[Leica] Re: Re: Ten years behind? I think not

[feli at creocollective.com (Feli di Giorgio)]

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 11:01, Ted Grant wrote:

> Anyway this difference is quite easy to see when you're looking at hundreds
> of transparencies lying out on light tables. Actually it's tougher between
> Leica and Canon, than Nikon - Leica. There seems to be a similar look to the
> Canon and Leica material. The Nikon is not as sharp looking, ( don't get yer
> pants wet! I did say "looking!" It wasn't a scientific test,) Eye balls!
> Nor do the colours have the same snap to them.
> 
> So it's quite easy to observe this difference when there's a volume of
> material being observed over a period of time.
> ted

Well, that's exactly it. It's not that Nikon glass is bad, plenty of pros
use their gear everyday with great results. But there is a difference and
you can see it, especially when compared to the M glass. I have found that most
Leica glass is sharper in the corners and wide open. You really do see a
difference when you make a big print. Again, I think of the 50 Cron or new
Lux-R, which eats any Nikkor 50 I have seen for breakfast. I have also noticed
that often the color and whites in slides shot with Leica glass are cleaner.
When it comes to Canon vs Nikon I have always felt that Nikon made the better
bodies and Canon had the edge in lenses.

Feli