CMS 20 is a "special kind of film so can I ask:Would the there be a difference in the test if the majority of "normal" films were used.?It seems likely that the Leica lens result is limited by something else, not the lens.
For example see post 19 here, a Zeiss 50 mm gets 240-260 lppm on the film with CMS 20:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rollei-rpx-25-grain-and-resolution.115244/
The Rollei QZ is made out of titanium, including the lens cap! It was designed by Porsche for Rollei as the ultimate P&S camera.
It seems likely that the Leica lens result is limited by something else, not the lens.
For example see post 19 here, a Zeiss 50 mm gets 240-260 lppm on the film with CMS 20:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rollei-rpx-25-grain-and-resolution.115244/
OK let me modify my comment: When the Rollei has been melted down and all residual metals and plastic have been recycled and made into other consumer items. Ferdinand Porsche can design something else to use what is left.
It seems likely that the Leica lens result is limited by something else, not the lens.
For example see post 19 here, a Zeiss 50 mm gets 240-260 lppm on the film with CMS 20:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rollei-rpx-25-grain-and-resolution.115244/
It's called the prime lens vs zoom lens debate. If the zoom lens was equal they would not need to make prime lenses any more for most purposes.Why do you assume it's not the Rollei lens that is limited by the film?
It's called the prime lens vs zoom lens debate. If the zoom lens was equal they would not need to make prime lenses any more for most purposes.
Interesting...I once pitted my Retina IIa against my M6 w/50mm Summicron--same film, processed together, etc--made enlargements in my darkroom to the sizes that I typically print 35mm negatives, and was shocked to find that the Retina was actually just a tad sharper at each enlargement size. Never going to give up my Leica, but I was pleasantly surprised knowing that I could grab the Retina for a hike or whatever and expect nice results.
In short, I dunno!
Get in touch with Leica themselves. Perhaps it has something to do with brass is more easily machined than titanium and not many of their cameras get melted down.
Brass has served Ernst Leitz and now Leica for a century, so why change a proven formula. All the essential working parts will be somewhat better and robust materials with the idea in mind that they can be repaired time and time again. Were the screw thread mounts of the early interchangeable lens Leicas also made of brass. I never heard of a screw thread camera failing because it was brass! The later ones (M Series) would have the mount made from stainless steel which is more than durable enough for a camera and ideal for a bayonet.
Also Titanium will be far more expensive and more difficult to make complex moldings and pressings and so bump the price up even further. Brass isn't an inferior metal, it is just different and suits the task in hand. besides when the 1st Leicas were made had they even discovered the properties of Titanium?
(Apart from anything else I don't like point and shoot cameras)
It's a very limited zoom range 28-60mm which helps designers produce a high quality f2.8 lens, what we can't see in the examples is how or if the lens distorts compared to the Leitz lens.
Ian
That limited zoom range still tops that of what my 28mm 2.8 Asph offers. By a lot.
There are plenty of horizontal lines (and some vertical ones too) in those pics to look for distortion. Just match the two up.
I might be miss-reading you but in English you imply the Zoom is better than your 28mm Leitz lens. I'd doubt that I borrowed a 21mm Leitz lens in th 1990's and it was superb a28mm is even better
Ian
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?