View Full Version : Leica vs MF image quality
I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF (as well as others) cameras besides their Leicas and other 35mm RFs. So, my question is - how do you think Leica, Zeiss, CV and other lenses compare to those MF ones, such as Fuji645, Bronica 645, Mamiya 6 and 7? I hear that they all have great lenses, yet some 35mm lenses are great too. Some are even compared to MF quality. Like Zeiss 25/2.8 ZM for example. Leica lenses sure cost as much as some MF setups. So, what do you think, after using both - is it really worth it to have both systems? are they pretty close? Lets say if largest photo would be 11x14 inches - would I see a difference between the two systems?
Yes, you certainly will see a difference!
It is huge at 11x14, and quite evident at 8x10.
Of course there are many times where you can only get the picture with a smaller 35mm camera.
As to whether it would be worth it to have both systems that is a purely personal choice. Depends a lot on what you are shooting and as you stated how big your prints may be. I have both systems and to me MF is markedly better than 35 whether it's Zeiss or Leica or CV for that matter. I do own examples from all of these manufacturers. It's not so much the lens as it is the size of the negative. You get much more detail and smoother tones with MF than with 35mm. If you were to take four photos and lay them out, I'm pretty sure that even the untrained eye could pick out the MF examples.
The big question mark that comes up here daily is availability of film for your MF outfit. My advice to you would be try it now, the MF systems can be purchased for mere pennies on the dollar compared to 5 years ago and you can hoard film to have for future shooting.
Sherm
rogue_designer
06-27-2007, 07:32
No matter how good a lens/system is. It's hard to overcome the benefit the larger negatives give you in enlargement.
Especially once you are looking at 6x7 negs or larger, and prints 11x14 or larger.
That said - there are things that it's very hard to do with an MF rig. So I have, and use both systems. Just for different jobs. :)
I shoot 35mm to 8x10 formats. On my documentary work I carry a wide range of equipment including my Leicas and Zeiss bodies (usually 2-4 bodies and a range of lenses), sometimes my Canon SLR's for micro and long glass, frequently my Hasselblads including a SWC/M, Fuji 6x17 and GSW690II and sometimes but not often 4x5 or 8x10.
It's no so much a matter of glass quality but a matter of enlargability of the film. A small neg no matter how sharp and how fine the grain just doesn't enlarge with the same quality as a larger neg and the same can be said for MF vs LF. The basis that I select one camera over the other has more to do with lighting conditions, mobility and speed of shooting or the desire for one shape vs another (square vs 35mm proportions).
When I can I go for the larger format. My 35mm work is usually restricted to low and poor light with active subjects. Many locations it's just impossible to shoot with anything other than 35mm, fast film and fast lenses. In the series that i'm doing in serpent handling churches I shoot 400 B&W with my 75 summilux at 1.4-2 along with my 35, 50 and sometimes 90. My shutter speeds will range from 1/4 second to 1/125 depending on where the person is in the light. The lighting is 100 wat bare bulbs in the ceiling and they're sparcely placed. It's a challence for any system and photographer.
Even the very best of 35mm lenses will not give the look, feel, smoothness and tonality of a good MF neg/chrome. It's some bit of trade off but it's there.
Michiel Fokkema
06-27-2007, 07:55
Hi,
I use my Lieca's and Rolleiflexes on a regualr basis. 35mm can never outperform MF. Even an humble Rolleicord will yield technical better pictures than any 35mm sysem.
Every system has its merits. You just have to cjoose the one that suits you most or the one that suits the stuff you will do that day.
I won't use 35mm for any landscape work. I'd take my 4x5. On the other hand I will solely use my 35mm sysytem for fast pj style street photography.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
As above. My lowly Rolleiflex 3.5 Tessar easily beats the image quality of my M6 with any glass I've tried on it. Big negs are better, end of story. 35mm has many uses though, and a look that is right for many things.
Ian
You don’t need anything fancy; in good light my granddad’s 6x9 Bessa (1931) outperforms my dad’s 6x6 Tessa/Rolleiflex (1950ish) and that outperforms anything I have in 35mm, as with a lot of things size matters
:D
I have 35mm, 35mm pano, 6x6 and 6x12 medium-format, and 4x5 inch large-format systems. Each has their place. My most used systems are medium format because they bridge the gap between the versatility of 35mm and the quality of large format.
Smaller formats can never have the quality larger formats do - it is the film that is the reason. Smaller format lenses HAVE to be better because they are working with smaller images, but that does not mean their results are better. To a point, you don't need high resolution lenses on large-format cameras. A big challenge for small digital sensors is making lenses with high enough resolutions. Resolving power is not an absolute quality defining image quality.
I'm really happy to read all the sane opinions here. I recall another Leica internet forum where if anyone even vaguely implied that medium format had an advantage over Leica 35mm other than at mural-size enlargements, the flamethrowers came out in droves :eek:
Benjamin Marks
06-27-2007, 13:31
Ha! Size matters. And film is really amazing stuff. My M8 at its lowest ISO setting gives something very MF-like. But for creamy skin tones, go with a large negative, properly exposed and developed. Rollei TLRs and Hassie are favorites of mine, but look at Mamiya C330s these days. Best value in MF, in my mind.
Ben
Photography is all about compromise and irony. Its almost sad a $ 150 Yashicamat TLR at apertures of f4.5 and smaller, will provide a "better" looking 8x10 (or larger) print than a $ 3500 used Noctilux lens or a $ 2500 50mm Summilux ASPH....
And by "better," I mean a print with rich tonality and high resolution. Again, size does matter.....
Dan
35mmdelux
06-27-2007, 14:19
My Mamiya 7 produced great results but it was too large to lug around everwhere, everyday. Today I have a Mamiya c330f for the times I want to produce an image with greater detail, generally portraits.
Mackinaw
06-27-2007, 14:22
It's not just traditional image quality that separates larger formats from 35mm, there are other subtle factors at work too. I particularly like the shallow depth-of-field one gets with a medium format camera when using a "normal" lens. This effect is very hard to duplicate with a 35mm camera unless you're using a high speed 50mm wide-open (not always practical). Maybe lens design has something to do with it too. The simple tessar formula used on some of my Mamiya TLR lenses produces a certain look that I find very appealing.
Jim Bielecki
Gabriel M.A.
06-27-2007, 14:29
A lot of people here a missing the big picture (pun intended).
It is very difficult to find MF lenses which are faster than f/2.8, and the ones at f/2.0 or larger [aperture] are rarer than pleasant headshots of Sarah Jessica Parker. (yes, yes, the DOF w/larger formats, too small, f/4.5 already too narrow, yadda yadda...that's the point)
If big is the name of the game, then Large Format it is. If portability, available light, K.I.S.S. and spontaneity is the name of the game, the 35mm world has a lot to offer, and this is part of Leica's contribution to photography.
35mm negs are tiny. You need the best possible glass to make the most of the format.
I can't match a 35mm neg with a £100 lens on a £400 to a fixed lens MF camera worth £20. That's because MF is larger, you get more detail in an enlargement.
So in a way, the cost for an acceptable negative decreases as negative size increases. Then consider paying the cost of Leica glass on a larger format and suddenly the most brilliant images are possible.
Gabriel M.A.
06-27-2007, 14:45
I guess that explains all those 8x10 cameras I've seen used at sports events, press conferences, National Geographic's utterly-correlateable excellence to their exclusive use of anything that is not 35mm...
Size isn't everything. Ash is onto something I'm too lazy to type out. :o
Gabriel,
I thought you were going to take a break from RFF??? :D
Gab, I was too lazy to explain further. I guess some people will pay big bucks for a tiny camera and the best it can do. It's more convenient than a huge camera.
That's why even dslr's are more expensive than medium format, and they are only just close to catching up to optimum image quality, people will choose them for event/press work.
People will prefer to pay for the faster digital image on the smaller camera with faster lens, than faff around with the big negatives and processing. Just like 35mm is quicker and easier than 120. 220, or larger.
Nick De Marco
06-27-2007, 15:01
Very interesting reading - I have been considering this dilema too recently. I love leicas and rangefinders generally, in part because of their size and adaptability. On a recent trip abroad I could fit in my camera bag 3 rangefinders with 6 lenses and a large DSLR with 2 lenses. I have invested heavily in Leica and in my canon 5D with its lenses. te latter can produce very good quality prints at large enlargements and at 12.8MP beats 35mm, except its not film.
So I too have been thinking of getting more into medium format just for some stuff now and then. My preference would be for the Rollei 6000 series as their cameras seem so well made, that sries has all the functionality I would want, the lenses are great and even though you can't lug it around like a rangefinder its not much more weight than a DSLR. It is sooo expensive though - especially after I have spent so much on leica - and I doubt I would use it that often. I know I could pick up a Fuji PAS 645 cheap but is it really worth it?
A lot of people here a missing the big picture (pun intended).
It is very difficult to find MF lenses which are faster than f/2.8, and the ones at f/2.0 or larger [aperture] are rarer than pleasant headshots of Sarah Jessica Parker. (yes, yes, the DOF w/larger formats, too small, f/4.5 already too narrow, yadda yadda...that's the point)
If big is the name of the game, then Large Format it is. If portability, available light, K.I.S.S. and spontaneity is the name of the game, the 35mm world has a lot to offer, and this is part of Leica's contribution to photography.
