A silly question about lens resolution and darkroom enlargements

[mich rassena]

Not a very conclusive test is it. I'm looking at the images on my phone and the first canon shot is over exposed, out of focus and probably some motion in it. Both don't appear to be scanned very well either.

Conclusion, you picked the Summicron because it's a Leica lens. How can a valid conclusion be drawn with a test like this? Nothing personal.

I agree. At best this is apples and oranges. Two different focal lengths, one subject much larger in the frame than the other, but out of focus, with some motion blur.

Aside from this there is no information about shutter speed, aperature or ISO. No one can tell much from teeny, tiny example images instead of uncropped and unresized originals.

Obviously one image is blurrier than the other. How did that happen? I've gotten sharper images out of a new $25 Fujian CCTV lens, so I doubt the Canon is the problem. This is yet another example that outlines just how important technique is. I think what we're actually seeing here is the halo effect in action.

 

[Robert Lai]

Back in your first posting on this issue
I said that if you want sharp images, you need
TRIPOD
TRIPOD
TRIPOD.

A Zenit with its lens on a tripod will beat your handheld Leicaflex with Summicron anyday when you're shooting at 1/15 second or slower.

 

[f16sunshine]

Hi Steve

The RFF has very little capacity for direct image upload.
If you want to demonstrate this comparison larger images are a must.
Upload the images to one of the free hosting sites (flickr etc..).
Then you can upload an image link to a larger version.
Even if you upload to the rff gallery you can get a larger image online and then, link it here to the forum. (the gallery and forum are separate entities).

 

[x-ray]

I'm really steady but there's no way I could get sharp images handheld at 1/15 with a 90 or 135.

 

[Steve M.]

I can get good shots 25%-50% of the time at real slow speeds w/ a telly.....the hard part is getting the victim, oops, I mean the subject to sit still on a candid shot!

I agree, not conclusive from the little shots here (the scans look much bigger on the monitor here), but after photopucket did what they did I will not be in a hurry to do any more online photo hosting. Doesn't make any sense for me anyway, as all I do is wet print.

Funny how people go on about sharpness, and these are portrait type shots. The last thing I want in a portrait is a sharp shot. I want good IQ and good bokeh. And from that stand point, the Canon lens is excellent. The Leica has something else going for it though. Softer for sure, but something makes the shots really nice. We'll see how it works out between the two lenses w/ large wet prints of Tri-X and T-max.

 

[mich rassena]

Funny how people go on about sharpness, and these are portrait type shots. The last thing I want in a portrait is a sharp shot. I want good IQ and good bokeh. And from that stand point, the Canon lens is excellent. The Leica has something else going for it though. Softer for sure, but something makes the shots really nice. We'll see how it works out between the two lenses w/ large wet prints of Tri-X and T-max.

Sharpness isn't really the issue in the images you posted. The photo from the Canon simply isn't in focus, aside from this, the subject is clearly moving enough to cause motion blur. If you were forced to use a long lens for these photos, a faster lens or higher ISO (film or setting) is a must.

Any quality lens requires adequate technique to exploit its advantages, otherwise any bargain-bin lens will do.

 

[x-ray]

I can get good shots 25%-50% of the time at real slow speeds w/ a telly.....

Funny how people go on about sharpness, and these are portrait type shots. The last thing I want in a portrait is a sharp shot. I want good IQ and good bokeh. And from that stand point, the Canon lens is excellent. The Leica has something else going for it though. Softer for sure, but something makes the shots really nice. We'll see how it works out between the two lenses w/ large wet prints of Tri-X and T-max.

Disclaimer: I'm not at all trying to be rude with you, just honest.

But I've been a full time commercial photographer for 50 years and I've learned a lot and heard a lot of, well let's say BS. You must seriously consider these samples to be good work, yes or no? If you do that explains some of your other statements. You don't know good work from bad. Everyone has to start at the beginning knowing nothing. We're not born with this knowledge. I've seen, especially beginners, try to impress me with their camera, knowledge and experience. It doesn't work.

I'll agree that sharpness isn't everything but there's a balance of exposure, color and sharpness that goes into making an excellent portrait and you've missed it in every way. I would have been ashamed to show these to anyone.

Again only trying to be honest.

 

[Ronald M]

These are nothing more than "record" photos of people.

All beginners think cameras when they should be thinking lighting. Study portrait lighting.

When you can create a portrait, then think cameras.

T Max 400 is far superior. In its day XXX was OK. I used to manipulate with 2 bath developer and sometimes water bath. Also had Microdol X. Plus x was still superior.

Screwing around with different films and developer will lead you nowhere. Pick one.