Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Nathan Wajsman wrote: > Peter is right. The difference is clear. I don't care what the science > says, I don't know about what kind of anti-aliasing filter or whatever > my Canon 10D has. But I do know that when I put the 100mm Apo Macro on > it I get better pictures than I do with the Canon 85mm lens (which is > no slouch either), and when I put my newly aquired Canon 17-40mm L > zoom on it, the pictures are much better than those I got with the > (now sold) Sigma 17-35mm. All this talk about how with digital sensors > lens quality does not matter is bunk, based on my experience. > I suspect that most differences between shall we say the Leica 100 Apo Macro and the Canon Eos 100 Macro when imaged with a 6 mp sensor could be 'fixed' with judicous Photoshop USM, curves and levels etc. For Web JPEG images I would be rather surprised if this were not the case. That is not to say that each lens may not have a unique 'signature' but highly corrected lenses ought not have such strong signatures that photoshop could not fix. Now on the other hand using a 22 mp sensor I would not make such a conjecture. I admit this is all conjecture as I've not tested these lenses side by side on specific 6 mp cameras etc., but having looked into these issues once or twice in the past,. I would be willing to bet that after sufficient photoshop manipulation you'd not be able to find either a Canon or Leica engineer willing to put money on a wadger that they'd be able to tell the pictures apart. Jonathan