Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/12

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Noctilux in Canada
From: Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:25:21 -0600 (Central Standard Time)

In response to Mark's most eloquent post:
 
> Walt have you tried getting two cameras out at the same time and shoot the same
> damn tree with both cameras and go home to your darkroom and knock out two 11x14
> matching prints?
> You'd really see the difference then i think especially if you are using modern
> Leica optics!.
> (and real old crummier Vietnam era glass with the other:)
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
Well, Mark, you caught me...no, I've NEVER done this...REALLY!!!
first, I don't have 
any "modern" (asph) Leica lenses...latest one is just BEFORE the current ones...
and it's a REAL DOG....a 90 Summicron, just pre-asph....in fact, I'm considering 
throwing it away now that the ASPH one is out....My other junk dates from 
60s, 70s, 80s---stuff that Erwin taught me (thank GOD) is now all but unusable 
for photography.  Also, I'd simply be comparing ancient, extinct Leica stuff 
to that even MORE inferior 60s-80s Nikon junk...so I'm sure there would be NO 
conclusive results from such a test...
Having USED the same gear for 20+ years, I don't KNOW what the edges of the 
print would look like at 8x from tech pan or velvia...I'd GUESS that the better 
Nikon stuff would be better than the lesser Leica! (105 Nikkor vs 90 summicron)...
likewise, I KNOW that the 35 summicron would KICK THE NIKON 35s ASS>  PERIOD>
I do know that both are superb, and I can't pull negatives from years ago 
and say conclusively what I shot it with. (I have used Canon/Nikon SLR/RF, LTM, M, 
Contax/Zeiss/ and mixed lenses frequently between pedigrees)

The 50 summicron and Nikkor I >did< test, scientifically (in college)....BOTH 
exceeded the max resolution of the test I did at the distance I did it!!!
(better than 150 lines/mm at most stops)...at this point I made the STUPID assumption
that both were so damn good it didn't even matter anymore...again, until the "LUG"...
when I "found the truth"...

I've told students for a long many years that as long as they buy MAJOR BRAND, 
fixed focal length lenses, and used them at high speeds or on a tripod, that 
the manufacturer of the lens (among MAJOR ones) had the LEAST to do with their 
results...the reliability of the gear and its repairability has MUCH MORE RELAVENCE 
to the photographer than "optical quality".  Like Ted, I buy good stuff, it works 
well for me, I don't question it...my prints are sometimes ridiculously sharp, 
sometimes mush--MY FAULT, not the lens...
Nikon, Canon, and Leica are all superb in these aspects, with of course longevity--
and HIGHEST PRICES--going to Leica. 
I sleep well at night continuing to tell them 
this.

Even if the 100 R macro is better than the 105 Nikkor, under NORMAL 35mm working 
conditions (doubtful), it STILL wouldn't matter to the pros, because it doesn't 
fit on a camera body that they would own.

As soon as there is competition for the M-camera (Mechanical, manual,with the 
same level of reliability/repairability, i.e. NOT Konica or Bessa) then I'd say 
it's a day to rejoice, as we no longer have to worship at the Leica alter to have 
a decent manual pro RF...but I'm not holding my breath.

I may do your test tho...with the (1970s) 105 vs the MUCH later 90 Summicron, 
at f4 to make it a fair test...I don't think you want the results, tho!!
:) :) :)

Walt

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html