I don't think anyone has missed the big picture. This is simply discussing the relative merits for format in reference to image quality. We are not discussing which format has faster lenses. Nor which format is more portable. Since most of my documentary work is done on medium format including low-light work, a simple dismissal of medium format for that kind of work seems to be rather narrow.
The big question mark that comes up here daily is availability of film for your MF outfit. My advice to you would be try it now, the MF systems can be purchased for mere pennies on the dollar compared to 5 years ago and you can hoard film to have for future shooting.
Sherm
Great answers everyone - thank you very much. Keep them coming.
As far as MF goes - is film availibility a serius issue for MF? It's been a while since I bought some, so I'm not sure where things are on this. Although last time I checked - there was plenty where I am. I think I'll dig out my Ricoh TLR and put it to work.
There is no doubt that about bigger negatives being better for enlargements, the grain doesn't get in the way of the sharpness issues; but then the case may be made for large format cameras with 11x14 negatives. And of course portability simply cannot be brought into the picture. Somewhere I read that Zeiss lenses for 35mm cameras achieve highest resolution. and resolution decreases as the size of the format that the lenses are supposed to match goes up. Generally MF lenses have characteristics completely different from that of 35mm cameras, and it is not limited to just the size of the negatives.
A few months ago I posted a query here regarding a MF equivalent of Leica, meaning which MF lens/camera combination gives the ``feel'' that is closest to the gritty picture quality that we usually associate with a Leica. Since then I got a Koni Omega Rapid + 58 Hexanon and put one roll through it; the negatives are very nice, and perhaps what could be called gritty. But it's not what I get from my 50 Summicron, it's different, and has its own uses. My Rolleicord takes good pictures, but I'll not use it for street even if by some miracle it was made as portable as a Fed 3; it's far too smooth for what I look for. Somebody else may find it just the right thing; for instance, look at Robert Doisneau's works---unparalleled, mostly shot with a Rolleiflex.
NickTrop
06-27-2007, 17:09
Great answers everyone - thank you very much. Keep them coming.
As far as MF goes - is film availibility a serius issue for MF? It's been a while since I bought some, so I'm not sure where things are on this. Although last time I checked - there was plenty where I am. I think I'll dig out my Ricoh TLR and put it to work.
Order it on line. eBay, B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, Amazon, Ultrafine etc., etc., etc., What everyone else said is true. Negative size trumps "how much money you spend and who makes your 35mm lens". It's why I stick with cheap lenses and rangefinders in 35. I know I could spend thousands for incremental (silly, actually) improvements over my lowly Yashica GSN, Lynx 14e, Konica Auto S3 in 35mm and it won't even come close to what I can get out of my Kiev 60 with its 2.8/80 Biometar - about $150 worth of kit, in terms of image quality. The only possible horizon I might consider is a Barnack with a Summar... maybe, if I'm in the mood, if the price is right and that's not about "resolution" but the Summar look.
Mackinaw
06-27-2007, 17:41
My preference would be for the Rollei 6000 series as their cameras seem so well made, that sries has all the functionality I would want, the lenses are great and even though you can't lug it around like a rangefinder its not much more weight than a DSLR. It is sooo expensive though
Through work (Natural Resources-related), I have access to a Rollei 6003 and several lenses. A very well designed and engineered camera that is capable of taking great pictures. Not small or cheap, but surprisingly portable especially when equipped with the optional hand grip. If you can raise the $$$$, go for it.
Jim Bielecki
I still remember that when I first got into photography, 35mm cameras of any type were called "miniature cameras". That pretty well sums it up.
Gene
ZeissFan
06-27-2007, 18:02
I agree -- not even close. 35mm is great, but a 6x6 (or in some cases 6x9) negative really outdoes 35mm in terms of detail and tonality.
A 6x6 negative has 3,600 sq.mm. of emulsion.
A 35mm negative has 864 sq.mm. of emulsion.
The 6x6 negative has more than 4 times the area of a 35mm negative. Move up to 6x9 (5,400 sq.mm.), and the difference is more than sixfold.
While both mediums might record the same number of tones, the transition between each region will appear to be much smoother in the medium format negative.
Here's an example (http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/ikonta520-2.htm) of what I mean. Click through to the Zoomify examples.
A 35mm negative could never provide this level of detail. We wish it could, but it can't.
What's all this "expensive" peopel are talking about? I bought my Yashica A for 25 euro ( http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/search?q=yashica ). No, it's not a Rolleiflex but it will damn well give the same size negs, has a great lens, and will perform pretty damn good for such a cheap camera. Oh, and my daughter can handle it too. :)
Great answers everyone - thank you very much. Keep them coming.
As far as MF goes - is film availibility a serius issue for MF? It's been a while since I bought some, so I'm not sure where things are on this. Although last time I checked - there was plenty where I am. I think I'll dig out my Ricoh TLR and put it to work.
I get my 120 film from the same places that sell 35mm Tri-X. I haven't found a place that sells Tri-X in 35mm and doesn't sell a full variety of 120. (but I'm still young :) )
In general, any place that services the serious amateur or professional will sell 120. And any town from ~15,000 on up will have a place like that, in my experience. So no, film availability is not a real issue for MF.
I think it's been covered to death already, but no, Leica is no substitute for MF. Although I have a friend who has an M6 and a Hasselblad, and he once said, "with my Leica, it's almost like I don't need medium format." But he then bought a 30D, three lenses, and fitted suitcase because, he told me, "I spend so much on film." :/ (he shoots three 120 rolls once or twice a month of his "model" friend) Fools come in all flavors and they sometimes are quite charming, but that doesn't make them right :D
Nick De Marco-
"in my camera bag 3 rangefinders with 6 lenses and a large DSLR with 2 lenses."
You could easily "lug around" a Rollei 6000 series if you can carry that much equipment on a quote-unquote "vacation." You are talking about a camera that you can palm. And hold steady. But I fail to see why that is the only option. If the money for the 6000 system is giving you pause, buy an older Rolleiflex or something. Same kind of mechanic, same format, same film, just one lens. And if you like it, you'll know where you want to go from there. A nice Rolleiflex shouldn't cost you more than a couple hundred bucks. If you decide to go whole hog and get the Rollei 600 system, you can either sell/trade the 'Flex or keep it for "old time's sake." If you decide you can do better with your Leica's and DSLR, you aren't out much money. If you decide the MF rangefinder is where it's at, again, the Rolleiflex won't hold you back.
The idea that you have to go in with both barrels blazing or go home is silly. Yes, it's better to jump into cold water than try to ease in, but when the water's warm, why not do it as you see fit? I've got a few MF folders, and they are a joy to use, return images that are inconceivable with 35mm, and cost a penny for the dollars I've spent on 35mm. Kind of a simple equation, IMHO.
The difference is always there between a 6x6 print and one from a 35mm negative. Not only when you're enlarging a lot, but even with sizes in the 4"x6" range. There's a tonality and creaminess in medium format that's unachievable by even the best 35mm optics.
There used to be an article on photodo that went into comparing a MF with a 35mm neg. They concluded that you could identify the same details in both. But what they sidestepped was the coarseness differences. And that's what never will go away.
That said, I recently sold my 6x6 MF system. Even though superior in sheer image quality, I always took the 35mm cameras with me on a walk for mere convenience. And that convenience was what gave me better pictures, despite them being lower quality.
Heck, I've switched to faster films recently, and I'm having loads of fun with the grainy stuff..
Picture: Bessa-T/50mm Hexanon on tmz3200..
Great 35mm lenses allow you to make the best of the situation within the constraints of teh 35mm neg. MF blows 35mm away, period. Some say that MF/LF are nowhere near as sharp....but these people have never used a Mamiya 7 or Hassleblad! Granted, a slow fine grained film and the best 35mm lenses do allow for great results....but you can shoot thew same fmil on MF and get even greater detail. 35mm is ALL about hadling and convenience. if the shot is not gettable on MF for whatever reason and you have to use 35mm, then better lenses are, well, better. 35mm and MF=different beasts
MF beats Leica on two fields: one is DOF for portrait lenses, the other is detail due to negative size - the latter translates to reserves for cropping, and to smoothness of grays.
Gabriel is right that there are few fast lenses for medium format, but that only applies to shorter lenses. As soon as you get to the equivalent of 90mm or so 35mm lenses are maybe faster by a stop, but the DOF difference is eaten up by the negative size. DOF on a 180/f2.8 in medium format looks like a 120/f2 on 35mm; you can get that kind of lens, but not for Leica, and they're usually quite expensive.
