Mehrdad: the CD is $2.99, they are 3047x2048 pixels per negative. Not high-res, but enough for my purposes. Philippe, You are right the negatives are not exactly the same (disadvantages of not using a tripod!), and this may explain the different exposures recommended by the two cameras. I will post the Zeiss version of the little white flower so you can see the bokeh, and I'll look for some images where one can find light fall-off and distortion. Thanks for looking! On May 4, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Philippe Amard wrote: > Hi Juan > very interesting experiment indeed > Although I don't know to what extent the negs were cropped while > scanning (always does munch a little up unfortunately) but we might > think that the 2/3 stop difference, hence details etc, is the > result of > slightly different angles - indeed the sun or part of it shows on one > shot and not on the other one - that might be why - what do you think? > anyhow I like the reflection/reflexion on the pavement/sidewalk. > > Both lenses are very very valuable, if you have other comparisons with > varied magnification of the zooms, I'd be curious to see full wide > angle, wide open (vignetting if any and/or distortion) and full tele > (bokeh) compared. > > Thanks again for sharing > Phileicangenieux. > > > > > Juan Gea-Banacloche wrote: > >> Lately I use gear comparisons as an excuse to take camera(s) with me >> and take pictures. (If you see a guy in Washington DC handling a >> couple of Leicaflexes, or a Leica and a Contax, taking the same >> picture twice, that's me). >> >> In fact, this is less moronic than it sounds. I get to take pictures, >> and one does get better by clicking more. Plus, it has the added >> benefit that I become more and more opinionated on my own equipment. >> >> I wanted to compare the Zeiss 35-70 f/3.4 for Contax with the Leica >> Vario-Elmar 35-70 f/4. I had a pre-conceived opinion: I was not going >> to notice any difference. My comparisons are not with heavy-duty >> tripod and a chart on the wall. They are,literally, taking the "same" >> picture twice, as I would have taken it if I had carried one of the >> two cameras only. Except, of course, I take it once with each (for >> the comparison, the stop and speed must, of course, be the same-- >> which was the case in the majority -but not all- of pictures taken >> with the R8 and the Contax Aria, both on matrix metering. Obviously, >> the programs behind each matrix system are different). Film, Reala >> 100, developed and scanned at Costco. >> >> Of course, the reason I find this testing valuable for me is that it >> really reflects "what I would get" in actual practice. (When I shoot >> color negatives, this is what I do: I take them to Costco and they >> scan it for me). So it is more meaningful than tripod and chart, or >> even brick wall. >> >> All in all, there were almost no discernible differences. The >> differences were almost always caused by something else: camera >> shake, small differences in focus or exposure. When the exposures >> where different (which was only sometimes), the R8 exposed 2/3 of >> stop over the Aria. This resulted (not surprisingly) in higher detail >> in the shadows). When the pictures can be compared, AND there is a >> visible difference, it is always in favor of the Leica lens. It's >> close, mind you (it can be seen in Photoshop at 300%-- sometimes... >> but the truth is my 75 year-old mother, who is visiting and has been >> rather amused by my camera-swapping identified the Leica stack of 4x6 >> as "crisper, with more contrast"). >> >> Flare is also better controlled by the Vario-Elmar... >> >> I have uploaded he biggest difference (and a good example of how this >> may be irrelevant most of the time), which someone may say it's >> caused by exposure difference (2/3 more the Leica picture than the >> Contax). I think that, even if both I focused on the traffic cone and >> used f:5.6 on both, the focus is slightly different, and this is the >> reason the Leica crop seems so much better...): >> >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/Leica-lens-comparisons/VE01560031 >> >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/Leica-lens-comparisons/VS01560031 >> >> The crops with the difference can be seen after the full frames >> >> So: controlling camera shake, focus and exposure are typically going >> to influence more than Leica vs Zeiss-- but Leica seems to flare >> less. Not only that, the image I lliked best from both rolls was an >> accident with Leica (which shows the outstanding flare control of the >> V-E >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/Leica-lens-comparisons/01560007_G >> >> plus I got 38 images (37 with the Contax). So there it is your cash >> at work. ;-) >> >> I have also uploaded the 3 pictures I like best from this roll, to >> re- >> initiate my "PAW" never completed project. Comments are welcome. >> >> >> Juan >> >> On Apr 27, 2006, at 11:38 PM, Bill Lawlor wrote: >> >> >> >>> Juan, it is better to compare results on transparency films. 100 >>> ISO E-6 >>> films have superior fine grain characteristics to Reala 100. Reala >>> 100 is my >>> favorite negative color film, but usually in medium format 120 or >>> 220. As a >>> long time advocate of film I understand your scepticism about >>> digital >>> cameras. Recently I "processed" RAW images made with a 6.1 MP >>> DSLR and >>> discovered the quality at large enlargements (16X24 inches) >>> sometimes >>> exceeded 35mm. I'll probably go digital within the next year. >>> >>> Regards, Bill Lawlor >>> >>> >> ------ >> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: >> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm >> Archives are at: >> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/ >> >> >> >> > > > ------ > Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: > http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm > Archives are at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/ ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/