Other things being equal - i.e. assuming you're not trying to shoot macro or telephoto with the RF and know how to take care of the sirror slap on the SLR etc - you'll see NO difference in the general quality of optics. At least no difference that matters outside photo forums! So, system choice should depend solely on other factors and goals.
But that is an aesthetic issue, and not the question of this thread, is it?
Originally Posted by NormanV
Does the "art" of making pictures rely on the sharpness (or whatever) of the lens, or on the mind of the photographer? I use quite good equipment and scan the negs, I don't care if I have the ultimate in "quality" but I definitely like the pictures that I produce.
Ok let me put the question another way. If I wanted the best possible image resolution and sharpness from 35mm film, which 35mm film camera and lenses would you recommend and why.
I would be tempted to use a newer Canon or Nikon with a macro lens or one of the super teles, such as a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8.
...but why set resolution and sharpness as the main points toward which to strive? How about timing and composition? The best lens in the world doesn't count for anything if you don't get the shot. This is not even bringing up "concept".
My point is that while the super teles may be among the "best" lenses ever made, they are quite specialized, and thus rather restrictive.
If we are talking the most sharp and highest resolving "normal" (or thereabouts) lens, I would make an offhand guess that it would be a macro lens, either around 50mm or around 100mm.
That is just a guess, though.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
Carl the photodo site needs a lot of work. The lens finding capability is poor and so are other aspects of its site navigation.
If you want Zeiss or Leitz lens resolution information, IMO, it is more effective to visit the Zeiss and Leitz websites.
I've already been through that process and the MTF's suggest that ZEISS ZM glass is way better than Leitz glass for resolution. But MTF's are only half the story and interpreting them really requires expert knowledge which I don't have.
I guess if I had to chose between my beloved Nikon gear or the ZM and its glass, I'd probably go with the Nikon: been using it for decades, while the ZM is only with me since 2006.
But one thing I do know: when it comes to low shutter speed handheld, the ZM is miles ahead: I simply can't hold slrs anywhere as steady.
At what point then ultimate lens quality becomes the deciding factor is something I haven't yet established. Although of course: I'm having a heck of a lot of fun finding out!