Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/01

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

Subject: [Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK
From: richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 17:24:58 -0800
References: <CD0884E6.2CBB%mark@rabinergroup.com> <B87C31DB15084DD6B2D4BD1CE004A041@billHP> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E99EF7B7A5@WHIZZMAIL02.whizz.org> <00aa01cde880$3da6c550$b8f44ff0$@verizon.net> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E99EF7F051@WHIZZMAIL02.whizz.org> <00c601cde883$0636b1e0$12a415a0$@verizon.net> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E99EF7F3B0@WHIZZMAIL02.whizz.org> <00d701cde885$143bcc10$3cb36430$@verizon.net> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E99EF7F5DB@WHIZZMAIL02.whizz.org>

If a SWC scanned neg looks as good or better than Leica M digital, then a
properly adjusted Hassy 500 with Zeiss lens, by definition, should be on
similar level. As good as the Biogon SWC, it's not like it's significantly
better than the other Zeiss lens in the same line up.

So either you like the digital M look, which is more or less a proven
observation (most people prefer the sharpness of digital, even if it has
real resolution than film) or that your Hassy/Zeiss chain broke down
somewhere.


On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:03 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote:

> Thanks
>
> john
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > I just thought out that no matter the scanner, it is still the same
> scanned
> > image format from either a SWC or a 500 neg. the scanner has no
> idea....and
> > therefore should give the same quality result regardless of what took the
> > image....
> >
> > I have no idea why the results were different.... except the lens is
> > different.....thus your conclusion.
> >
> > Frank Filippone
> > Red735i at verizon.net
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Native 3200dpi scans (3 passes) on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, the
> > detail in a 49MP (7000 pixels square) image was not as sharp/detailed as
> my
> > digital Ms (albeit only 18MP), tonality is a different thing ;-)
> However, for me,
> > the M Monochrom fills that gap.
> >
> > John
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > Explain more about your comment of the 3200dpi scans..........  What
> > > is different?  Was the scan done in native mode (not the total of some
> > > 4x800DPI or other math assisted scans?)
> > >
> > > I understand that you had the body checked out.... I agree that this
> > > should have ensured the body was OK.....
> > >
> > > Note: SWC lenses ( 38mm Biogon) is certainly one of the best volume
> > > made lenses ever created.....and wed permanently to a body is a killer
> > combo!
> > >
> > > Frank Filippone
> > > Red735i at verizon.net
> > >
> > > 3200dpi scans are a different matter IME. The 500C/M had been back to
> > > Hasselblad UK for servicing.
> > >
> > > john
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>


In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)