Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > > Here we have the bottom line of the age-old discussion if we can see > the quality of Leica lenses in itself and compared to other marques. > I fully agree with Jonathan's statement that if a lens gives better > Mike's test is set up to see if one can detect differences between > pictures taken with lens A and lens B. His conclusion is that if one > cannot see any difference, the lens is not better or we are not able > to see it, therefore it is not relevant. Given the above statement, > the test (if and when properly set up and executed) will only allow > for one conclusion. If pictures taken with two lenses that are proven > to have different optical quality by a properly conducted optical > test, can not be distinguished by several expert observers as such, > then the pictures are below the required standard of photographic > quality. I thought that (in my words) his thesis was that in normal use, even by an experienced photographer and developer/printer, the pictures will *invariably* be so far below the 'required standard of photographic quality' that, in effect, you will not be able to tell the differences in the lens's ability to form a picture anyhow. Strictly speaking, I think your statement above is correct. > Statistically at > least 30% will identify correctly the pictures taken with a Leica. ( > 3 of 10 pictures are Leica pictures, so any random choice has a 3 to > 10 chance of being correct). No. The chances of randomly selecting *all three* are in fact a bit smaller than 1 in 100.. (3 out of 10, times 2 out of 9, times 1 out of 8) > If Mike's ten samples of prints included > no Leica print some would identify some print as taken with Leica > equipment. If all ten prints are Leica prints some would identify a > Leica print as taken with non-Leica equipment. > I Think this thread is very interesting and this has led to a lively, well thought out and well put discussion. And all that with a sense of humour. I also feel that both Mike Johnston and you are absolutely right in your arguments, but that you are talking about two different animals. Kind regards, Rick Garrelfs