Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dave Rodgers wrote: >>> I can't fully explain why I still think Leica glass makes a difference in the digital realm. It's not like CRTs or 1,440 dpi printers cry for resolution, and you can punch up contrast quite easily. Yet I see things at times that convince me to stay with Leica, even when AF beckons. If I had to justify it (and I know that I don't to this audience) I'd say that nothing seems to tame imperfect light like Leica glass. The more I shoot, the more I compare, the more I'm convinced. I lose very few frames due to poor focusing. However, the real gem photos seem to be those taken in adverse lighting. <<< I've noticed the same thing. The chromes made with Leica glass hold shadow detail better where the "Brand N" glass gave me murk; brighter colors with harsh backlighting is also obvious. Before digital printing I could excuse murky shadows in my prints as a result of the printing process but it's obvious now. It's the glass. My own transitions include: 1) digital printing. I'll never use an enlarger again. 2) from R to SL. The larger body feels better with my primary lenses, the 250, 400 and 560 Telyts, and the awesome, bright SL viewfinder is just what I need with these slow lenses. A large infusion of cash might cause a transition to winder-ized R8 bodies. Doug Herr Sacramento http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt