[Leica] Micro 4/3rds

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 6:43 PM -0400 3/31/10, Doug Herr wrote:
>Henning Wulff wrote:
>
>>If I'm standing on a boat and have to shoot at 1/30 of a second I'll
>>generally get a higher quality image with the 100-400 IS than with a
>>similar weight and cost 400/5.6 without IS. That's a valid
>>comparison. If we're talking about shooting on land with support
>>available and comparing the 100-400 IS with a 280/4 Apo-Telyt, that's
>>not a valid comparison for a number of reasons.
>
>Why is the land comparison not valid if the boat one is?
>

Hi Doug,

The reason I said the 'boat' example is a valid comparison is that 
the lenses are of equal speed (and approximate cost) and neither can 
be used with any other stabilizing system other than the shock 
absorption of your body.

The 'land' comparison isn't valid as laid out because you're 
comparing a $1500 lens against a $3500 or so lens, and when you allow 
tripod or other serious bracing options IS is taken out of the 
equation.

In your situation, Doug, where you take the time to properly 
research, stalk and approach a creature and use the best lens and 
best support IS becomes irrelevant unless you are forced to suddenly 
take a shot with your 280/4 plus converter handheld at 1/30 second. 
Then IS _might_ be useful.

I've shot with 400mm+ lenses since the early 60's, and have had 400mm 
lenses of various qualities. The best lens optically I've had is the 
first generation of 400/5.6 Nikkor P-C that had exotic glass but had 
not yet been marketed as 'ED'. No Nikon 400mm lens since had 
outperformed it, and I got many excellent shots with it. All those 
excellent shots were from a tripod or at 1/500sec. I sometimes got 
technically excellent shots at 1/125, but now with the 100-400 Canon 
and IS I can get the same percentage at 1/15, which is a three stop 
improvement. No, the 100-400 is not nearly up to the standards of the 
Nikkor, but it is a lot better at 1/15 and in fact any handheld shot 
less than 1/250, it focusses closer and has a much more manageable 
throw. In other words, it handles way better.

As a 400, the 400/6.8 Telyt handled way better than the 400 Nikkor 
but the optical quality of the Nikkor was massively better, so around 
1976 I got the Nikkor and was happy with the quality of the images 
but frustrated with the handling.

I have seen results from some of the better Nikon and Canon lenses 
with IS (or VR) and don't see much real world compromise in image 
quality from them, so high quality is possible. Are the Leica lenses 
better? Probably, but then so is the 50 Summilux ASPH compared with 
any other 50, all of which don't have IS.

IS is not a panacea but in many circumstances can allow you to get an 
image that you couldn't get otherwise. That's a major breakthrough. 
Many types of photography depend on getting the shot at all at some 
level, and the ultimate technical quality doesn't make/break the 
shot. Here IS can be a huge aid, whether or not image quality is 
compromised, which I still believe is minimal in an of itself.

In my formal architectural work IS is of course pointless, and 
strangely enough none of my 4x5 lenses have it. Neither do my 35mm 
based tilt and shift lenses.

Regarding the in-body and in-lens debate, both sides have merit. To 
date the in-lens method has bee slightly more effective, with the 
in-body method being less expensive if you have a number of lenses 
and more versatile. As far as image quality degradation, both systems 
open the possibility for more quality control issues. In my opinion 
that's a toss-up.

-- 

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com