Haha! Perhaps not the best test of the camera lens optics?
(but a fine way to judge photography)
Last edited:
... Back then they would project our 35mm slides up on a large screen for critique. Members of the club owned just about every brand of 35mm camera. There was no way that I could determine which photograph was taken by which camera.
Bruce Gilden used nikon SLR for close up portraits projects - I saw it in one documentary.
Bruce Gilden used nikon SLR for close up portraits projects - I saw it in one documentary.
Haha! Perhaps not the best test of the camera lens optics?
(but a fine way to judge photography)
I did not say Bruce Gilden used a FG and a FM2n. I said I used them. That is my current camera line up.
No, not the most accurate test but a real world test. Most of us shoot in the real world and don't shoot test charts in a laboratory.
For accuracy combined with durability and a bucket full of features nothing beats Nikon F6. The only excuse would be the size, but this is not always what matters. As for the lenses, one can easily say that the cold blooded perfection of the latest Japanese made lenses is on par to the best of the rest.
The point is, that the best photos have not been taken only best cameras, and best lenses. Not to mention that several of the best photos ever had been a product of some sort of accident.
Three cameras I would like to borrow for a day are a Leica M3/M6 and a Holga 120 and all based upon what I have read over the years, the Holga for the craziness and the Leica to see if the hype becomes fact.
Three cameras I would like to borrow for a day are a Leica M3/M6 and a Holga 120 and all based upon what I have read over the years, the Holga for the craziness and the Leica to see if the hype becomes fact.
As someone once said, you cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is irrational.
I'm quite surprised at the lack of faith in Leica optics.
...but these days I just want good photos.
Sure, it sounds fun. As a test though it's far worse than almost any example of print or screen (the methods most used to view photography in 2016). No charts needed.
I've found even casual tests show differences on modern digital sensors and modest enlargement. I haven't tried with Leica glass on film.
I guaranty you that I could blow up a bunch of photographs to 8x10 from various 35mm cameras using the same film and you wouldn't be able to tell me which camera shot which photograph.
Yes, there are subtle differences in 35mm lenses but it's not as dramatic as some make it out to be. This is all coming from someone who shot Contax and owned 5 Zeiss lenses.
I maintain that differences exist and they are most obvious at high resolution. Whether this is of value is another question. Whether it makes economic sense to invest in those better lenses is again ... another question.
I've no doubt. Project them and I'd never even stand a chance.
I agree. I shoot a Contax 139q with a couple of Zeiss MM lenses. I shoot cheap(ish) compact cameras and plastic lens cameras quite happily too.
I maintain that differences exist and they are most obvious at high resolution. Whether this is of value is another question. Whether it makes economic sense to invest in those better lenses is again ... another question.
... I do good with Industars ... but every time me need Leica lens for very good photos, not just good photos.
I guaranty you that I could blow up a bunch of photographs to 8x10 from various 35mm cameras using the same film and you wouldn't be able to tell me which camera shot which photograph. Yes, there are subtle differences in 35mm lenses but it's not as dramatic as some make it out to be. This is all coming from someone who shot Contax and owned 5 Zeiss lenses.
I've never tested older film lenses on digital cameras.
...Because since when did a great photo require great optics?
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?