----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan van Wijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: Primes Vs. Zooms
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:14:31 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> >> Looking at those "Leica versus Nikon" shots I can't help to think the
obvious
> >> difference in brightness is caused by the scanning/adjusting in
> >> Photoshop much more than by the difference in lenses ...
> >>
> >
> >Ignoring the colour and tonal range differences the Leica shots are
generally
> >more engaging and are simply a better set of shots, don't you think?
>
> Yes, the choice of subject and framing seems a bit more pleasing too.
>
> Regards, JvW
It looks like those rigged before and after weight-loss shots.... The Nikon
pics look seriously washed out and faded, perhaps deliberately
under-exposed? Also they are far less (intentionally?) pleasingly composed.
I would myself tend to think that a Leica or a Carl Zeiss lens would
generally be better than any Nikon stuff, but these tests look deliberately,
and probably unneccesarially, rigged....
Skip
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
