awilder
Alan Wilder
Reassuring about the M240 reliability, makes perfect sense. I believe Leica M film bodies analogous to Rolex watches, i.e. beautiful all mechanical devices but require regular periodic servicing to maintain performance.
I also re-shot the earlier test subjects with a 35/2.8 AI Nikkor and the 45/2.8 AI-P but with the aid of a 2x eyepiece magnifier for exact screen focus rather than relying on the electronic RF green dot confirmation. Sharpness and color saturation was now at a similarly high level to the 35 ASPH 'cron. This tells me initial IQ difference was mostly due to the precision of Leica's long base RF. Nikon's electronic RF on MF lenses has too much slack on green dot confirmation to do justice on their MF lenses. ONTH, using a 35/1.4 Sigma AF lens outperforms the 35 ASPH if only looking at IQ. Too bad they don't allow interchangeable focusing screens with central microprism aid as in their early film AF bodies (F4 or n8008).
I also re-shot the earlier test subjects with a 35/2.8 AI Nikkor and the 45/2.8 AI-P but with the aid of a 2x eyepiece magnifier for exact screen focus rather than relying on the electronic RF green dot confirmation. Sharpness and color saturation was now at a similarly high level to the 35 ASPH 'cron. This tells me initial IQ difference was mostly due to the precision of Leica's long base RF. Nikon's electronic RF on MF lenses has too much slack on green dot confirmation to do justice on their MF lenses. ONTH, using a 35/1.4 Sigma AF lens outperforms the 35 ASPH if only looking at IQ. Too bad they don't allow interchangeable focusing screens with central microprism aid as in their early film AF bodies (F4 or n8008).