </html> - --------------514F40644A4D588609E20085--