German Glass Finally Explained

I have compared these cameras with
the Rolleiflex 2.8 (Planar and Xenotar) and found the Japanese lenses to be
far superior in sharpness. But that is due mainly to what the lenses were
made for, the Japanese lens industry was originally for military purposes
and the goal was to accurately capture what the camera sees. The Rolleiflex
lenses were consumer based and the fttering rendition of what the camera
sees was the goal. Hence I find the 2.8 lenses and the 3.5 lenses in the
Rollei cameras lacking in sharpness when compared to the Japanese 3.5 lenses
(and even the few 2.8 lensed Japanese TLRs that I have been lucky enough to
examine). Though the Rolleiflex/Rolleicord lenses do give a certain
"plasticity" to the pictures that is quite appealling for portraiture work.


I'd like to thank this poster! He's finally summed the situation!
German optics are like some "high end' audio gear-and Neve console
plug-ins and Neumann mics-they have a slight distortion that is
pleasing, while their "stats" remain plausible for the
carriage-trade-where the Japanese followed the textbook rules and did
what they were supposed to. The Germans perceived things weren't
really what they were supposed to be, and tweaked their work just as a
smart chem student deoptimizes his data so he won't be thought
dry-labbing, if he does happen to get it just right (or is, in
reality, dry-labbing). I'll take Nikkors over Leica/Zeiss glass any
day-for accurate work. Portraiture, especially females, benefits from
the tweaked German glass!

That's why I want a Bokehmaster.

Really

An anolgy:
I prefer analog (vinyl records) over music cd's. There is a certain amount
of "presence" that digital does not have.
Downside, old tech wears out...
Robert


"Ted Azito" wrote in message
om...
I have compared these cameras with
the Rolleiflex 2.8 (Planar and Xenotar) and found the Japanese lenses
to be
far superior in sharpness. But that is due mainly to what the lenses
were
made for, the Japanese lens industry was originally for military
purposes
and the goal was to accurately capture what the camera sees. The
Rolleiflex
lenses were consumer based and the fttering rendition of what the
camera
sees was the goal. Hence I find the 2.8 lenses and the 3.5 lenses in
the
Rollei cameras lacking in sharpness when compared to the Japanese 3.5
lenses
(and even the few 2.8 lensed Japanese TLRs that I have been lucky
enough to
examine). Though the Rolleiflex/Rolleicord lenses do give a certain
"plasticity" to the pictures that is quite appealling for portraiture
work.


I'd like to thank this poster! He's finally summed the situation!
German optics are like some "high end' audio gear-and Neve console
plug-ins and Neumann mics-they have a slight distortion that is
pleasing, while their "stats" remain plausible for the
carriage-trade-where the Japanese followed the textbook rules and did
what they were supposed to. The Germans perceived things weren't
really what they were supposed to be, and tweaked their work just as a
smart chem student deoptimizes his data so he won't be thought
dry-labbing, if he does happen to get it just right (or is, in
reality, dry-labbing). I'll take Nikkors over Leica/Zeiss glass any
day-for accurate work. Portraiture, especially females, benefits from
the tweaked German glass!

That's why I want a Bokehmaster.

Really


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

Robert Farrar wrote:
An anolgy:
I prefer analog (vinyl records) over music cd's. There is a certain amount
of "presence" that digital does not have.
Downside, old tech wears out...
Robert



Oh my! Do you mean I'm wearing out my lenses by using them????
; )

Chris