Comparing the lens on my Rollei P&S to my Leica M7 w 28mm Asph

[Huss]

Comparing the zoom lens @28mm on my new to me Rollei QZ35W vs my Leica M7 w/ 28mm Asph 2.8

All pics taken at f2.8 at the same time. Late in the afternoon so the light was not strong.
F2.8 would show the lens' at their 'worst' and thus the easiest way to judge which one is better.


Leica M7 +28 2.8 Asph @ 2.8 + Fuji C200



Rollei QZ35W @ 28mm & 2.8 + Fuji C200



Leica center crop:



Rollei center crop:



Leica edge crop:



Rollei edge crop:




Pretty close, no? The Rollei's lens can also zoom out to 60mm if you're into that sort of thing, and has a top shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Leica M7 is 1/1000.

 

[Eric Rose]

Well you have made a "proof" of lens performance at f2.8. How they perform at f8 and fully stopped down would need further tests as I don't think the f2.8 results should be extrapolated to those values. If all you do is shoot wide open then I guess your finished.

 

[faberryman]

Pretty close, no? The Rollei's lens can also zoom out to 60mm if you're into that sort of thing, and has a top shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Leica M7 is 1/1000.

What scanner did you use at what settings?

 

[Alan9940]

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.

 

[Huss]

Well you have made a "proof" of lens performance at f2.8. How they perform at f8 and fully stopped down would need further tests as I don't think the f2.8 results should be extrapolated to those values. If all you do is shoot wide open then I guess your finished.

The biggest difference with lens performance is wide open. it's what separates the wheat from the chaff. Stopped down to f8/f11 all lenses look pretty much the same which is why I didn't bother.
At F8 I cannot distinguish any difference between my $3000 Leica Summilux Asp 50 1.4 and my $30 Jupiter 8...

I've taken other shots at 'regular' apertures with the Rollei, but none others side by side with the Leica. Stopped down the Rollei gets sharper as expected.

.

 

[Huss]

What scanner did you use a what settings?

Nikon D850 w/ Micro Nikkor 60 2.8 AF-S and a light pad. Shot NEF at max rez.

 

[Eric Rose]

The question is how much do you shoot wide open? I know it's the latest rage but for my photography I only shoot wide open on the rare occasion.

 

[ic-racer]

Nice test. Thanks for sharing. Of course stopped down they would be even closer.

 

[Huss]

The question is how much do you shoot wide open? I know it's the latest rage but for my photography I only shoot wide open on the rare occasion.

Using film, all the time once the light level gets lower - in the late afternoon to evening. No choice in the matter unless all I am doing is photographing static objects with a tripod.
It's not about being 'all the rage', it's about getting the shot the way you want to get the shot. With ISO 400 film, regular indoor or late afternoon light will result in an exposure of 1/30 @ 2.8.

Of course if I was a digital photographer then all I'd do is let the camera do its auto ISO thing and be blissfully unaware of the process. But that's why this post is in Photrio - it's dealing with the process of capturing images on film .

 

[Frank53]

Nikon D850 w/ Micro Nikkor 60 2.8 AF-S and a light pad. Shot NEF at max rez.

How do you know that what we see here is not limited by the quality of the Nikon camera and lens?
Regards,
Frank

 

[Richard Man]

Nice test. Just got to show that the extra $$$$ usually only get you that last 1-5%, and of course, the way most people photograph, they would never see that 5%.

(Having said that, I usually go for the "top-tier" - I rather have one great camera and one great lens, then half a dozen almost as good cameras, each with half a dozen "not bad" lenses)

 

[blockend]

I often use simple cameras, typically 3-element plastic lens 35mm P&S, and am continually amazed how sharp the images are. They have aberrations, vignetting, lack of contrast, chroma, uncorrected astigmatism round the edges, but sharpness is good enough for a 20 x 16". Last night I was looking at old black and white shots, and the Chinon 50mm 1.7 that came with my first SLR is seriously sharp, the equal of subsequent Nikon and Canon 50s, with plenty of contrast. My original enlarging lens wasn't doing it justice but subsequent prints and scans show just how good it was.

 

[Huss]

How do you know that what we see here is not limited by the quality of the Nikon camera and lens?
Regards,
Frank

Yes, you are correct. The Nikon D850 is a terrible piece of gear with a mediocre 47mp full frame sensor, and the Nikon 60mm Micro Nikkor lens is one step away from shooting through a broken beer bottle.

Don't worry - I'm not selling my Leica gear, it's a different experience. But I'm not blinded by brand either.

