Rockwell tests Retina IIIc vs Nikon D3!

Spider67

Spider67

Well-known
Local time
10:47 PM
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,143
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

Read the entry of Sept. 20th! Perhaps he has made some methodical errors in his comparison but I like it: finally I have an answer for all those who ask me "Why on earth are you still using that relic?"

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"The 1956 camera, with its fixed 50mm f/2 Schneider Retina-Xenar on Fuji Velvia 50 and a good automated scan, has better resolution than Nikon's state-of-the-art digital."[/FONT]

Enjoy! (or rather: Rejoice Ruthless Retinites!)
Des still in Rhodes!
 
I wish he'd written more, but it was funny all the same.

Film: The Immortal Medium of the Masters. Digital: Profit center for large foreign corporations.
Click to expand...

Quite pithy.

This bit above that "Does anybone still read print?" had a funny quote:

I remember the huge difference in quality between the same photo of a dead gorilla being hauled out of the jungle as reproduced in National Geographic, and the same photo in another photo magazine I read on another lazy Sunday.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Thanks for the link. I was going to trade my Retina IIc for a Nikon D30, but not now. I'm waiting for that new 37mp Leica, then I might trade down. PM your offers!
 
I have a Retina IIA not a IIIC, as well I have a Leica M4-P with a 50mm Summicron to compare. The little Retina is a little unnervingly good when compared to the Leica. Even when using slide film.

Pictures taken with my Zeiss Contessa (folder) do well in comparison with the Leica as well.
 
Photography wasn't invented in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's or now. To think that someone, somewhere had figured out how to produce high quality images way back then is astounding to some.

It is good that Ken is branching out into vintage gear. It may bring a few folks our way.
 
"DOS and Windows are popular with people who work dull office jobs, but there's no reason that creative professional would have any reason to downgrade to Windows, since we'd get far less done."
 
Ken needs a big spanking, rather than being exited that there will be a MF size chip in a SLR body available he is bitching about this:.............

Unfortunately Leica is using the wrong aspect ratio, the dopey 3:2 ratio of old 35mm film. Leica should have used 3:4 or 4:5 if the S2 is intended for pros, as opposed to rich amateurs. With the too-wide 3:2 rectangle, most pros will be cropping off the sides and wasting pixels, but the S2 seems to have enough for now.
 
Rogier said:
Ken needs a big spanking, rather than being exited that there will be a MF size chip in a SLR body available he is bitching about this:.............

Unfortunately Leica is using the wrong aspect ratio, the dopey 3:2 ratio of old 35mm film. Leica should have used 3:4 or 4:5 if the S2 is intended for pros, as opposed to rich amateurs. With the too-wide 3:2 rectangle, most pros will be cropping off the sides and wasting pixels, but the S2 seems to have enough for now.
Click to expand...
I am kind of feeling snobby now that I use my Ricoh GX200 in its 1:1 mode. 12 megapixels at a perfect square in B&W is pretty nice.
 
I was looking at some chromes from my M7 (the Mamiya kind, not the Leica kind) and wondering why would I need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a MF digital when I already had a camera that could produce those chromes? Then I realized - I don't! Whew, what a relief!

/T
 
Ok folks just wanted to spread some warm smiles among the people who use Retinas.....I think there shoul be a board named "hit the rockwell" for some of the posts.
 
Yes, film holds up really well when compared to digital - if you have enough light. But the newest DSLRs win in low light. Have you seen the ISO 3200 shots from the D3and D700? Just stunning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom