Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Personally, I find all such comparisons, however well done, totally uninteresting and pointless. There is not a camera around today that will not give great results - the choice is largely in the handling and the purpose the equipment is to be used and nothing else. Cheers Jayanand On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> wrote: > I have to say I agree with this. Between the poor processing (for both > films and the digital files) and the vast difference in the lenses > comparisons are a bit pointless for these images. > > For these images I probably would have tried 2500 ISO and up and maybe > some filtering for all the films/sensors. > > Personally, I don't like the old Noctilux with the MM that much at low > ISO. With the sensor outresolving the wide open lens to that degree, and > so much of the image OOF, the smoothness becomes excessive. With the new > Noctilux it might well be different, as it is with the Summilux ASPH. > There the parts of the image near the center that are in focus are sharp, > and the sensor can make use of that. > > In these images, the film just looks somewhat murky and lacks the > crispness (with grain) that HP5 can deliver so well, and that can make the > images sing. > > Henning > > > > On 2014-03-22, at 2:47 AM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> >>> >> That HP5+ looks just as badly processed as the MM files . . . >> >> Marty >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > Henning Wulff > henningw at archiphoto.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information