stephen_w. Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I just got some pictures back (4X6) from the lab (Walgreens) taken with the following: Fuji Reala 100 M6 35 'cron 50 Noct. 75 'lux Olympus 35, 1:2.8 Stylus Epic(?); my girlfriends camera The Oly beat all the others wrt sharpness and contrast examend with a 4X loupe, by far. Sorry, no scanner Same 1/500, 1:5.6; same day; same film; same subject; same lab; even focused at infinity (inf. lock in the case of the 'cron.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 <<I just got some pictures back (4X6) from the lab (Walgreens)<snip><<same lab>> Maybe not the same lab tech...or the same lab tech, after he went out to his car and fired up a doobie ;>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Alex_ Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 That's not really a good way to compare results. If anything, compare the negatives. There are too many variables before you get a final print. I often use C-41 black and white film and use 1-hour lab 4x6 prints for proofing purposes. When I print the same image in the darkroom the results are usually hugely different. And sometimes the results from roll to roll vary a lot--using the same lab. That's not to say the little Stylus Epic isn't a gem. I've read nothing but good things about that little f2.8 lens it's got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 A couple of things come to mind: is your rangefinder OK? and what about camera shake? Mind you, if you're right you'll certainly upset a few people around here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmanuel_tjoe_a_long Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I have the same type of setup as you. I carry my M3 with 2.0/35 and my GF carries her Olympus Stylus Epic 2.8/35<br> The pictures from my M3 are <i>way</i> better than the Epic.<br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_lee2 Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I don't know what to tell you. I think Gandy said it best---shooting with a Leica and then handing over the film to your local lab (and a one-hour drug store, no less---not even a fotomat much less a real pro lab) is like Leonardo buying the canvas and paint and turning it over to the local quick sketch artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 now you know the terrible secret we all carry in our hearts!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger c Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Probably 75% of the time, pictures taken with my Ricoh FF-9 (a late 1980s compact with a 35mm lens) are as good as with the Leica, but the Leica has interchangeable lenses, controllable depth of field, and doesn't have to focus in fixed steps like the Ricoh. Close-up shots can be a lot sharper, therefore. The Ricoh wins hands down for shooting in near-darkness though - it has active IR focusing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Sorry but this proves absolutely...nothing. As mentioned you can't compare cameras in this manner unless they are side by side, same lighting, tripod mounted and you must use slide film (neg film adds a huge variable). If the Oly still outshoots the M6 and its lenses then you probably have an out of adjustment rangefinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Steve You have a truly great Epic. Sell the Leicas and keep the Epic is the obvious solution. At f5.6 using the 35mm 'cron you might be hard pressed to tell them apart, but don't look at the print - look at the negatives. Perhaps the minilabs focus was off for the Leica roll. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david11 Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Steve, I agree with Bob; go shoot some Velvia, Astia, Sensia, Kodachrome, or Ektachrome, then worry about sharpness. You shouldn't unless you have an viewfinder alignment problem. The one hour minilabs with their high turnover of employees are no good indication of the potential of your equipment, although some do produce good, mostly consistent results; but you have to watch them. If you are determined to only shoot color negative, my suggestion is to find a good professional lab, or at least a consistent minilab that is sensitive to your demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I see what you're getting @, but I don't think the analogy is perfect here. Steve's talking about Reala, whereas I think Gandy is talking about B&W. I certainly agree w/you, as others have pointed out, to the extent that any differences will be most apparent in the negatives, not the 4x6s. However, w/C41, I don't think the party doing the processing makes that big of a difference (how many people even do their own C41?), especially as compared to B&W. ------- "I don't know what to tell you. I think Gandy said it best---shooting with a Leica and then handing over the film to your local lab (and a one-hour drug store, no less---not even a fotomat much less a real pro lab) is like Leonardo buying the canvas and paint and turning it over to the local quick sketch artist. -- Andrew Lee" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_.1 Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I just printed some more photos from my trip to Rocky Mountain Natl. Park taken with my 35 lux M, Ilford Pan F 50, tripod-mounted with cable release and used my Leitz V35. On an 8x10", the realism is a bit jarring- let's just say there's a glowing aspen going on. I somewhat questioned myself whether med. format would be nice, but I'm afraid my Leica M can truly do it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesk Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I think Jay's on the right track here. <br><i>"Like, Dude... where's my contrast?"</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kastner Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Steve, this problem of yours is really old. The only answer is: "MAKE ONLY A-B COMPARISONS" (capitals here do mean shouting). This is/was exactly the same thing 40 years ago when we oldies compared "HiFi" needles and everything else were kept (by us) identical. Only the needles were A and B. [Just in case you don't get it, what has to remain identical for you are: size (4X6 etc), the lab, the film type (e.g. Fuji Reala 100), the lens e.g. only a 50 and the object (e.g. your girlfriend). The only things you compare (A and B) have to remain singularily your M and your Oly.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmanuel_tjoe_a_long Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Obviously there's something wrong with your M6 & lenses. I'll give you $1000 for your outfit as-is   :o) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesk Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Where was this Walgreen's? <br>You might have been transported to a parallel universe where Japanese point-and-shoot camera companies ruled the planet. <br>I think there was a Star Trek episode like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Why are you disappointed? You've got a great Olympus Sylus Epic camera that makes pictures that are better than a Leica! That's a GOOD thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamw Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Well, sell all of that Leica stuff and buy yourself about 50 Epics...:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_fleetwood Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Walgreens hates Leicas, and they don't sell beer, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcg Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Thank you. I've had a terrible day, & this is the funniest thing that has happened. At last a light-hearted moment. Now, when you sober up, ask yourself why you posted this, how you went about testing the cameras & whether your 'controls' were consistent, accurate & identical with each shot. And when you conclude the Oly really does beat all that Leica crap, let me know--I'll give you a hundred bucks for the Noctilux alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 i shot some comparison pix with 60's Konica 35mm,45mmf1.9 lens against my Summicron.Moved film from camera to camera! Right on small prints at small apertures,no difference between M6,Summicron and Konica.The Konica cost Canadian $20.! OK. Now compare at wide apertures,bigger blow ups! The Konica in the weeds.So if yo' GF getting better shots than You...maybe time to give Her the Leica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Presupposing that you are right and even the negs back up the concern... then as has been said here many times, mechanical rangefinders aren't for everyone. The focus is demanding especially with a couple of the lenses mentioned. Poor exposure can affect the contrast and apparent sharpness as can poor handling. Then there is the use a processing place set up for consumer averages rather than precision. I'd wager the Stylist was auto setting at least f/5.6 or greater, and doing all the focusing for the shooter. One is mindlessly accurate with-in the bounds of average photos which it is preset to accomplish. The M is just plain mindless (i.e. does little of the thinking for you)...which means you have to pay attention or you'll get crappy photos. That is the curse and the charm of these little cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_portera Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 couple things come to mind a. This is just a troll b. Your not that good of a photographer and have no business with a manual camera. c. Your M6 is broken . And what escapes me most of all is how the hell you can one spend THOUSANDS of dollars on equipment and then use cheap Walgreens processing. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I didn't see if anyone else has pointed this out yet, but you can't possibly know at which aperture and shutter speed your Olympus is shooting. The camera gives no indication or control of those functions. If it did, then you'd have a Contax T3 and your wallet would be $500 lighter. If you're shooting at f5.6 and developing your pics at Walgreens it really doesn't matter what camera you use, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now