Unfortunately here in Uzbekistan I don't have much with me here to illustrate that. That said, here's two pictures from the same 6x6 portrait shot:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46876&d=1183031349
(tight crop)
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46877&d=1183031387
(1:1 from the scan)
That's from a Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar wide open, Kiev 88 on a monopod, Agfa Optima 100 film. (That's the first film I will actually miss.) I know that this is not a perfect setup, but it is the only thing I can afford - it's run me about 200 EUR all in all. It's the MF equivalent of a Zorki. If you don't need interchangeable lenses, it gets a lot cheaper, but then you don't get the gorgeous longer Sonnars. ;) If you are prepared to spend the money on a Leica, a Rollei 6000 with 150/2.8 Sonnar will run circles around it. And I also know the scan isn't perfect, but here I don't have the disk with me, so these are from a somewhat crude 18MP overcompressed prescan JPEGs, hence the streak and blotchiness - since this is the equivalent of a blotchy C41 minilab scan, maybe it illustrates even better what reserves are there.
Post deleted by posters request
I guess medium format is the next icon that the DSLR with aim to topple now that their resolution has outpaced film...
I think , what Magus refers to, could be partially found in this old article:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/mp/
While I would generally agree that MF has lots of advantages over 35mm in terms of sheer image quality, there's a certain "sparkle" in 35mm images from top lenses, which is difficult to reproduce in MF unless you go with a few "mythical" optics, and you use careful technique too. This has been apparently found to be related to very high MTF values at certain frequencies.
I think , what Magus refers to, could be partially found in this old article:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/mp/
While I would generally agree that MF has lots of advantages over 35mm in terms of sheer image quality, there's a certain "sparkle" in 35mm images from top lenses, which is difficult to reproduce in MF unless you go with a few "mythical" optics, and you use careful technique too. This has been apparently found to be related to very high MTF values at certain frequencies.
I really would like to see an example of this.
I think , what Magus refers to, could be partially found in this old article:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/mp/
While I would generally agree that MF has lots of advantages over 35mm in terms of sheer image quality, there's a certain "sparkle" in 35mm images from top lenses, which is difficult to reproduce in MF unless you go with a few "mythical" optics, and you use careful technique too. This has been apparently found to be related to very high MTF values at certain frequencies.
I would say that is the Leica urban legend. I see no ceratin "sparkle" in any format. MTF plots do not show it either. You certainly cannot take MTF as absolute performance of a lens. It is alway is relation to the imaging system AND the human visual system. Two things MTF ignores.
What is flawed? It is a very simple, limited question. Even the fact of going to a larger format is taking advantage of how lenses form images and you don't even need to change the optical performance to get that benefit. So in the broad nature of the question and regardless of the details, larger formats produce better image quality. That is hardly irrelevant or even flawed.
I have no idea what you mean by "materialistic"? If I am looking for a certain image quality because I think it reinforces the work I am doing, then changing format may be the way to do that. I can also come to the conclusion I need a smaller format to acheive those results.
Perhaps it would be better to say that by any objective criteria MF is clearly superior, and that by any subjective criteria it is, by definition, a matter of opinion. Would you agree?
Perhaps it would be better to say that by any objective criteria MF is clearly superior, and that by any subjective criteria it is, by definition, a matter of opinion. Would you agree?
I am not sure I would use your terms, but I guess you have hit on the spirit of the statement. Format is simply one criteria that can be considered and that affects image quality (which can be objective or subjective depending on what you are looking at; for example, granularity (RMS) or creaminess).
I think there is the right camera for every situation. There are things that can only be done with a Leica and there are things a Leica will never do a very good job, compared to other formats.
For example a street shot in low light just looks better with a lot of grain and a kind of rough look, while on the other hand a picture of a lake in the fog would propably call out for LF.
If you just talk resolution 35mm will always loose, but MF will never win either as long as there are people shooting 12 x 18 and contact printing.
I believe that 35mm, MF and LF can coexist very good and I would love to have a complete setup of each.:D
Regards Fabian
FrankS and Finder,
Well, if you read the related link, you can already see an example of this kind, where a Leica B&W shot, even with less texture than the Hassy shot, still looks more "sexy"...
The "sparkle" term has been used by those in the know for some time now, however, since I am a curious type, I am going to make a simple test, possibly next week, when my new Biogon 25/2.8 arrives: I will set up a tripod for a landscape scene, and will shoot on the same film (XP2) with this lens, with the Distagon 25 ZF and with the SWC/M - they have roughly the same horizontal FOV.
Then will scan on the same scanner at the same DPI, and process in the same way. I am not sure the film will do the justice to these lenses, however since I shoot 35mm film rather than digital precisely for the sake of B&W, then be it, and we will see if some sparkle is there, or not... :-)
Okay, I followed the link and got to the 2 pictures from the Hasselblad and the Leica. All I can say is that there is something horribly wrong with the writer's Hasselblad. Anyone without first hand experience themselves and who accepts the results of this photographer's comparison, will certainly reach an erroneous conclusion!
Okay, I followed the link and got to the 2 pictures from the Hasselblad and the Leica. All I can say is that there is something horribly wrong with the writer's Hasselblad. Anyone without first hand experience themselves and who accepts the results of this photographer's comparison, will certainly reach an erroneous conclusion!
You're totally right. So much of a persons results comes down to how good a technician the photographer is.
One thing is for shure, the greater the magnification of enlargement the greater the difference in any two formats. With care I can make enlargements from 35mm that are very difficult to tell from MF enlargements up to 14 inches. Beyond that the differences become more apparent the larger you go.
The fact that 35mm brings us super fast lenses gives us the ability to record under very low light and shoot fast with great mobility unlike any other format.
Post deleted by posters request
Totally meaningless?
Gee, I sort of know what sharper means.
maybe he means that sharpness (and tonality to boot) is meaningless when it is produced by a non-leica. you never know...
It's simple. In any purely technical image quality terms, a larger negative is superior to a smaller one.
This is not to say that 35mm is incapable of making superb images, or that all MF or LF images are necessarily more aesthetically pleasing than all 35mm images, but I don't suppose anyone would ever suggest such a thing. All formats have their uses, and all formats involve competing choices of lenses, films, lighting, processing, etc, many of which fundamentally affect the look of the final image.
The excellence of certain 35mm lenses should not blind anyone to the advantage larger formats have even with less-than-stellar optics. Anyone who's spent any time shooting larger formats knows the results can be spectacular, even with lenses widely regarded as not being particularly special.
Ian
jtzordon
06-29-2007, 07:57
I notice a big difference in the 5x5 proof prints I get from my Rolleicord and the 4x6 proof prints I've gotten from any 35mm I've shot (Nikon zooms and 50mm, Minolta AF and MF, Canonet, Zorki with the Jupiter 8, GSN, Pentax K and M42, ... I'm sure there's more). I wouldn't necessarily say it's in the detail as they're just proof prints, but there is a completely different look. My wife sees it as well and comments without suggestion from me, and she has no pretensions of being a photographer or having knowledge of photography.
Shoot some and see for yourself.
OK, Magus. Explain something to me. How would you describe what others mean by sharp? It's fine acting all high and mighty but it's better to get off that high horse and educate people, me for instance. Teach me, Magus.
OK, Magus. Explain something to me. How would you describe what others mean by sharp? It's fine acting all high and mighty but it's better to get off that high horse and educate people, me for instance. Teach me, Magus.
Well said !!!!
Leica dust is bigger the 6x7 dust. The Leica was never about quality, cept fondling.
Noel
Joe Brugger
06-29-2007, 08:13
Perhaps Magus would favor us with a summary of his personal criteria. I certainly agree sharpness is not the only quality to look for, and sometimes not the most important .
I think Magus is simply refering to sharpness being a meaningless term
without talking about both contrast and resolution.
No reason for personal insults, RML.
Roland.
OK,
Deja' Vu all over again. I don't quite think that it was an insult, but that's your interpretation. Remember what we talked about last week???? If you enter into any given thread chances are not everyone will agree. As far as an insult by RML..... I have to believe that your fellow countryman has a thicker skin than that Ferider.
As I said, if Magus has a problem with this thread move on to another that's more pallatible.
I think it's cool that Magus has an alternative view - life would be pretty boring if we all agreed about everything. Let's just discuss the issue.
Photography is about much more than technical aspects such as sharpness (the accurate rendering of fine detail). The best photography envokes emotion and that can be done without sharpness.
But, the question was, is there a difference in technical qualities between 35mm Leica and larger film formats. Most posters have stated their opinions that there is. Magus, what would you like to say about this issue?
Ahh Frank,
Always the voice of reason and calm ;)
Way to bring it back !!!
Sherm
Tuolumne
06-29-2007, 10:07
I think I know what Magus means. If you look at reproductions in books of famous phtographs by 35mm shooters, say HCB, the first thing you notice is what a great picture it is. The second thing I notice is that it's not very sharp (by this I mean details are blurry). This always surprises me, since I consider sharpness to be one of the qualities of a great picture. So, many pictures lack sharpness but are great nonethelss, others can lack sharpness and are great partly because of that.
Nonethelss, for us mere mortals, in most of our shooting, detail, not to say sharpness, makes a big difference. Let me give you an example from personal experience. I just got a medium format Fuji 6x9 rangefinder. I was just shooting some cityscapes with it, not expecting that much. I got the 6x9 tranparencies back and the first time I pulled them out I was almost knocked over (literally). The details and color were so sharp and intense it was breath taking. There were more details I could see in the trasparency just holding it up to the light than I can usually see from slides in a magnifying slide viewer.
