Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/09/17

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

Subject: [Leica] OT. Nikon screen brightness and contrast
From: red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:23:30 -1000
References: <16432066.1379440783221.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <SJtS1m01B0AFV7C01JtT4Q> <43F3F75BD79C4D228E236CA85EEA2087@billHP>

Thanks for the inputs. While Zeiss glass is good, weight/ FL range  goals 
can not be achieved without zoom lenses

Frank Filippone

On Sep 17, 2013, at 9:55 AM, "Bill Pearce" <billcpearce at cox.net> wrote:

> All lenses have strengths and weaknesses. The Zeiss lenses are superb, 
> with perhaps more resolving power than the Leica equivalents and certainly 
> more contrast. Colors from the Zeiss lenses pop in a way unlike any other 
> lenses. Many Nikon lenses are also quite good in a very unlike Leica way. 
> Nikkors seem to me to be somewhere near to the Zeiss lenses, but with more 
> flare and a bit softer. At least the Leica lenses I have, like me several 
> generations away from state of the art, are certainly sharp, but without 
> the dramatic contrast of the Zeiss lenses. I will say that although I love 
> my M9, I have some photos from my D3 that measure up quite well.
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Frank Filippone
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:52 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] OT. Nikon screen brightness and contrast
> 
> Every point you made is correct. If I can prove to myself that the lenses 
> are acceptable, I can take the next step: rent/ buy/borrow a D800e and 
> test system vs system.
> 
> What I have not directly said is that I am skeptical the Nikon optics will 
> hold up to a comparison with Leica. So I am starting at the weakest and 
> (luckily) least costly point. Work my way up from there.
> Note that while the Nikon offers more pixels, i believe it is the FW 
> algorithms that make a significantly bigger  difference to IQ. IMO the
> Major contribution. The reality is that the FW works on all lenses. Better 
> quality optics reflect in better IQ in the same FW environment.   IMO,  
> the DMR, with Imacon ( think I have that right) FW is a big/ biggest 
> difference to why the DNR has great IQ. (And why the Hasselblad line is so 
> highly regarded in MF).
> 
> Thank you Doug for challenging my technique. Keep me on target.
> Frank Filippone
> 
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Frank Filippone wrote:
>> 
>> Good input Doug. Thought long and hard about the point you are making. 
>> The problem is that to test using a D800e would require a $3k investment.
>> <<<
>> 
>> Rentals are a good way to dip your toes in the water.
>> 
>> The adapter is basically an empty tube. No IQ effect.
>> <<<
>> 
>> If it's the proper thinkness and the front & back surfaces are parallel
>> 
>> I also believe the increased resolution of the Nikon and the absence of 
>> the IR filter will show the Nikon body to have of increased IQ compared 
>> to the Leica.
>> <<<
>> 
>> Best to verify this assumption.  There's more to image quality than the 
>> number of pixels, as DMR users have been saying for years.
>> 
>> Doug Herr
>> Birdman of Sacramento
>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


In reply to: Message from wildlightphoto at earthlink.net (Doug Herr) ([Leica] OT. Nikon screen brightness and contrast)
Message from billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce) ([Leica] OT. Nikon screen brightness and contrast)