Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/14

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

Subject: Re: [Leica]Songs my grain magnifier taught me...Was Konicagate
From: Christer Almqvist <christer@almqvist.net>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:23:45 +0200
References: <F180G3ESvUC9y3jVON300003e96@hotmail.com>

>If you REALLY want to find out how crappy your technique is just use 
>a grain focusing magnifier with a fine grain black and white film.
>
>You will never again believe there is any such thing as depth of 
>field and you will swear that you have a constant case of the 
>jitters!
>
>The point is, very few photographers print thier own stuff and of 
>those that do, a large portion use high speed film almost 
>exclusively.  For these folks most of this discussion is esoteric.

You hit it on the nail. When I use 400 film I often ask myself: "Why 
did you buy a Leica?"

>  Good is good enough.  (I won't get into why they payed so much for 
>just "good").
>
>I have come to believe that the best overall optical performance 
>comes from the lens/camera combination that allows hand held use 
>with a minimum of system vibrations.  This rules out the SLR in most 
>cases, and even the M is not as recoil free as....(and I hate to say 
>it) the CONTAX G....man, that was painful.
>
>Best wishes,
>Dan States
>
>
>
>>
>>Bottom line the issue is more fundamental: there is without any doubt a
>>difference between the film register of a Leica body/lens unit and a
>>Konica body/lens unit and mixing these systems brings incompatibilities
>>and a drop in image quality.
>>If some argue that they do not see this difference, does that proof
>>there is no difference?
>>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, someone of lost fame wrote in the
>>past. I would paraphrase: "image quality is in the eye of the
>>photographer".
>>
>>The classical discussion about which lens is best (Summicron DR or
>>current one) can be illuminated by the insight of the Konica/Leica
>>compatibility issue: if you do not see a difference, it does not imply
>>that there is no difference, but that the standards of image
>>quality/optical performance need to be upgraded or redefined.
>>Quoting from Zeiss for once: if a lens has a potential of 100%, most
>>users would have trouble extracting 50% of that. To extract 80% or more
>>needs considerable expertise and years of experience.
>>If the Konica/leica incompatibility will reduce image quality
>>significantly but not enough to get below the 50% threshold with which
>>most users seem to operate, all is fine?
>>In a wellknown German book (by Mr Scholz) the author fitted a Leica body
>>with  a simple glass element  from his spectacles (he could have used
>>the bottom of an empty bottle of whiskey with equal results)  to prove
>>that a simple meniscus (box lens) would suffice for highly acceptable
>>image results. The resulting picture is very convincing. As long as we
>>seem unable to differentiate between a 9 element super quality optical
>>system and a simple spectacle glass in front of the M-body (or Konica
>>body) why question the impact of a mere 0.2 mm of defocus.
>>Would it not be time for a re-calibration of our standards of image
>>quality?
>>
>>Erwin
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

- -- 
Christer Almqvist
D-20255 Hamburg, Germany and/or
F-50590 Regnéville-sur-Mer, France

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica]Songs my grain magnifier taught me...Was Konicagate)
In reply to: Message from "Dan States" <dstate1@hotmail.com> ([Leica]Songs my grain magnifier taught me...Was Konicagate)