This experience completely changed my view of mf vs 35mm picture quality. I now mostly shoot landscapes in MF. 35mm just doesn't cut it for me anymore. I am sooo glad that professionals are throwing away their MF gear in favor of digital gear. These MF cameras that used to cost megabucks are now affordable by the rest of us.
/T
I think Magus is simply refering to sharpness being a meaningless term without talking about both contrast and resolution.
No reason for personal insults, RML.
Roland.
I wasn't insulting anyone. I want to know why Magus said what he said. Why is sharpness meaningless? Explain it to me 'cause I don't understand it. I lack knowledge here and I want to learn. No sarcasm intended, no offence meant.
Post deleted by posters request
Gabriel M.A.
06-29-2007, 11:52
I don't think anyone has missed the big picture. This is simply discussing the relative merits for format in reference to image quality.
Oh...NOW I know what we're talking about! Thank you for explaining that to me.
We are not discussing which format has faster lenses. Nor which format is more portable.
I apologize, I didn't get the memo with the topic rules for this thread.
Since most of my documentary work is done on medium format including low-light work, a simple dismissal of medium format for that kind of work seems to be rather narrow.
Are we discussing your documentary work, now? And, where is this "dismissal" of medium format argument come from?
Gabriel M.A.
06-29-2007, 11:54
I wasn't insulting anyone. I want to know why Magus said what he said. Why is sharpness meaningless? Explain it to me 'cause I don't understand it. I lack knowledge here and I want to learn. No sarcasm intended, no offence meant.
Why is sharpness meaningful? Why do you want to know? What is the purpose of your reason for knowing? I also lack knowledge here and I want to learn.
Really, people, if you didn't take comments at heart so...
No sarcasm intended, no offense meant.
Gabriel M.A.
06-29-2007, 11:55
Gabriel,
I thought you were going to take a break from RFF??? :D
You didn't get the memo? I'm sorry I neglected to let you know.
But if there is something else behind your little passive-aggressive Texas-compensating attitude of yours, drop me a PM.
Tuolumne
06-29-2007, 12:08
I don't understand how this very straightforward topic got so rancorous.
/T
i'm a sucker for flame bait.
FrankS and Finder,
Well, if you read the related link, you can already see an example of this kind, where a Leica B&W shot, even with less texture than the Hassy shot, still looks more "sexy"...
If what you observed is in fact true, then one can compare a group of shots from a Leica lens to a group of non-leica shots and immediately identify the sex appeal of the Leica shots. Why is the attempt to convince done with specific examples used in an article with arguments of the same?
Oh...NOW I know what we're talking about! Thank you for explaining that to me.
You are welcome.
{quote]I apologize, I didn't get the memo with the topic rules for this thread.[/quote]
Please speak to an administrator about that
Are we discussing your documentary work, now? And, where is this "dismissal" of medium format argument come from?
I was using my experience as an example. Should I not do that? Perhaps I should stick to the "rules" of photography I have seen in Popular Photography that tell me I can't do what I am doing.
As far as the dismissal of formats larger than 35mm, I thought you had done that in your posts? You seem to suggest 35mm is the only way to do things.
In short:
YES there are many factors when assing image quality
YES sharpness is a subjective term and a product of resolution, contrast, edge effects etc..
BUT...the question I believe was quite simple and I think most know what the poster was getting at.
All I will add is this: A small neg can look sharper at a certain enlargement size than a bigger neg at the same size. This is why I dont like making small enlargements from Acros or similar and this is an issue in 5x4, as a 10x8 from a 5x4 acros neg does not loook sharp. Basically every combo has its optimum if you are looking for visual bite. For some images this does nto matter and they are all about 'tonality' for some it does matter and a smaller neg might have more visual bite than a bigger neg enlarged only a little.
with MF however, you tend to be able to achieve great 'bite'and fine grain at typical portfolio and on the wall sizes of say 9.5x12-12x16 in in may regards provides enough 'bite' and pretty fine grain. At 5x7 MF still has an edge in absolute terms but in subjective terms can look sharper off 35mm.....as can a 10x8. The big issue comes when shooting say 10x8 negs in that if you are looking for 'bite' one often has to resort to tricks like semi-stand processing in agressive acutance devs to get that on a contact print or small enlargement.
However, if shooting MF one can use the same tricks to get amazing acutance on small prints but also have fine grain when you want it too.
If I am looking for detail, resolution and tonality I have not produced negs from 35mm that can really compete with rollfilm even at 11x14, but that is not to say they look 'worse' for it, as that totally depends on the nature of the image. Needless to say if I need to appearance of grain for the right pictorial effect, 35mm is technically better......
Dunno if that helps....
Hi T,
I don't understand how this very straightforward topic got so rancorous.
I guess it's people without empathy that are to blame, like you and me ;)
Philipp
Technically, I think it's obvious that a larger negative has to have more detail than a smaller one. I really don't understanding why all that discussion. What counts to me is the image on the negative, far more than the size of it. For me an image is something that transmits, being it in 35mm, MF, digital or whatever.
There's a classic example, by Capa:
http://www.temple.edu/photo/photographers/spring03/photographers/clay/Seminar/Robert%20Capa/PhotosCapa/rcapa.jpg
Such a powerful image, shot in 35mm, badly developed... It gives me chills, and the "poor" detail adds to it.
On the other side, a great picture by Ansel Adams:
http://www.artcom.com/Museums/nv/af/EiteljorgCanyon%20de%20Chelly.jpg
Shot in LF I think, great tonal separation, detail...
What gives this two images their status is the actual picture, IMHO, not the detail or lack of it.
It's the image.
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
I think some are in danger of losing the plot here (or have lost it). Just as a reminder here is the original post:
I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF (as well as others) cameras besides their Leicas and other 35mm RFs. So, my question is - how do you think Leica, Zeiss, CV and other lenses compare to those MF ones, such as Fuji645, Bronica 645, Mamiya 6 and 7? I hear that they all have great lenses, yet some 35mm lenses are great too. Some are even compared to MF quality. Like Zeiss 25/2.8 ZM for example. Leica lenses sure cost as much as some MF setups. So, what do you think, after using both - is it really worth it to have both systems? are they pretty close? Lets say if largest photo would be 11x14 inches - would I see a difference between the two systems?
to me, the poster is asking for help in understanding the 'qualities'of leica and Zess lenses in repsect to delivering 'image quality'. As to what 'MF quality' is, one could assume to mean detail and tonality, hence the nature of the question. He then asks about what difference would be seen on an 11x14....the implied question is 'can superlative Leica/Zeiss optic overcome the lack of neg size and therefore produce results subjectively as 'good' as MF'. I think the answer of course depends on what you are looking for...but if you are looking for fine grain and detail the answer is a resounding no, by all the accounts here.
I think it is fairly clear that the poster is not asking if photos have to be full of detail to be 'good' or whether this is 'important'. He is asking whether there is a difference. plenty of people have answered that question yet plenty of others have actually suggested that the question is invalid 'because it should not matter'. This attitude could be deemed offensive to the poster as it suggests that he/she is bothering with trifling matters and should be more worried about 'the art darling'.
Are there differences or not on an 11x14 using 35mm vs 120 = Yes, normally. whether it matters to you or whether you think the poster should care has nothing to do with the original question.
There is no need to overcomplicate what seemed to me to be a simple question, unless the respondant is trying to suggest that the post is too far below them and that the poster ought to be 'educated with regard to the finer philosophies of pictorial quality..." I have not heard his much hot air for a long time....
I use 35mm, 645, 6x9, 5x4,5x7 and 10x8. This is not bragging, but as someone who owns leica, Zeiss etc I find it quite easy to draw certain conclusions.....whay can't other? Why does Leica have to be defended to the point of not conceding any ground? When it comes to format comparison (ignoring portability and speed factors) this just makes Leica owners look like dicks.
For tonality, detail on a sheet of photo paper, fine grain...my 350 quid used Bronica RF645 CRAPS ALL OVER MY LEICA. This is not to say that it is 'better' however. Please somone, tell me I am mistaken and that by pointing this out I must be deluded ...or worried about the wrong things....or ignoring the art....
The poor sod asked a simple question and has recieved a lot of diatribe on everything but!
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
Thank you rxmd for that clear technical analysis, and to Turtle for that fresh breath of rationality.
I have a simple question (with no ambiguous terms I hope) for Magus: Have you ever printed 35mm and MF negatives with an enlarger?
Magus, respectfully, what I see is you trying to muddy the discussion by being picky about the semantics of other posters, but not holding your self up to those same standards. Just my opinion. So Magus, ever print a MF negative?
WoolenMammoth
06-30-2007, 08:06
frank beat me to it... This is pretty typical of big fish/little pond stuff where some guy has to be right all the time and does it by debating semantics. Its odd that you guys are entertaining that, everyone here seems pretty level headed, but Im pretty new here.
this discussion did a good job of addressing the original poster, bigger negative has more information (grain) per square mm than a smaller one, so if that doesnt yield a sharper or whatever damn word you want to use to identify information per square mm, you guys might be out to lunch.
