Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens test
From: Dan Cardish <>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:57:20 -0400
References: <>

More condescension.  You'd think I insulted someone's God or something!

Sharpness mean nothing.  Every beginning photo student knows this. My
Minolta-out resolves my Summilux at every opening and can easily produce
sharper looking prints even the size of football fields.   But are the
photographer 'better'?  I don't know.  I think over all that my Summilux
produces a superior photograph.   But generally I like the Minolta and it
does an excellent job, I use it regularly, and it deserves much more than a
"leica is better, 'nuff said" comment.

When you shoot at f1.4, who the hell cares about sharpess when 95% of the
image area will be out of focus and when the end result for
photojournalists will in more cases than nought end up in a newspaper with
their 50 line half tones or whatever and where a coke bottle bottom is
probably overkill.

Dan C.

At 11:23 AM 23-08-00 -0400, John Brownlow wrote:
>on 23/8/00 10:44 am, Dan Cardish at wrote:
>> And remember, this is all in response to a somewhat condescending remark
>> about the quality of Minolta optics.  If the inferiority of Minolta optics
>> can only be measured by someone like Erwin with his expertise and testing
>> equipment, they can't be THAT bad, can they?
>I guess 'sharp enough' for you means 'sharp enough for a 72 dpi jpeg', then?
>All cats look alike in the dark.
>Johnny Deadman

Replies: Reply from Dan Cardish <> (Re: [Leica] Lens test)
In reply to: Message from Dan Cardish <> (Re: [Leica] Lens test)