Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John: To see the difference, shoot slides in various conditions including times where there can be flare. You will see a difference if shot on 100 asa or slower slide film, better yet Kodachrome. I can see a difference between my EOS lenses and my Leica Lenses, from when I brought both to France about two years ago. The Leica slides seemed more saturated and contrasty. Regards, Robert At 11:20 AM 2/25/99 -0800, you wrote: >At 10:39 AM 25-02-1999 -0800, Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> wrote: > >>That outfit he describes the OM 4T is very Leicalike in my opinion. The >>glass may not be quite as excellent as he says it is but excellent none >>the less. The compactness of its look in a camera case could easily have >>more appeal than the same outfit in R8 to an M user. Those are little >>gems of cameras and lenses. When they say T they are not talking about >>titanium paint. Its a shame the whole company lost its image as a >>serious contender in the autofocus era. It was the system my best friend >>used when I started out with my chunky (pre FM influenced by Olympas) >>system. Its possible that if it wasn't for them we'd all be shooting >>with M5's and speaking…..? >>Mark Rabinereeze >> >At what point and / or under what circumstances would any alleged >differences in the quality of the optics become apparent to a moderately >discriminating viewer? > >jh > > > >