You really shouldnt confuse the discussion with big words that are apparently disctracting like "medium format". Simply take your Leica with the best glass in the world or whatever fantasy you want to have about it, and go take a picture of a brick wall. Then take a whole bunch of steps back until your brick wall now only fills 1/3 or 1/4 of the frame and take a similarly framed photo to match your original camera position. Take those two frames, both shot with the worlds best camera and the worlds best glass and go develop them in your favorite developer. Next, print these two frames 11x14 on the exact type of paper, developed in the exact type of chemistry. Print the first full frame, print the second so that the brick wall fills the frame to match the framing of the first picture, using only 1/3 or 1/4 of the neg depending how you framed it.
Now argue about which print appears "sharper" viewed from 6 feet away. Or the color of the sky or how you pronounce the word "tomatoe", all three would amount to equally efficient and worthy discussions.
Just remember, if you continue to argue this you are arguing with someone who claims that (and will surely now begin to backpedal or distract with language) that "As to the rest (35mm vs. MF), negative quality per square millimetre, for example, has nothing to do with enlargement. These are completely different syllogisms." If this statement had any bearing on planet earth people wouldnt be caught dead hauling 70mm Imax cameras to the top of everest, they'd just shoot on super 16mm and let magus work his physics defying logic on their negs.
magus, magus, magus. with your philosopher's stone, flame baiting turns to democracy, and rudeness becomes dispassionate criticism. but we're only disembodied thought here, aren't we?
oh wait, i forgot to take my medication, or get myself laid. i'm out of my mind, so go on being courteous and rational.
i've waited long enough to say this, but i think the moderators should block his ip address. we didn't even have this much trouble with frank g's posts (just his website). :mad:
J J Kapsberger
06-30-2007, 08:43
Beautiful. Your Leica vs. Leica test captured the essence of the thread starter's comparison, which was between relative image sizes on the negatives/slides rather than absolute image size. A 6cm image of a face (i.e., the maximum uncropped size on a 6x6 negative) blown up to 16" (40cm) will look better (dare I say appear sharper?) than a 3.5cm image of a face (i.e., the maximum uncropped size on a 35mm negative) blown up to the same size. I expect there will be significantly greater cohesion (perhaps that's a more acceptable word?) in the enlargement of the 6x6 negative. Relative to the 35mm image, the 6x6 image has been defined by more grain, and the tightness of the grain has been eroded to a lesser degree during enlargement. The greater cohesion of the 6x6 shot would cause the image to appear sharper to the typical viewer.
frank beat me to it... This is pretty typical of big fish/little pond stuff where some guy has to be right all the time and does it by debating semantics. Its odd that you guys are entertaining that, everyone here seems pretty level headed, but Im pretty new here.
this discussion did a good job of addressing the original poster, bigger negative has more information (grain) per square mm than a smaller one, so if that doesnt yield a sharper or whatever damn word you want to use to identify information per square mm, you guys might be out to lunch.
You really shouldnt confuse the discussion with big words that are apparently disctracting like "medium format". Simply take your Leica with the best glass in the world or whatever fantasy you want to have about it, and go take a picture of a brick wall. Then take a whole bunch of steps back until your brick wall now only fills 1/3 or 1/4 of the frame and take a similarly framed photo to match your original camera position. Take those two frames, both shot with the worlds best camera and the worlds best glass and go develop them in your favorite developer. Next, print these two frames 11x14 on the exact type of paper, developed in the exact type of chemistry. Print the first full frame, print the second so that the brick wall fills the frame to match the framing of the first picture, using only 1/3 or 1/4 of the neg depending how you framed it.
Now argue about which print appears "sharper" viewed from 6 feet away. Or the color of the sky or how you pronounce the word "tomatoe", all three would amount to equally efficient and worthy discussions.
Just remember, if you continue to argue this you are arguing with someone who claims that (and will surely now begin to backpedal or distract with language) that "As to the rest (35mm vs. MF), negative quality per square millimetre, for example, has nothing to do with enlargement. These are completely different syllogisms." If this statement had any bearing on planet earth people wouldnt be caught dead hauling 70mm Imax cameras to the top of everest, they'd just shoot on super 16mm and let magus work his physics defying logic on their negs.
A few months ago I made a test between my Rolleiflex (Zeiss Planar 3.5/75mm) and M6 (Cron-C 40mm f2.0) because I also wanted to know the answer for my practical purposes. (fast film in the Rollei and slow film in the Leica) for my methods the difference isn´t shattering so I stick to the Leica and use the Rollei for special shots, one of the problems is that the theoretical resolution and "sharpness" can´t be touched by my scanners. edit: minolta DSIV vs. Epson perfection 3200
so...to round off this completely pointless (sh1ty mf scan looks equal to 35mm ..duh) post is attach some pics, maybe you find them interesting nevertheless:
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
Magus,
Ohh you outed me and my PM. I only PM'd so as not to dirty up the thread any more than you already have. Sarcastic you bet, are there rules of engagement for PM's as well?
You won't tolerate PM's of this nature????? Go start your own forum like Frank G did or see if you can buy this one from Stephen.
Maybe we should meet in person to discuss? Let me know where and when.
Thanks,
Sherm
WoolenMammoth
06-30-2007, 10:23
good job of addressing the points I brought up.
perhaps next we can debate how much fluid fits in a 10 ml graduate...
Post deleted by posters request
beethamd
06-30-2007, 10:29
Lets all go take some pictures.
ugh, more condescension, insults, and disingenuousness from the champion of rationalism.
Post deleted by posters request
WoolenMammoth
06-30-2007, 10:44
right on cue.
big fish can backpedal at lightspeed revolutions when his folley is exposed.
trying to play it cool? give me a break.
all these insults about childishness, virginity, and insecurity are quite ironic.
Post deleted by posters request
while we're making insults impossible to make on the internet, let's add arguments and claims that stand up to scrutiny.
Post deleted by posters request
I agree with Magus that there is not reason/point in getting agitated because of this discussion. We do this for fun, remember?
"Scrutinise my arguments, refute them if they are unworthy!!"
I think we've already done that. :)
Magus, not having printed a MF negative does not disqualify you from this discussion, but it sure compromises your opinion. You argue your point based on the mere wish that Leica could rival MF results. The unfortunate (for you) reality is that it can not. I can tell you this from personal experience (which you lack on this issue), and so can several other posters in this thread already. So sorry, my friend. :)
Just because Magus has a different viewpoint, this is no reason to run him out of town. Same as with FrankG. I enjoyed his contribution here. (Totally disapprove of his personal site though, otherwise I'd argue for his return.)
Feel free to send this to FrankG too, Jon.
it's not that he has a different viewpoint, it's that he's a troll.
it's not that he has a different viewpoint, it's that he's a troll.
I disagree. I'm sure that Magus genuinely believes what he writes, and that he posts to state his opinion rather than post to purposely cause problems. And the problems that are caused is by folks who get too excited about these issues. Yes it is frustrating to try to get someone to see your logic if they seem blind to it. But remember, this is supposed to be fun. :)
grainhound
06-30-2007, 11:25
Having won 5 rolls of Rollei Scanfilm CN 400, 3 of 120 & 2 of 135, I wanted a quick idea of what to expect from it. Since I don’t shoot much compared to many here, I got out my Mamiya 330, a couple of lenses & shot a roll of 120. The Mamiya is a camera that few, including me, would call convenient to shoot with. Yet I enjoyed the shoot; it was a little awkward, but fun. I also like one of the 12 shots, & will have it enlarged to 20 x 20 inches. I wouldn’t spend money on an enlargement that size with a Leica shot, though may do it myself just for a kick (ambiguous enough?) with a b/w shot whenever I get my darkroom set up.
Apparently if I reread Plato's Dialogues, I wouldn’t be so timid about spending money on a 20 x 20 enlargement of a 35mm neg. I would not be lusting after a Nikon Coolscan 9000, nor would I be so keen to take the Mamiya, awkwardness & all, out again soon. My casual Rollei film test and this thread has encouraged me to do the latter. I’ve had other reactions, but they’re way off topic.
Someone should post a couple of Raid style comparison scans. I could do it, but the results would take until November at my pace.
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
i've seen many trolls, and his behavior is a dead giveaway. they leave questions hanging through various means to bait responses, make controversial claims they can't and don't support, act like they own the forum, suck up to more established members, taunt at every opportunity, and simultaneously scream "witchhunt" and play it cool when outed. what's next? he'll lay himself prostrate and ask for forgiveness.
whats going on...is this photo.net's Leica forum ?
....oops....spilled some beer.....
no, its RFF.....phew.....
WoolenMammoth
06-30-2007, 11:59
Different view points are one thing, but debating the color of the sky or how much water fills a graduate is some kind of fool suffering that can defy patience. Instead of address the primary issue here, which is resolution per mm, magus introduces us to his strawman every chance he gets. This isnt the US media, this is supposed to be one on one discussion and the simple fact is that its rude and condescending.
He claims "negative quality per square millimetre, for example, has nothing to do with enlargement" yet when called to defend that little bit of brilliance, he brings up plato and avoids the topic entirely. This of course just a few posts after he avoids Turtle's first hand experience with the issue and brings up "emotional red herrings" as some part of this forum which "must be corrected". For as pedantic as this guy comes across, that little bit is very funny.
