Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
In a message dated 8/31/99 4:21:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jcberger@jcberger.com writes:
<< I don't want to begin a Nikon vs Leica war, but I would be curious to know
how
you determined that the 75 Summilux is not as sharp as the Nikon 85>>
Personal experience. Any of the 85 Nikkors I've used to shoot people
with, the subject looks at the image and is horrified. Every skin defect,
every hair is rendered with exquisite detail. Not so the 75. Maybe it has
nothing to do with the lens? Maybe it's only because I don't ever get it as
precisely focused as I do the Nikkors? I just got finished looking through
all my slides from my recent tour of Europe (shot with the Leica and 35 ASPH
Summicron, current 50 f2 and 90 f2.8 plus the Heliar 15mm) and noticed that
the 15 looked as crisp and contrasty as the rest...also noticed that although
the texture and details in the building architecture was shown in superb
detail, the small writing on signs was fuzzy. When I checked slides from
last year shot with my Nikons, the textures and tones were not as
crystal-clear but the little signs were all much more readable. Perhaps this
is what Irwin was talking about when he spoke of the Japanese design for
maximum resolution in the 10 lppm region that gives the *impression* of
superior sharpness. In any case, sad to say, when I compare *either* Nikon
or Leica to images from my Hasselblad or my 6x9cm view camera, the Nikon vs.
Leica argument looks awfully ridiculous. To put back in proper perspective,
the exposure, focus and whether or not a tripod was used seems to make much
more of a difference than the brand of lens.
DT