Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/02/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sent from my iPhone Steve Barbour On Feb 21, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote: Leica raah raah forum !! thanks for the spelling help Hoppy s > On Feb 22, 2014 1:00 AM, "Steve Barbour" <steve.barbour at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Feb 20, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Jim Laurel (gmail) <jplaurel at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> All I've seen, Steve, is some anecdotal evidence. Don't get me started > on Ken Rockwell, but on this page, he does have some examples of a 21mm > Super Elmar-M adapted to the A7 that appears to show sensor reflections and > smeared corner detail. Lurking around the dpreview forums, I've seen others > report similar results. But of course it's hard to know for sure >> >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2013-12-leica-sony-canon/ > > hi Jim, we are happy to see you back. My point of course is....we don't > exactly have PROOF of anything, though we do have anecdotal and selected > stories by people with an agenda. No completeness or worst case scenarios > by unbiased individuals with data for the leica M240, as well as the Sony > A7 and A7r. Selected stories to make a point by people who wish to make a > point. No semblance of a real unbiased careful comparison. All of this is > then presented to a leica rah rah forum by people who like leica, whether > they use one or not.. I would like to know what the real facts are, based > on real world data, with carefully done comparisons. And if the cameras in > question have flaws in some areas, I will use the cameras accordingly, > always the case for all of us. > I used a CV 12 mm lens on my A7r, with many usable results, but some > unacceptable results as well. > That alerted me to be careful, especially with the widest of the wide. > Extrapolating this to all lenses under 50mm is not a conclusion based on > the facts. Some results of the widest lenses are acceptable, and we need to > have some reasonable ground rules. It occurred to me that we don't have > rigorous comparative data, even for the M240. What is clear is that many!! > lenses on the A7r, give incredibly wonderful results, it would seem far > greater in number for the A7r than the M240 because the list includes most > lenses ever made by most optical companies, including all of the leica R > lenses. > > Looked at in this light, I feel that the least we need to do, is approach > this question with complete understanding of the situation, an open mind, > and armed with some real world comparative data. > > By the way, the above subject line says OT, but in my estimation this > subject is very much on topic. > > thanks for bringing it up, > > Steve > > > >> --Jim >> >> >> >>> On Feb 20, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Steve Barbour <steve.barbour at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> Steve Barbour >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Jim Gmail <jplaurel at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Aren't there a lot if reported issues with adapted lenses? The Leica M > primes, at least, seem to perform much better on the M240 than on the A7. >>> >>> where is this proven? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information