Again, utliize 1/3 of your 35mm negative and enlarge it to the same size as your full frame 35mm negative and then report back to us, with all things being wholly equal, camera, lens, stop, film, developer, enlarger lens, stop, developer that the negative size is irrelevant. Aerial recon didnt use 8x10 because someone in the airforce thought big negs looked cool.
There is plenty of room for opinions, I prefer my leica over my rollei tlr most times but debating this topic is simply not understanding or considering fundamental building blocks of photography.
Post deleted by posters request
seems you're a contrarian and sophist troll, magus.
http://socialdiscussion.com/computers-internet/312-other-definitive-guide-internet-trolls.html
WOW!!!
WHat have I started???? I asked a , what I thought a simple question, and...... look what developed. After I read through all the replies, and sorted out ones that actually help answer my question - thanks to those members, I have some general understanding as to what to expect when it comes to MF vs 35mm (Leica) when enlarged to 11x14 or so. I suppose I will have to experiment on my own more to see.
Thanks to all, even more so who remembered the original question and gave your answers base on experience.
Hope noone got hurt in a process. ;)
i dunno about getting hurt, but i know one person who enjoyed the flames.
we shouldn't have to wade through all this, either.
Magus,
Your lack of experience with MF does very really and actually compromise your position. You have no experience making actual comparisons based on your own practical usage at the taking and printing stages (which ultimately is what getting results hinges upon). One needs to understand the process as this impacts upon results. One has to be able to compare your own TriX 120 to 35mm ....and your delta 100 35mm to TriX 120...printing them and detemining the differences you see....and these differences are as clear as day, sorry! Whether you care or not or think it should matter, has nothing to do with the question asked.
You can scoff at this and continue to argue the toss, but those who do have the experience with the various formats know exactly what I am talkiing about. I have no interest in defending Leica or Mamiya for that matter but know what my own experience very clearly shows me, as do others. Nobody is suggesting that MF or any larger format does not have disadvantages, but the 'differences'[coming back to the original post] are blatantly obvious even from 35mm to 645 let along 6x7/6x9. I also print MF and 35mm for other people and I see it in their prints too....as do they.
I an no delicate flower I assure you, but you should not underestimate the (disruptive) effect that your posts have on someone who wants a blinking answer. Whats more, you have apparently sought to crank up the intellectual nature of this dicussion to stratospheric levels in what appears to be an attempt to bamboozle and intellectually intimidate (or look down on) others; largely demonstrated by your use of foreign languages and obscure terms.
Others have criticised you before for talking outside of your experience envelope and on at least one occassion I have defended you to prevent a witch hunt. On this occassion you appear to relish the prospect of spiraling confrontation and I dont understand it. We all trade on our credibility and one of the great things about forums is being able to help others overcome hurdles and understand things you take for granted. You cannot do that if you have no credibility left. I would not dream of suggesting that you have no right to take part in this dicussion because of your lack of MF experience, but equally, never having used other formats, you should realise when you are out of your depth entirely. It is this that should determine your contribution. another factor is that the poster asked for 'help' on an issue. What you have done to the thread has been entirely destructive and has not helped one bit. It is your failure to acknowledge this that ultimately disqualifies your contribution.
PS. There are good practical reasons to buy Leica, but their ability to compete with MF on grain, tonality and on print detail is NOT one of them. 1/4 the price spent on MF would be a far wiser deicision based on these criteria.
If you wish to make your point, maybe you could provide a direct answer to the question posed below. If you could explain your reasoning that would be helpful, as would a simple, down to earth response, you know for normal people:
I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF ..... Leica lenses sure cost as much as some MF setups. So, what do you think, after using both - is it really worth it to have both systems? are they pretty close? Lets say if largest photo would be 11x14 inches - would I see a difference between the two systems?
I agree with pretty much everything Turtle says. This kind of thing is really driving me away from this site. I have a lot of experience with medium format, 6x7 in particular, my website and flickr are full of examples of hand held black and white MF shooting, but to be honest I'm really not in the mood to share what I know if I'm going to get embroiled in arguments with people who've never shot a single frame of MF in their life. And of course it's not the trolls who miss out, its those who want an honest answer to a simple question.
Bertram2
07-01-2007, 02:16
[QUOTE=Turtle]Magus,
PS. There are good practical reasons to buy Leica, but their ability to compete with MF on grain, tonality and on print detail is NOT one of them. 1/4 the price spent on MF would be a far wiser deicision based on these criteria.
I/[QUOTE]
True and basta. What wasn't said tho until now is the fact that the benefits of the larger format concerning tonality get visible below the critical enlargement factors. Even a 13X18cm MF print can show a clear advantage compared to a 35mm neg, the higher the film speed the clearer the difference.
Tha fact that we all use 35mm (too) has absolutely nothing to do with the idea, any magic 35mm camera could be on par with the impression a MF gives us.
It is btw not about sharpness and and grain and detail as a theoretical advantage , it is the impression , the look, the footprint of this format, more vivid, more 3d, more natural.
If you shoot the same place with a Leica combo and a Rolleicord with a Xenar side by side and enlarge it to 20X30cm , everybody will prefer the Rollei photo later ! And surely NOT because it looks "sharper " .
What comes next? Shall we discuss if the world is really round ? I've read the whole thread and I couldn't really get it.:confused: At the latest when it comes that sorta esoteric lala to which the "sparkling" thing belongs to we should stop for a moment and see where we have landed......:eek: :bang:
Bertram
I agree with pretty much everything Turtle says. This kind of thing is really driving me away from this site. I have a lot of experience with medium format, 6x7 in particular, my website and flickr are full of examples of hand held black and white MF shooting, but to be honest I'm really not in the mood to share what I know if I'm going to get embroiled in arguments with people who've never shot a single frame of MF in their life. And of course it's not the trolls who miss out, its those who want an honest answer to a simple question.
Toby,
I know it is annoying but I know how you feel at times. This thread is one of the most blatant displays of self-immolation I have ever seen, but it is not representative of the forum as a whole. There is nowhere else that you get as much RF related info as this!
I don't think Magus was trolling per se but perhaps did not realise that there are people here, who might not make flowery speeches but have a heck of a lot of practical experience, know the difference between an apple and an orange, but acknowledge the merits of both.
Nikon Bob
07-01-2007, 05:47
I saw the thread when it started and thought the first page of replies were pretty sane with only a hint of what might happen later. I came back to this thread after a few days and read the last page only to have my suspicions confirmed that it would deteriorate. I have limited experience with MF and have used LF just a little. I would have to say size of the neg matters, with larger being better. I got rid of my LF set up and still have a few MF cameras that get little use as I find that for my use 35mm will do. If an untrained eye such as mine can see the difference I would not dream of arguing which is better technically. If it were me, I would try it as cheaply as possible by using a folder or TLR such as a Yashica Mat 124 or Minolta Autocord to determine for myself if it is suitable/better for my intended use.
Bob
I would be interested to read somebodies opinion who has
used both MF _and_ 35mm with the newest generation of
lenses, specifically either ZM 25/2.8 or 35/2 Summicron ASPH.
This was the original question which I found very interesting.
Thanks,
Roland.
Are there any RFF members nearby Magus in Europe who would lend him a MF camera for a short while. (You may even be offered his M7 and lenses in trade for it once he sees what it can do. :) )
Again, Frank, the original question was about modern 35mm lenses.
Joe, can you lend Frank your Biogon ?
I would be interested to read somebodies opinion who has
used both MF _and_ 35mm with the newest generation of
lenses, specifically either ZM 25/2.8 or 35/2 Summicron ASPH.
This was the original question which I found very interesting.
Thanks,
Roland.
I own Zeiss and Leica lenses for my Leica M bodies (28 Biogon, 35 planar, 50 planar, 50 ASPH Summilux, 90 Elmarit M). I also have owned a Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RZII and currently own a RF645. I also own quite a few LF lenses and cameras, some of which have included older lenses. I also print a friends Mamiya 7 negs shot off a 50mm, 80, 150mm)
But to drive the point home, I will say this:
I took a circa 1918-20 Zeiss capsule camera into the field to have a play as it had belonged to my grandfather. It leaked light and the focus scale was bent, but tape made it light tight and I decided to bracket focus as well as exposure. The lens is about the size of a dime and uncoated. It took one roll of film and shot one frame that I have sold a number of times over. luckily it was the only one that was in focus AND had no flare and framed right (the finder was also bust). The film was 120 and the neg size 6x9
At 18" the resolution is superb (shot at f22 or F32, cant recall as bracketed) and the tonality and grain far superior to 35mm...compared to any frame shot on any lens/camera in my 35mm arsenal. I could not have produced this result on any 35mm combo IMO as to do so I would probably have had to use a microfilm and I hate the tonal response these films have. The tones are sumptuous (film was Pan-F) and the grain invisible (which for this shot was seriously important). People simply don't believe me when I show them the gnarled capsule camera used. This is the ugly truth. however, a Rolleicord is soft wide open and to get great wide open performance of MF you would have to look for a more expensive lens design.
