Re: [Leica] Which one is the Leica?

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

From: Alexey Merz <alexey@webcom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 02:56
Subject: [Leica] Which one is the Leica?


> Probably no one, given that the pix are shown at only 700x900
> or so ...

A lot of people have tried thus far.  About 80% have been wrong.

> ... given that the enlargements are different ...

Both were scanned at the same resolution and reduced to the same extent.

> 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.

My original scans, displayed at 100% size, are the equivalent of 36x24
enlargements.  They correspond to 53 lp/mm.  I'm unable to see any difference
between the two photographs at that resolution.  When I get my LS-2000 back (if
they ever fix it), I'll try again, as it scans with multiple passes and pushes
the resolution a bit.  However, I suspect that any differences between them are
beyond the resolving power of the scanner (that is, they are both doing better
than 53 lp/mm).

> 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.

I never said anything about the lenses being limiting factors.  It was just an
experiment.  I was amazed by the quality of the T5 lens, and I thought I'd try
this experiment.

> And yes, the Leica 35 Summilux ASPH is noticably better
> than all of the above, WHEN used carefully.

As on a test bench, you mean?  That's probably true.  But I wonder how often
that difference is visible in real-world photography.  I _hope_ the Leica lenses
are better, because I paid a lot more for them.

> So what is your point?

I just thought it would be interesting to compare the two and discuss the
apparent lack of any clear differences.

  -- Anthony