Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/18

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Better than an slr...
From: "SonC (Sonny Carter)" <sonc@sonc.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:58:03 -0500
References: <32C08861F246D411A8A900805FBE3F0CB30B43@s99mail01.okdhs.org> <002d01c157d9$597bf460$d0ab3842@triad.rr.com>

I happen to think that my Canadian lenses are all better than my
Wetzlar or Solms lenses... er, oh, I don't have any Wetzlar or Solms
lenses....

28, 35, 50, 90, 135   All from up North.   Of course, from my
perspective, Arkansas is up North.

Regards,
Sonny
http://www.sonc.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Better than an slr...


> Jim-
> questioning whether the Wetzlar (or Solms) lenses are better than
the
> Canadian might result in another food fight here. The consensus
seems to be
> that the Canadian lenses are every bit as good if not better then
the German
> copies- and considering that ELCAN developed the Noctilux, and Lord
only
> knows how many satelite lenses, they might actually have an edge!!!
> The Canadian Elves might be a bit more adept than the Solmische
Gnomes! (I
> say that because of the vast number of Canadian LUGgers who would
otherwise
> stop the Molson shipmenst South!!! :o)  )
> You will find that even the old Leica glass is not bad- it is not
that it is
> inferior, it can just be --- different, and pleasantly so, and the
new stuff
> can often outperform most of the film that we choose to shoot with!
> Dan (We're not worthy, We're not worthy) Post
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gumm, Jim" <Jim.Gumm@okdhs.org>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 5:27 PM
> Subject: [Leica] Better than an slr...
>
>
> > I take better pictures with a Leica rangefinder than with an SLR
> because...I
> > Leica the glass!
> > I used to not buy into the idea that Leitz glass was any better
than
> Canon,
> > Nikon, etc...but, I do now. I finally have become more acutely
aware of
> > these differences after shooting both for many years and
evaluating
> > negatives, chromes and B+W. There is a certain pictoral quality
that goes
> > beyond resolution. Leitz glass does have great acutance, but also
a
> certain
> > 3 dimensional effect in some of their wide angles (35 Summilux
pre-asph),
> > that translates into better looking prints. Prints from other
lenses seem
> to
> > have a slight 'veil' when directly compared to Leitz lenses, and
mine have
> > all come from Canada ,imagine what a Wetzlar lens would do. ;^)
maybe this
> > 'veiling effect' comes from zooms with so many elements or maybe
its the
> > plastic lenses in there. I am interested in what image
stabilization has
> to
> > offer, but I cringe when I think of another 8 or 10 elements in
there, not
> > helping optically.
> > Still waiting for some vulcanite, it must be dear to Leica users
out
> there.
> > Jimbo
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Gumm, Jim" <Jim.Gumm@okdhs.org> ([Leica] Better than an slr...)
Message from "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com> (Re: [Leica] Better than an slr...)