None of my 35mm gear can compete with my old Rolleicord Va in grain, apparent resolution and general 'photo-reality' when shot at apertures where the Xenar lens performs well, say f11-16.
None of my 35mm can compete in grain, tonality and apparent detail against my RF645 at any aperture...or my friends Mamiya 7 at any aperture. Both these MF rangefinders are very sharp very quickly and need little stopping down. My rf645 at f5.6 produces a print with more percieved detail and info, tonality etc than any of my Leica/Zeiss glass at f4-5.6 (about optimal). Bust.
None of my MF kit can compete against any of my LF kit on the same basis...even my RF645 or friends Mamiya 7 against a 5x4 neg shot using my old Kodak 203 Ektar...Up to 11x14 some of teh MF kit competes very closely but at 20x16 there is absolutely no contest whatsoever.....unless comparing MF with delta 100 and Xtol against 5x4 HP5 in rodinal......
There are certain print sizes where grain/tonality is little different and not worth caring about and even smaller print sizes where smaller formats actually look sharper AND remain grain free by virtue of being just short of grain emergence. a 6x7 neg may look sharper on 10x8 than a 5x4 neg....when the same film is used etc.
35mm is lighter, faster, more economical, less obtrusive, OF COURSE!
And you want to know what else?
My Canon 135 f2L is as good optically as ANY of my Zeiss/Leica glass and was a lot cheaper. Nobody asks if the best L glass can rival MF, but leica has this mystique in largely promulgated by amateur Leica fetishists who have no idea what they are talking about.
Leica and Zeiss glass cannot make up for the small format, not even close. What is does do is give superb results where 35mm is used!!! Obviously!!!
Jamie123
07-01-2007, 07:08
Are there any RFF members nearby Magus in Europe who would lend him a MF camera for a short while. (You may even be offered his M7 and lenses in trade for it once he sees what it can do. :) )
Well if he's ever in Switzerland I'd be glad to lend him my Hasselblad. :-)
I own Zeiss and Leica lenses for my Leica M bodies (28 Biogon, 35 planar, 50 planar, 50 ASPH Summilux, 90 Elmarit M).
: : :
None of my 35mm gear can compete with my old Rolleicord Va in grain, apparent resolution and general 'photo-reality' when shot at apertures where the Xenar lens performs well, say f11-16.
: : :
And you want to know what else?
My Canon 135 f2L is as good optically as ANY of my Zeiss/Leica glass and was a lot cheaper. Nobody asks if the best L glass can rival MF, but leica has this mystique in largely promulgated by amateur Leica fetishists who have no idea what they are talking about.
Leica and Zeiss glass cannot make up for the small format, not even close. What is does do is give superb results where 35mm is used!!! Obviously!!!
Thanks, Turtle. I was seriously asking for advice, I use vintage lenses
mostly for both 35 and 120, my Hasselblad has been neglected and
I have had GAS for ZM 25 or 28, ever since the 25 MTF charts were published.
And I was wondering about the Canon lenses, but I don't use Canon
bodies ... I shoot color and landscapes, mostly, also with the M mounts.
Didn't feel this was adressed before.
Best,
Roland.
WoolenMammoth
07-01-2007, 08:22
I would be interested to read somebodies opinion who has
used both MF _and_ 35mm with the newest generation of
lenses, specifically either ZM 25/2.8 or 35/2 Summicron ASPH.
This was the original question which I found very interesting.
Thanks,
Roland.
Roland-
Ive recently shot with a hassleblad and an elmar-m 50 on the same subject (i dont have the chromes to post which is a shame) and would make the same statement about a comparison between one of my rollei tlr's and a version 2 rigid 'cron. Bigger neg wins.
What nobody has addressed explcitly yet is why, if MF is so much "better" would anyone use 35mm and the answer is because 35mm, with its lack of resolution in comparison, is better for some applications than others. When the situation comes up where I have the choice between a square frame and the bulkiness and slowness of a medium format setup or 35mm, I'll chose the bulky square every time, but there arent alot of shooting scenarios I personally get in where I can even make that choice and shoot probably %85 on 35mm and also dont wish I could shoot too much more on medium format. Sometimes ou WANT the compressed crappy feel of 35mm, especially so if you are a grain fiend. Better may be better, but its not always appropriate and thats real important to make explicit since this thread has orbited out to the drama stratosphere. If you want the best negative possible, you should be shooting 8x10 but there are usually a lot more factors involved in the decision to use which format that go beyond best neg possible.
And the thread keeps going.... I have the Biogon and MF still woops it!!
ZeissFan
07-01-2007, 08:49
Artistic merit is one thing, and technical details are quite another.
I have folders full of medium format negatives that aren't worth a hoot, but man are they ever sharp with tons of detail and great tones in them.
Even so, all other things being equal, if you have a 35mm negative and a 6x6 negative of the same subject, the larger negative should yield the "better" print.
But which is better, of course, ventures into the area of art. Objectivity goes out the window, because what you might find undesirable in a photo might appeal to someone else.
I would be interested to read somebodies opinion who has
used both MF _and_ 35mm with the newest generation of
lenses, specifically either ZM 25/2.8 or 35/2 Summicron ASPH.
This was the original question which I found very interesting.
Thanks,
Roland.
I have neither of those lenses, but I do have the 35 summilux asph and the 50 summilux asph, which I hope you will accept as adequate substitutes. I also have medium format cameras. I too hesitate to contribute to this thread because I don't want to be dismissed or attacked. But I think that your modern-lens distinction unfortunately does not change the answer. Those newer 35mm lenses are fantastic, but the images they produce are on a smaller negative, and therefore those images cannot be enlarged to the same size as a 6x6 negative. At least not with the same quality. To refer to the original question, based on my experience, a person certainly would see the difference at 11x14. Even comparing those premium Leica lenses to my $103 Rolleicord. I see the difference. Moreover, 11x14 is the limit of enlargement for most people of a 35mm negative. But to me, compared with medium format, the 35mm images -- not the lenses, but the images captured on the negative and enlarged -- have less detail and tonality at much smaller print sizes than 11x14. For some subjects, I can see a difference on a proof print or a contact sheet. Of course, for some subjects, detail and tonality matter less.
I hope that contributes something.
I really don't see how this can really be debated. Not honestly. It is, as said above, a fact on par with the earth being round. Not that the question was bad, nor Ferider's refinement of it -- I thought those were great questions. Just that no matter what fancy words an objector uses, how aggessive he is, or how many smoke screens he throws out, the answer is clear and accepted by general consensus.
You can profitably point out that when taking pictures the negative size difference is less important than other things (for example, camera size, or availability of fast lenses), or that the 35mm aesthetic is valuable in itself, or that some subjects don't require ultimate quality. But the larger negative will give you better tonality and detail and greater enlargement possibilities. If that's what you want. I personally use 35mm much more than medium format. The smaller size has too many advantages for me. And the lenses are great. But facts are facts. When I use medium format, I see a difference. That's not the lens, per se, it's the negative.
-Laura
One thing that's worth adding is that the big advantage for me in 6x7 is the different way a the lenses render a because of the increased focal length for a particular FOV. My standard lens for 6x7 is a 105/2.4 the way this renders a scene at any given aperture compared to a 50mm lens of whatever quality is HUGELY different in the feel it gives, here is an example at F4 or slightly wider:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/685346863_f6996ea536_o.jpg
(sorry about the large file but I wanted to make the example obvious)
Medium format can render a scene in a way that is nothing like the human eye sees it, and this is what I find so interesting about the format.
I just like square sometimes. Another boat for Toby.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46973&d=1183313361
I'm thinking that we've laid this issue to rest. If Magus were to continue to argue this point, well ...
I shoot both Zeiss and asph Leica glass and also Zeiss T* glass for my Hasselblads. My 4x5 kit consists of glass from the 70's to the current XL Schneider Super Angulon 72mm and my 8x10 kit is vintage glass from the 60's and 70's. As said befor in a small enlargement 35mm holds up fine and in large enlargements the bigger the neg the better. Glass has less to do with tonal gradation and the final look of the print compared to film, processing and the ratio of film size to enlargement. Oh yes let's not forget what it's enlarged on, diffusion, condensor or point source. Certainly as we know lenses have their own signature but to get that rich tonality and smooth gradation with sharpness then the size of the neg is the secret. The larger the neg the less the lens quality needed to look good. I shot for many years with a late 1800's tripple convertible Zeiss Protar 10-1/4 inch on 8x10. It was a stunning lens but not sharp in large enlargements atleast not compared to mosern lenses but in 16x20 it would knock you out and the tonality was spectacular and mainly due to the large film area.
The attached image was shot with the Protar on Tri-X at f 256 for a ten munute exposure. Tonality will kill any 35mm enlargement the same size (8x10).
dreamsandart
07-01-2007, 18:08
Although I have a selection of Leica cameras and lenses to keep me happy and appreciate the way they can be handled quickly and with fast lenses, when I have been traveling the past 10 years or so the one camera I take is a Rolleiflex 6x6. It just does everything I need and the negatives and positives I get back are just beautiful, a step up from 35mm and something very different at the same time. That little Ziess 75mm is very 'sharp' with good contrast, flare resistant and in general everything I'd want in 'look' WITH a bigger original 'hard-copy'. A well exposed transparency 6x6 on a light table jumps out and can send shivers up my back like no 35mm can.
