Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/05/07

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Ten years behind? I think not
From: s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov)
Date: Fri May 7 12:29:16 2004

Canon_is_good. They have that edge resolution thing going that makes them
get real close to the Leica optics. I recently got a Canon 24-85mm for a
light load, and quick and dirty work. Every time I shoot with it, I can hear
the cash register going ka-ching, ka-ching, because of customer
satisfaction. In my case, I usually get asked for prints and a CD on those
kind of shoots.
As far as my scientific test methods are concerned, all I need is the check
in the mail. 
S. Dimitrov


> From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
> .....
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 


Replies: Reply from mlpowell at sbcglobal.net (Matthew Powell) ([Leica] Re: Re: Ten years behind? I think not)
In reply to: Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] Re: Re: Ten years behind? I think not)