Lens Sharpness

Just last week in the darkroom, I had the chance to look at a 8x10 print made from a Leica 75mm Summicron. The image sharpness cut my eyeballs and left them bleeding. Ever since, I have been looking at my bank account, doing mental calculations and wondering how to tell the wife: I am going to drop some serious money for a Leica M4 and 35mm summicron. The dog will have to go hungry while I go make some art with Leica goodness!

Then the "Minamata" book by W. Eugene Smith and Aileen M. Smith arrived. The images were made by a Minolta. Some fish-eye, wide, normal and telephoto lenses were used. In the book, none of the images had that Leica sharpness that I witness that day. It got me thinking. One of my personal favorite image was made with a $50 Canonet QL17 GIII. Damn image had motion blur and is far from sharp. I dropped the idea of purchasing a Leica reluctantly.

I came to the realisation: I am not better than my gear.

2012, we look at this:

MTF Chart. Like hell I'd know how to read it.

In the mid 20th century, people were more concern with this:

Photo Credit: W. Eugene Smith

Image sharpness and the latest gigamegapixel digital body has over-taken the need to make great images---the original reason why I went back to film for my personal project with 2 humble Minolta XD11, 35mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.7. The entire outfit cost me a cool $300. I spend maybe $60 on film and development every month. The rest of the money, I could use it as personal funding for a project that I really care about.

Then it hits like a 3 ton truck. The image that I saw from the 75mm Summicron wasn't even impressive other than the sharpness and the excellent contrast. It was cropped way too tight, leaving the head floating without a body. Composed far to the right, not even a great portrait.

The elusive search for ultimate sharpness suddenly lost its appeal. The focus should be on telling stories---even if all I can afford is the camera on my phone.