Jean-Claude Berger - Consultant, Formateur indépendant - MCSE - MCT - MCP
Formations Systèmes Microsoft, Windows 2003, XP, 2000, NT
SQL Server, ISA Server, TCP/IP
Conseil et Développement
Home
The test "Leica M vs. Nikon AF practical test" was made handheld with a 400 ISO film (TMax 400). You may think this does not make sense as every "serious" tester adopts a much more structured method and swears only by slow films, heavy tripods and controlled lighting.
Let's have a look at two sets of pictures.
The first set is made handheld on 400 ISO film :
f/2
f/4
We can see subtle differences between the two pictures. They were made with the same lens but the left one was shot at f/2 and the right one at f/4. At the left of the 1 digit and at the upper right corner, the f/4 image shows a better contrast and color separation. At the left of the 2 digit, the bark is slightly better defined. General contrast of the right shot is better.
Let's see what we get with pictures made on a slow film (Agfapan 25) and using a tripod.
f/2
f/4We get the same thing ! But there is a much more obvious difference between the two pictures. Sharpness of the left edge of the tree, in particular, is far better in the right picture. Moreover, the tonal range of the film does make a difference even if, surprisingly, the definition is almost as good with the first set (TMax 400) of pictures.
In practice, the two films are able to reach the limits of modern lenses. I do agree with testers who prefer traditional method tests. They can quantify the absolute value of each lens, I can't.
But my purpose was, precisely, to discover if there were practical differences between lenses I tested. So using fast film makes sense in that context. If you can see a subtle advantage of a lens on another with a very careful methodology, that may not translate in real life. But if a picture is sharper on a fast film, this will be visible on your prints. Knowing if that matters for you is another problem, though.
© Jean-Claude Berger, 1999
