Tho is all very well, but which is more accurate? And there are several pixels in the top right corner that look better in the M10r image.
In any case, the M10r image is clearly better, for a very obvious reason.
(Actually, I think these comparisons are rather fun. As it happens, I made a few 35mm Summilux (pre-FLE) / MS-Optics 1.3/36 Apollon / ZM 2.8/35 Biogon comparisons last month, which I may post at some point.)
dgurtch wrote:
Another image from my Dad's negatives, circa 1937. If anyone recognizes the man, let me know I will make you an 8"x10" print. It was probably made in Ship Bottom, as that is where my Dad grew up. Image made from the original medium format negative, scanned at 4000 PPI.
Dave Gurtcheff
Beach Haven, NJ PS the camera was a Zeiss Super Iconta "A" with Zeiss Tessar lens and Compur Rapid shutter. I still have it!
fjablo wrote:
In this case the digital image wins and we all know why!
Where are the Petzval files? Are you hiding something from us?!
The Petzval images are coming. Spoiler alert - I preferred the ones from the Reto! I did not use the Petzval to its strength which is basically close distance portrait stuff. But I wanted to have fun with it seeing I had two other cameras with me.
Of course the images from the 800 times more expensive Leica M10r are ‘better’, more accurate etc. but the Reto is just such fun and honestly creates such unique, interesting images everyone should have one. They are tiny and cheeeeeeeap.
Considering the Reto cost less than the filter on the Summicron, the comparison photo looks pretty good. Plus you don't have to worry about finding Reto branded batteries.
Lovely example of what the Nikkor 80/2.8 lens on the Plaubel can do even in lighting conditions that would normally be causing flare. I'm not sure how much use the standard hood for the 80/2.8 is, but mine never leaves the lens. The only exposure problems I've ever with the Plaubel are the standard:
- Leaving the lens-cap on (doh!)
- Loading or unloading the film badly, and getting light-leaks
Reminds me that I need to get mine out and shoot it some more, though my expired film supplies are starting to get VERY expired, and may have to invest in some fresh rolls. Speaking of which, I miss 220 film (was great to get 20 exposures in one roll).
madNbad wrote:
Considering the Reto cost less than the filter on the Summicron, the comparison photo looks pretty good. Plus you don't have to worry about finding Reto branded batteries.
