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 Honemann" <>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:31:15 -0400

Ok, fellas: I've been enjoying this lens test thread, but now it's taken a
turn for the ugly.  Do we really need to resort to _ad hominem_ attacks?
It's more fun arguing about bokeh!

I think we're all in agreement that this test is less than ideal, but I
don't see it as completely meaningless.  In any event, it's a step in the
right direction: I'd much rather see sample photos than MTF charts any day.

I'd like to see the same test performed on tree bark (as someone else
suggested: at, say, 1 meter away, with leaves in the background) at f2 using
a tripod.  Now that would be an interesting comparison....

Dan H.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of Dan Cardish
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 3:13 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens test
>   At 02:23 PM 23-08-00 -0400, John Brownlow wrote:
> >on 23/8/00 1:57 pm, Dan Cardish at wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Sharpness mean nothing.  Every beginning photo student knows this.
> >
> >Oh, right. I thought it was one of the key factors, along with flare
> >suppression, rendition, bokeh etc. Thanks for putting me right. As usual
> >your insight amazes. Erwin, you better go take Cardish's optics 101, you
> >hear? Anyhow, do go on.
> Have you actually read any of Erwins reports?
> >
> >
> >Some of us actually produce big prints from our 1.4 images. The
> 5% that's in
> >focus is very important, as is the bokeh. The argument that if
> most of the
> >image is o.o.f. then the sharpness of the remainder doesn't matter is a
> >really peculiar one, as is the bizarre idea that image quality isn't
> >important for photojournalists.
> >
> >How impressed do you think the picture desk will be with your coke bottle
> >pix?
> Apparently, if we are to believe you, they are impressed with your's, so
> anything's possible.
> >We're on different planets I think.
> Oh...I have no doubt about that...
> >
> >Your lens tests are pretty much the equivalent of driving four different
> >cars at 40 miles an hour down a straight smooth road without
> changing gear
> >or braking and then declaring there is nothing to choose
> between them apart
> >from the trim.
> So who asked you to look at them?