Contax G lenses: Yes they really are that much better.
When I first got mine and ran the first roll of Tri-X I processed it with two rolls shot using my Canons. And you could see the difference immediately, with the naked eye, just looking at the negs. Contrastier, sharper, less flare, great stuff.
Part of it is that RFs are snappier than SLRs, part of it is that they're truly great lenses even among RF lenses. The 45, the 28, the 21, the 90 -- all killer. People like to dis the 35 but it's only because compared to the others it's the poorest -- there's nothing better save the Leica 'cron at something like 5x the price
Check out www.photodo.com to see tests of some of the best lenses in the world including Zeiss/contax. They out perform even leica. This is not a subjective (looking at negs and pick what you like) test this is objective scientific testing of the lenses resolving ability. I love my leica MP but my contax G2 is sharper, I just hate the noise it makes focusing. And the lenses are one quarter to one third the price of leica lens.
Check out www.photodo.com to see tests of some of the best lenses in the world including Zeiss/contax. They out perform even leica. This is not a subjective (looking at negs and pick what you like) test this is objective scientific testing [...]
The eye is not a camera; it doesn't live on an optical bench: it responds to qualities that photodo ignores; their method may be scientific, but it is largely irrelevant.
Silly camera makers, they should have asked you. Care to elaborate on those mysteriously-unnamed lens qualities, or are they beyond common ken?
In fact the camera makers do ASK YOU and what they (opinion research) have heard over the last few decades is that geek factor is the way to keep things going. Like soap suds it does not matter if its really "new or improved" but its important to tout that things are new and improved and to suggest technological progress. The people at Zess marketing have in their "Camera Lens News" gone so far as to present specifications that violate the laws of optics. It seems (to anyone but the most carefull reader) that their ZM lenses resolve onto film more than is theoretically possible (but, again, anything is possible in marketing as long as it sells). It does not matter what "looks better", what matters to happy consumers is that it looks better on paper: so tweak the switching timings (audio), pump up the GHz (computers), push the top-speed and horse-power (automobiles) and blind the consumer with progress and false economy (digital cameras).
What is the relevance of resolution and contrast of camera objectives in 35mm photography (or even worse 120 rollfilm given its planarity)? What's the resolving power and dynamic contrast range of photographic paper? What's photography about? Its seems 100 years ago photographers had more of an idea. Back then there was a whole realm of optics not designed to have higher resolution but to serve an artistic function as the brush of a painter. The finest brush may be able to resolve the most detail but yet...........