Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]More condescension. You'd think I insulted someone's God or something! Sharpness mean nothing. Every beginning photo student knows this. My Minolta-out resolves my Summilux at every opening and can easily produce sharper looking prints even the size of football fields. But are the photographer 'better'? I don't know. I think over all that my Summilux produces a superior photograph. But generally I like the Minolta and it does an excellent job, I use it regularly, and it deserves much more than a "leica is better, 'nuff said" comment. When you shoot at f1.4, who the hell cares about sharpess when 95% of the image area will be out of focus and when the end result for photojournalists will in more cases than nought end up in a newspaper with their 50 line half tones or whatever and where a coke bottle bottom is probably overkill. Dan C. At 11:23 AM 23-08-00 -0400, John Brownlow wrote: >on 23/8/00 10:44 am, Dan Cardish at dcardish@microtec.net wrote: > >> And remember, this is all in response to a somewhat condescending remark >> about the quality of Minolta optics. If the inferiority of Minolta optics >> can only be measured by someone like Erwin with his expertise and testing >> equipment, they can't be THAT bad, can they? > >I guess 'sharp enough' for you means 'sharp enough for a 72 dpi jpeg', then? > >All cats look alike in the dark. > >-- >Johnny Deadman > >http://www.pinkheadedbug.com > > > >