 

[BMbikerider]

In my mind, the difference between using the Rollie P&S when compared to the Leica M7 is the quality of the construction and the knowledge that the Leica will be around long after the \rollie has been melted down and the plastic used for other consumer items

 

[Frank53]

Yes, you are correct. The Nikon D850 is a terrible piece of gear with a mediocre 47mp full frame sensor, and the Nikon 60mm Micro Nikkor lens is one step away from shooting through a broken beer bottle.

Don't worry - I'm not selling my Leica gear, it's a different experience. But I'm not blinded by brand either.

Sorry, did not mean to upset you.
And buying Leica stuff is not my intention either, I’ve been there and now I am perfectly happy with my 65 years old Contaxes and my Hasselblads.
I’m only saying, that digitizing this way maybe does not bring out the differences between those lenses or even any lens.
Maybe it’s better to finish the analog process and make prints.
Scanning film on my Imacon does not always show me differences between lenses and printing sometimes does. If there are differences.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

In my mind, the difference between using the Rollie P&S when compared to the Leica M7 is the quality of the construction and the knowledge that the Leica will be around long after the \rollie has been melted down and the plastic used for other consumer items

That last part really put a smile on my face Thanks for doing so on a rather dull day.

Marcelo.

 

[Les Sarile]

Not the best film to use nor the best scene to shoot which are likely the weakest links in the tests.

BTW, how is the internal color negative conversion in the 850 working for you?

 

[pentaxuser]

Not the best film to use nor the best scene to shoot which are likely the weakest links in the tests./QUOTE]

Let us and the OP know which film and scene is the best and maybe he can show us the results again. The test looks pretty good to me.

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Well, either the Leica lenses are overrated, the Rollei lenses are underrated, or most any modern lens is more than adequate to the point that the only people who care are the brand apologists and not those actually making images. All three could certainly be true. I tend toward the later option, though I am sure someone's ox will be gored by the suggestion.

 

[Huss]

In my mind, the difference between using the Rollie P&S when compared to the Leica M7 is the quality of the construction and the knowledge that the Leica will be around long after the \rollie has been melted down and the plastic used for other consumer items

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.

 

[Huss]

Not the best film to use nor the best scene to shoot which are likely the weakest links in the tests.

BTW, how is the internal color negative conversion in the 850 working for you?

Here's the thing. When I did this it was impromptu. I had just received the Rollei and was running a test roll through it to make sure it worked. I then realized I had the same film in my M7 and thought it would be fun to go out on my balcony and do a quick comparison. That's it. No way would I bother to dig in further to find the excruciating minutiae in differences because that has nothing to do with photography. So I'm not sure what a 'best scene' would be, given that this is a real scene not a test board. And shot in a real way, the way I use cameras to create images that I sell.
I find C200 to be an absolutely excellent film, and have no qualms in using it. The fact that people are nit picking these results because they cannot see any difference proves the point exactly!
The methodology of the test was exactly the same, from image capture to processing to scanning, to showing 1:1 crops. They result in showing next to no differences. That is the result.

I will tell you that the Leica 28 2.8 Asph has better flare resistance than the Rollei lens, but then again the Rollei is a zoom lens and has far more elements in it. But still, given that all the other Leica lenses I have are pretty terrible with handling flare it is worth noting. My Zeiss glass (modern) handles flare much better than Leica.

 

[Huss]

BTW, how is the internal color negative conversion in the 850 working for you?

Terrible. Freaking 'orrible. It does not recognize different film stock so everything is processed the same way. And the results lack detail - unsharp, blown out highlights, no shadow detail.

Supposedly Nikon is about to release a FirmWare update to correct for this, which is why they still have not yet released the new ES-2 film copier. I don't understand why Nikon has not included individual specific film profiles, since they already had those for their Coolscan film scanners back in the day.

I do it myself - scanning in RAW and converting it in LightRoom.

 

[Les Sarile]

Here's the thing. When I did this it was impromptu.

Perfectly fine but I was previously unaware of the goal and parameters. As a decades long test engineer - much less as a photog, I think differently.

 

[Les Sarile]

Terrible. Freaking 'orrible. It does not recognize different film stock so everything is processed the same way. And the results lack detail - unsharp, blown out highlights, no shadow detail.

Supposedly Nikon is about to release a FirmWare update to correct for this, which is why they still have not yet released the new ES-2 film copier. I don't understand why Nikon has not included individual specific film profiles, since they already had those for their Coolscan film scanners back in the day.

I do it myself - scanning in RAW and converting it in LightRoom.

Too bad about the built in conversion.
Been using Coolscan 5000/9000+Nikonscan with over45K frames scanned to date and never knew of any embedded film profiles.

 

[Les Sarile]

Let us and the OP know which film and scene is the best and maybe he can show us the results again. The test looks pretty good to me.
pentaxuser

Since the OP clarified the goal and parameters, it's perfectly fine.
Test I did but with different goal and parameters -> https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/real-scanning-details.157879/