Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I can't say I am totally surprised. At a medium distance under dead even lighting both brands performed well. That's good. IMO, where the Leica lenses will reveal themselves is under difficult or interesting lighting. Landscapes and building details taken at or near infinity will have a better chance to show the attributes of the Leica glass over the competition for one example. Not only sharpness but tonal and hue differentiation and shadow detail are what I find to be superior in Leica glass. I can see it frequently on the light table. So, do another 20 or 30 rolls of all kinds of subject matter at varying distances with lots of interesting light and report back. :-) Mike Gardner Robert Burgess wrote: (snipped)I took my Canon EOS 3 and the f2.8 / 28mm > -70mm zoom and stuck it on a tripod and then put the R8 on the tripod and, > using different settings on the Canon zoom and 35mm f2/ 50mm f2/ 60mm f2.8/ > 90mm f2.8 on the R8, shot the same picture of flowers at f2.8, 5.6, and 11. > I shot E100SW film, all on DX settings on both cameras. The Canon was set > to autofocus and the R8 was focused manually with the Universal Screen. > The day was overcast -natural softbox- lighting. > > I just had the film processed without mounting or cutting so I could lay the > results from both side by side. > > I went through each frame by frame with a Schneider 4x loupe. > > I have to say, if there is a difference, I can not see it.