Confirmation that Leica & Zeiss rule the roost

[snaggs]

I was pointed to this faq in a discussion of slide vs neg for scanning when I noticed there first point up the top of the page.. seems from there experience Leica & Zeiss truly do capture more resolution.

Why do you recommend scanning 35mm to 100MB?
Scanning a 35mm frame at 5000dpi makes a 100 MB file. At 5000 dpi, we've reached the point of diminishing returns...you have to scan much larger to pull even small amounts of additional detail from the film. The exceptions are images captured with X-pan cameras, Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses.

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqscan.html

 

[FrankS]

Yah, but it's not an R3a. 🙂

Sorry couldn't resist. Last time, I promise.

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I was pointed to this faq in a discussion of slide vs neg for scanning when I noticed there first point up the top of the page.. seems from there experience Leica & Zeiss truly do capture more resolution.



http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqscan.html

Ahhh...we've known all along what we were doing 😀

 

[sf]

leica and zeiss on top

leica and zeiss on top

in fact both those manufacturers produce very nice glass in 35mm. And he is correct about the ceiling for practical resolution. You CAN only go so far before you are just magnifying grain. Perhaps further increases will produce clearer pics (sharper definition between grains). But it is impractical because the printing media also have limits. The film needs improvement at this point. Top level scanners are doing as well as they can with 35mm.

The glass makes a huge difference - of course. I would love to see Mamiya (my favorite manufacturer) produce a 35mm rangefinder this year, and some nice lenses for it. I think it could easily compete with Leica and Zeiss if my experience with their medium format hardware and lenses means anything.

Bottom line, yeah, Zeiss and Leica are the current best of 35mm glass. They are also the most expensive, so no secrets there. It depends on what focal lengths too. Zeiss probably has it with the Biogon wide angle lenses. Leica has spectacular 'normal' focal length lenses. It is a matter of personal preference though between Planar, etc and the Summicron.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Themirana is right. I've recently been checking the differences between different scan resolutions, using a brand new Konica Minolta Dimage 5400II (I think that's the full name...) With the the right fine-grain film, the right lens (such as a 75/2 Summicron) carefully focused, and the camera on a tripod, you can get extra detail at 5400. But as soon as there's more than the finest grain or even the tiniest amount of camera shake (and I mean the TINIEST amount), you're scanning non-existent detail.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Justin Low]

Comparing my images made with Nikkor lenses, and more recent images made with a M-Rokkor, I can't say I find a substantial difference in the technical quality of the photographs. I shoot handheld all the time, on Tri-X, so I might not be the best judge, though for all my practical purposes, there isn't a difference.

 

[Natron]

bahah.... yeah West Coast Imaging is really the final word on camera/lens quality and what's best. Or is it that they're just saying what you want to hear? MTF charts and real-world images prove them wrong millions of times over.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Lab testing with the usual roomful of equipment will tell you what is technically the best. In real world usage, with all it's many variables, levels the playing field to the point that there is likely no real differences. Simply not using a tripod probably destroys any advantage and very few people using RFs consistantly use a tripod. It is always nice to know that your equipment is up to it even if you may not be all the time.

Bob

 

[back alley]

well, thank heavens we cleared that up once and for all!


😉joe

 

[jlw]

Scanners have lenses in them, too. So if your scanner has oneathemthar inferior Japanese lenses in it, aren't you cancelling out all the advantages of using a camera lens made by the Photographic Master Race?

 

[einolu]

yes^

that is why voigtlander lenses make a lot of sense, heh.

