Minolta Rokkor MD vs Nikkor AI

You can argue all day about MTF's, and call each other names all you want, but in the end, the only thing that matters is what gear works best for you. Also consider that some of those lens tests are done on one individual sample, and for something that will be produced in the hundreds of thousands, will present many variations of quality as time goes on.

I've got lenses that were supposed to be very good, and are just junk as far as I'm concerned. Could be manufacturing anomalies, or just hard use over the years. The fact of the matter is most of us deal in used gear, and so you can't think that anything you buy that way will be close to test chart specs.

PF
 
DominikDUK said:
Nope I just prefer an unbiased source or at least a source that actually builds optics Hasselblad is neither. Regardin mfg I would trust Zeiss, Leitz and Olympus the others not so much. An unbiased source could be a university or any other serious research institute not a company but I guess objectivity is too much to ask.
Click to expand...

So why are Leitz, Zeiss and Olympus trustworthy, but not others?
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137958

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137958

Truly amazing discussion.
Leica,Olympus and Zeiss are trustworthy. Really?
Zeiss claimed resolution figures a short while back, that are optimistic.
Well truly on the side of bragging.
Leica always made out, years ago, that they made their own glass..

The MTF is BS. Pure and simple.
It favors contrast, not actual sharpness.
Reality what difference does it all make?
If a camera is not set to exact specification.
Lenses in pure perfect condition.
Most careful focus..
Human error will take more out than put in.
I use lenses. I shoot photos.
Since the arrival of digital, using all sorts of older equipment,
i seldom see one better than another..
 
photodo/hasselblad's MTF testing was rigorous and well respected.

to argue that photodo is systematically biased because you are of the opinion that manufacturers put out calculated MTFs to sell lenses(which are not, btw incorrectly calculated) is literal falacy and disgusting behavior.

put the lens on the bench. measure the contrast at a given frequency or the frequency at a given contrast. it will tell you which lens is better in a vacuum. nothing more, nothing less. this insistence that measured reality is irrelevant makes me want to smash my head into things.

the question wasn't which system was better or which system makes better pictures at all. it was who made better lenses between Nikon and Minolta and it's fine if you want to post your opinions but to use those to invalidate what someone can demonstrate with repeatability should be worthy of a ban because it is counterproductive to the topic.
 
Everyone can agree that MTF graphs do provide a form of objective measurement that permit comparison between different lenses, at least I think they can. Whether or not that particular measurement provides much value in the real world is where the disagreements get started.
 
A few people in this discussion really take this way too personally!
I think that is warranted if you actually made the lens/es in question or were the aforementioned lens/es designer.
Other than that, it's purely emotional allegiance. Perhaps the allegiance tugs on the emotions through the pocketbook?
Really, there is no reason to get so worked up about it.

Phil Forrest
 
I think that from now on, anyone who posts a topic asking which camera, lens, watch, knife, bag, car or whatever deserves a ban for causing general unrest! 😉
 
Why are Zeiss Leica and Olympus more trustworthy at least to me very simple aside from Leica they don't live or really need still camera lens production. Olympus is big in life and medical sciences, Zeiss is pretty much leader in the vast majority of Optical fields and Leica's MTF results are believe it or not often less than stellar even though their lenses are regarded as some of the best in the world. Nikon and Canon freely admit that they used computed MTF and not real MTF tests. Of course you could call me biased. In reality MTF tests matter nothing or very little to still photographers, because as I've said a hundred times the test only shows the results from a single setup(tightly controlled lab setup) and are meaningless to other setups (slightly wiggly mount etc..., lens manufacturing tolerances, etc...). Results from Zeiss, Leica and Olympus are not different in that regard but at least they perform real tests and are known for their Q.C. but like I said in a different post I would prefer unbiased tests by non commercial entities.

Redisburning: The question if all Minolta lenses from a series are sharper than a series of Nikon lenses can only be answered correctly if all lenses that are being manufactured undergo an MTF test and not one or two (manufacturing tolerances and such)

Last but not least they are both superb camera and lens manufacturers, Minolta and their platinum glass produces superb result , so does Nikon Glass from Hoya and Schott.
Saying Minolta is generally better than Nikon would be lying just like saying Nikon lenses are generally better would be lying they both produced dogs and magic.
 
P.S. Photodo is a great ressource and they have more to offer than just MTF. But to quote them: Understanding the MTF graphs, numbers and grades We have been testing lenses with Hasselblads Ealing MTF equipment since 1991. All MTF reports are made with the same equipment and by the same operator (Per Nordlund at Victor Hasselblad AB).
So far we have tested lenses only at infinity.
We measure MTF at 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm, where 10 lp/mm (line pairs/ mm) means 10 black lines with 10 white lines in between, for each millimeter.
Photodo test result: 4,8
Higher is better. 4,8 is the grade on a scale going from 0 to 5. The grade is based on the average weighted MTF for the lens. No other variables, such as distortion, flare, or ghosting are taken into account. We chose 0,88 for a grade of 4,8 to make sure that we will never hit the "roof" (>5). See more at Average Weighted MTF: 0,88 below.

Lenses that perform better at close distances are getting shafted still a good ressource but not a tell all and they honestly admit it. To get a feel for lens's performance photodo is superb though and a great asset for the still photographic community.
 
you have a million excuses as to why we shouldnt consider photodo's numbers but you can provide no measurements yourself.

if your argument is really it doesnt matter because in the "real world" there are inconsistencies in systems then I change my argument to it doesnt matter because in 100 years we'll all be ****ing dead and wont be able to compare them.
 
redisburning said:
you have a million excuses as to why we shouldnt consider photodo's numbers but you can provide no measurements yourself.

if your argument is really it doesnt matter because in the "real world" there are inconsistencies in systems then I change my argument to it doesnt matter because in 100 years we'll all be ****ing dead and wont be able to compare them.
Click to expand...

take a deep breath…relax…is it worth a jump in blood pressure to get someone else to see things your way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AveryWagg
Rokkor MD to M adapters - rangefinder-coupled?
Replies
4
Views
1K
raid
raid
gavinlg
Micro nikkor 55mm - as good as the rumours suggest?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
Pál_K
Pál_K
J
  • Article Article
12 Great Buys in Vintage Film Cameras:These superb user-collectibles offer real value for users and collectors.
2 3
Replies
47
Views
18K
Bolo Kukus
B
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #2 Rethinking of retro digital camera
Replies
4
Views
472
lxforrest
lxforrest
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #2 Rethinking of retro digital camera
Replies
0
Views
174
lxforrest
lxforrest
Back
Top Bottom