WHY Zeiss lenses??
my question might irritate one or the other contax-zeiss user (i myself work with this stuff), BUT: regarding the 24-36 films nowadays available on the market, there is NO highlight concerning the resolution of films. i mean: when agfa dia direct (12 asa, mnjam mnjam!), kodachrome 25 or ektar 25 were available, the results really astonished me (and many others). blown up to 40-60 or 50-75 cm, the BRILLIANCE and DETAIL RESOLUTION was similar to medium format. simply great.
but if you take a – let's say 100 asa fuji reala (is there a better neg. film today?) the results are ok, BUT DO NOT REPRODUCE THE QUALITY OF ZEISS LENSES. in other words: zeiss is too good for the films, so that i mean it is – maybe – NOT necessary to invest so much money for the best 'hardware' if on the other hand the 'software' (compare bullsh... windows xp...) is medium quality.
what do YOU mean?
greetinx from germany,
dieter o.
my question might irritate one or the other contax-zeiss user (i myself work with this stuff), BUT: regarding the 24-36 films nowadays available on the market, there is NO highlight concerning the resolution of films. i mean: when agfa dia direct (12 asa, mnjam mnjam!), kodachrome 25 or ektar 25 were available, the results really astonished me (and many others). blown up to 40-60 or 50-75 cm, the BRILLIANCE and DETAIL RESOLUTION was similar to medium format. simply great.
but if you take a – let's say 100 asa fuji reala (is there a better neg. film today?) the results are ok, BUT DO NOT REPRODUCE THE QUALITY OF ZEISS LENSES. in other words: zeiss is too good for the films, so that i mean it is – maybe – NOT necessary to invest so much money for the best 'hardware' if on the other hand the 'software' (compare bullsh... windows xp...) is medium quality.
what do YOU mean?
greetinx from germany,
dieter o.