Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/27[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Anthony Atkielski wrote: If you care to take a little test, take a look at: http://www.atkielski.com/Temporary/leicatest.jpg This image shows two views of Notre-Dame. One was taken with an M6 TTL and a Summicron-M 1:2/35 ASPH. The other was taken with a Yashica T5 pocket point-and-shoot camera. I'd be interested in seeing how many of you can recognize which is which... Probably no one, given that the pix are shown at only 700x900 or so; given that the enlargements are different; given that the lenses may or may not have been used wide open or at comparable aperture; may or may not have been monuted on sturdy tripods; etc. What I *can* tell you is that I have photos taken inside St. Chappelle that, when enlarged to a *much* greater extent than yours (16x20 Fuji Crystal Archive prints from Kodachrome 64 slides), retain *far* more detail than your enlarged insets. In short, the lenses were probably not the limiting factors in your photos. That does not mean that the lenses are not a limiting factor in other peoples' photos. - -Alexey ps - I have a T5 and a Ricoh GR1 as well. You are right, the T5 does have a phenomenal lens for the money. It's noticably better than the Nikkor 35/2 AIS. And yes, the Leica 35 Summilux ASPH is noticably better than all of the above, WHEN used carefully. So what is your point?