If you want Zeiss or Leitz lens resolution information, IMO, it is more effective to visit the Zeiss and Leitz websites.
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 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.
Is that really necessary?Quote:
Why not just I disagree?
hmmmm, I've been using reasonable quality rf and slr systems for quite a while and still can't make up my mind which is better!
Don't think it's possible to answer it in a simple way. You said: expansive landscape images with tripods. Yeah, I know: convention says a slr with a wide angle on a tripod works best.
And yet this (click on thumbs to see larger): http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/S-for-sand-93569062 and this: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...aters-93569600 were taken handheld, late afternoon, with a mild tele - 90mm - on a ZM rangefinder, while this: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...-hall-93569290 was a "cheap" Ultron 28/1.8 on the same body, same hands.
Not perfect, but good enough for me. Go figure?
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! ;)