 

[Hugh T]

My Pentax lens surprised me. I had a 1979 Kodachrome slide scanned to see what I could get from it. I chose the slide for its range of colours and densities but I didn't notice the background detail until I got the scan back. It is a 3957 x 5881 pixel (23 MegaPixels) 16 bit Tiff.
I took the photo hand held at a shutter speed fast enough to stop the feet of the people walking but not stopped down enough to get the foreground in focus. I used my 1972 Pentax Spotmatic F with 55 mm f 1.8 SMC Takumar lens ( I bought my Leica M4-2 six months later).
The first attachment shows the full frame, the second shows a full width crop, the third shows a full size crop (one pixel for each dot on your screen) and the third shows an enlargement of the pixels. The heels of the people are one pixel wide which to me means that the scan is not quite at the resolution of the film image. There is certainly a breakdown of sharpness due to grain but there is still detail which could not be seen at a lower magnification. This detail is at the centre of the lens but it shows that it's pretty darn good.
What do you think?

 

[aizan]

there was a modern photography or popular photography test that said the 50/1.4 takumar was as sharp and contrasty as the 50 summicron. pentax is good stuff.

 

[back alley]

people are so funny when it comes to lenses and sharpness.
it would seem some equate the level of their own talent with the degree of 'proven' sharpness.

sometimes i find it a bit more than irritating.

pentax and especially minolta made, for years, lenses that other companies could not touch.
reading the test reports showed they were equal to or better than most on the market. but advertising was not their strong suit, especially for pentax and others 'ruled'.

if you want sharp get a friggin' medium format or better still a large format camera.

joe

 

[ray_g]

Joe,

Can you post 100MB files in the gallery? 😉

 

[back alley]

don't know.

wassup?

joe

 

[Hugh T]

Resolution is not all there is to lenses. I took a lot of good pictures with my Pentax but when I bought my Leica, it was like I cleaned my glasses. I can only describe it as all the pictures seem clearer.

Hugh

 

[Trius]

Sean's tests, including the latest test of fast lenses on the R-D1, focus on how the lens "draws". There are alot of factors that affect the nature of the image when viewed as a transparency or print. When I worked in the camera department of a catalog department type store (remember those days?), I remember getting Pentax binoculars into stock. Most customers who were concerned about quality in a purchase of binoculars tended to Nikon. But I was blown away by the Pentax. In my opinion it was better than any Nikon binoculars we had. But many who came in with an intention to buy Nikon could not be "convinced". Granted, the Nikons were quite good and the advantage of the Pentax was not necessarily startling, but it was there.

Another example: My OM System Zuiko 100/2.8 is probably one of the best 100mm lenses ever. The 100/2 is perhaps sharper, but the way the 2.8 renders images is magical.

Finally, when I had an M3, one of my lenses was a 21mm Super Angulon. I really loved that lens. When I got a Zuiko 21 f2, I was startled at how good it was; I had expected to be disappointed since I had Leica glass for that focal length. When it came time to sell off some of my gear, letting go of the M3 was much easier because I had the Zuiko 21/2.

Trius

 

[StuartR]

The only lenses that I have ever used that have just seemed to be "beyond" in terms of performance have been the 105mm f/5.6 APO EL-Nikkor enlarging lens, the 50mm f/2 summicron, 50mm f/1.4 ASPH summilux and the 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R. These lenses just seem clearer than any other 35mm lenses I have used. They are not always the best choice (well the 105mm APO EL-Nikkor is, but that only has one purpose), but they are absurdly good. I have never used Zeiss lenses, but I am sure they may have a similar effect at their highest tier. For example, I have heard that their Orthoplanar enlarging lenses are even better than the APO EL-Nikkor, which seems well-nigh impossible.

In any case, most of what I am talking about is their performance on transparencies or with b&w fiber printing. Scanning is great, but even at 4800 dpi, it is hard to tell the difference between an excellent lens (90mm f/2.8 elmarit) and an absurdly good lens (50mm f/2 summicron).

 

[Iskra 2]

I had a 1979 Kodachrome slide scanned to see what I could get from it.

The heels of the people are one pixel wide which to me means that the scan is not quite at the resolution of the film image.

What do you think?

KODACHROME RULES! 🙂

Scan the slide in 10 years with the latest stuff and see what more is revealed.

I can't understand why Leica and Zeiss glass owners don't use more Kodachrome to show off their lenses capabilities and save the images for posterity. :bang: