Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bob Figlio <FIGLIO4CAP@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 10/2/00 11:04:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > MTomalty@aol.com writes: > >> There is definitely no advantage in using an M in those >> tripod necessary situations, but if it happens to be the >> only... > > Which makes one wonder [why] so many questions and > comments here talk about how "sharp" a lens is. It really > is sort of silly if hand-holding is what an M camera is all > about. All of that resolution sort of falls by the wayside. > However, issues of contrast and flare are, of course, > relevant. I agree with this to an extent. As someone who handholds his Leicas 95% of the time the weakest link in the resolution chain is clearly me. I love my Leica lenses at least as much for the tonal qualities they yield as for their sharpness. But if your lenses have a resolution advantage in the first place then you can afford to lose some and still get images that "cut" film. This was made quite evident to me early this evening while scanning two sets of recent negatives. The first set were taken with my M2 and new (to me) 35mm Summilux, the second set with another rangefinder camera and its fastest 35mm lens. Both sets contain images of the same subject matter, shot at the same time on Ilford XP2 Super using wide apertures and fast shutter speeds. The differences between the two sets in both contrast and resolution are not subtle. The "other" 35mm lens is no piece of junk but the Summilux, not the latest & greatest version either, is in another league. I made some 6x9" inkjet prints from both sets and showed them to my girlfriend. She thinks the 'lux was a good investment. - -Dave-