One thing that's worth adding is that the big advantage for me in 6x7 is the different way a the lenses render a because of the increased focal length for a particular FOV. My standard lens for 6x7 is a 105/2.4 the way this renders a scene at any given aperture compared to a 50mm lens of whatever quality is HUGELY different in the feel it gives, here is an example at F4 or slightly wider:
Thanks for that beautiful shot!
You're using a Pentax 6x7 I assume? That is one of the cameras I've been eyeing rather often...
Phillipp
Yes, it's a pentax 6x7, my current favourite camera, and super cheap these days, the set up I was using was about a third of the price of one new leica lens - one of the reasons I've been 'upsizing' my film shooting equipment.
Can never achieve something like this with a Leica...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/50084718_99c9a5abd8_o.jpg
Yes, it's a pentax 6x7, my current favourite camera, and super cheap these days, the set up I was using was about a third of the price of one new leica lens - one of the reasons I've been 'upsizing' my film shooting equipment.
I've found myself gravitating towards trying it more than once, but I've never used one. How's handholdability with the 6x7? I've read a lot about mirror and shutter slap forcing you to use high shutter speeds. Also the 1/30 flash sync speed would be somewhat limiting (and so is Leica's 1/50).
The main reason why I never got into 6x7 is that I have some excellent cheap East German lenses for 6x6; I could rather see myself getting a $50 Kiev 60, which allows me to continue using the 50/4 and the 180/2.8, than a Pentax 6x7 which would force me to buy new (but excellent) lenses.
Can never achieve something like this with a Leica...
Nice model! I also like the slanted background. Nothing like breaking rules of composition every now and then. Given the context of this thread, was this an MF shot?
Philipp
Again, Frank, the original question was about modern 35mm lenses.
Joe, can you lend Frank your Biogon ?
The lens is not going to make 35mm into medium format. I use medium format and I have used high-end modern 35mm lenses. There is still no equality as far as image quality goes as the film size is what makes the difference.
Tuolumne
07-02-2007, 07:26
It is amazing the convolutions and contortions this thread went through to render this final judgement which is as old as the hills and as true now as it was when the hills were young.
/T
I think post #2 answered the original poster's question.
Philipp
As a rule I use 1/250 as my 'safe' hand holding speed with both 165 and 105 lenses. I should add that I have the wooden grip for keeping the camera steady, although I'm not sure how much difference this makes. This is fine for outdoor work with 400 or 100 iso film, depending on light levels. I rarely use on camera flash with this camera because of the 1/30 sync speed, but I bought a large lastolite reflector and a stand which although cumbersome is actually a more pleasing lighting solution outdoors, as I've used this camera primarily for portraits.
Bertram2
07-02-2007, 08:56
It is amazing the convolutions and contortions this thread went through to render this final judgement which is as old as the hills and as true now as it was when the hills were young.
/T
Maybe this judgement is as old as the hills are, but not everybody knows it. A lack of experience is always helpful when sombody is going to invent the whole photography new. :D
Bertram
True on both points, Bertram.
Nice model! I also like the slanted background. Nothing like breaking rules of composition every now and then. Given the context of this thread, was this an MF shot?
Philipp
Thanks, this was shot on a Yashica 124G and 400iso film.. a cheapo MF still beats the best of the 35mm offering in image performance.
A big thanks to Turtle and Philipp for being so methodical and reasonable; I'll have to be a subscriber to this thread simply for the amount of information available here.
sepiareverb
07-08-2007, 05:40
Wow! What a week to be away! Just to throw a slightly different towel into the fray, I've found that in my work (handheld) the reduced depth of field for field of view that comes with MF has made the difference in negative size a wash as I end up using a faster film to get the depth of field I want. The bigger grain seems nearly always to negate the gain in negative size. It is this reason that I currently have no MF cameras. I've had the Hasselblad, Pentax 67 & a couple of fuji 645's, and despite the stunning look on the proofsheet, for me the current M lenses, coupled with this gain in depth of field gives the 35mm stuff a great balance that works best for me. Again, I'm talking about how it works for what I'm doing.
And not meaning to add to the sour taste of some of this, but not having shot or printed MF shouldn't automatically disqualify one from stating an opinion. Nearly all of us have seen prints from medium and large format negs, and the knowledge of how these images are different doesn't only come from making them does it? It was the studying of others prints that got me shooting 810 in the first place, and my initial hopes for MF being a good compromise of tonality/d.o.f. were also based on the study of prints. And it was the seeing of the difference between Nikon SLR prints and Contax G prints that sold me on RF.
And not meaning to add to the sour taste of some of this, but not having shot or printed MF shouldn't automatically disqualify one from stating an opinion.
You're completely right. On the other hand I would hope that the consciousness of not having hands-on first-hand experience with medium or large format should render a person a little more open-minded about the explanations and arguments of people who do.
It was the studying of others prints that got me shooting 810 in the first place, and my initial hopes for MF being a good compromise of tonality/d.o.f. were also based on the study of prints. And it was the seeing of the difference between Nikon SLR prints and Contax G prints that sold me on RF.
Then again, you probably were ready to be influenced by what other human beings with first-hand experience actually said. Neither did you explain away their talk about differences in visual impression with a discussion of the semantic inaccuracies of their usage of terms for these impressions in common language, nor did you, when someone took some pains to give you a technical explanation for what was observable, brush them away with an off-hand statement that they weren't really arguing within the same syllogism, nor did you ask them whether Plato's "Dialogues" and the great court cases had failed to make an impression on them. I think the difference is all in the attitude and in the response; to put it in Plato's terms from the "Apology", "that which I don't know I don't assume to be knowing."
Your point about MF shooters using faster film and, hence, grain size eating up the enlargement factor advantage is very true. I've noticed similar things when shooting MF hand-held, even though I was using faster film mainly to compensate for slower lenses and for having to use faster shutter speed to avoid camera shake. I think medium format really lends itself to a slower mode of photography and should be treated as such, which is why a medium format rangefinder is not for me. (I just sold my Moskva-5 and my Super Ikonta III in April.) On the other hand my Kiev with the Sonnar, the Flektogon and a monopod feels more portable than a comparable 4x5 or 5x7 setup with a tripod, so there is still some justification for me for using it. But medium format has sometimes been criticised for being somewhat half-baked - if you want portability, then you often have to use faster film which negates many of the advantages, and if you don't need portability, then you can use large format and enjoy the advantages to an even greater extent. Ultimately, as you say, it all boils down to personal preference, and for the time being medium format is a nice compromise for me.
Philipp
The discussion about the merits for both formats ran really smoothly in this thread but ...some Leica fans could not accept that it would go on saying that a 140$ iskra/yashicamat/ikonta would give better pictures than a Leica kit which would cost 5000$.
I really like both formats:
* with a konica hexar AF silent mode you get unnoticed for making street picture
* with the iskra or an ikoflex but easy to propose a portrait after being asked: what is it ? A camera ?
A good picture is not only defined by : sharp / capacity of making big poster because one cannot do the same pictures /capture the same moment with MF and 35 mm.;) ;) ;) ;)
Bertram2
07-08-2007, 09:51
Then again, you probably were ready to be influenced by what other human beings with first-hand experience actually said. Neither did you explain away their talk about differences in visual impression with a discussion of the semantic inaccuracies of their usage of terms for these impressions in common language, nor did you, when someone took some pains to give you a technical explanation for what was observable, brush them away with an off-hand statement that they weren't really arguing within the same syllogism, nor did you ask them whether Plato's "Dialogues" and the great court cases had failed to make an impression on them. I think the difference is all in the attitude and in the response; to put it in Plato's terms from the "Apology", "that which I don't know I don't assume to be knowing."
Philipp
Sums it all up perfectly. Applause for the Plato quote, it's on spot !:) :) :)
When there is a bunch of experienced guys around you MUST necessarily crash if you talk about things you do not really know, no matter if it is the format question or Plato....
"Self immolation" was used by somebody, not bad either.
Bertram
It is funny, I went to medium format because I could use 400 speed film and get better results than 100 speed 35mm film.
There is a Japanese saying that works well here: 10 men, 10 colors.
It is funny, I went to medium format because I could use 400 speed film and get better results than 100 speed 35mm film.
I was thinking the same thing.
JordanJShin
07-09-2007, 06:35
I vote for it's all the same... I may be a heretical rube, but at least I haven't switched to digital... ;)
I am primarily a Leica R shooter, and I've owned Yashica TLRs and a bunch of 35mm RFs and now use a Century Graphic (it has a RF) with 2.8/80 Xenotar and 4.5/180 Rotelar. 6x9 is the largest "practical" size for DIY analog DP&E, I've found. The M3 is in the mail; I couldn't wait to join the club, so I made a model, as you can see. :)
I have done a lot of resolution tests, and the MF and 35mm lenses essentially all can be counted on to produce an equivalent lpmm with similar drops in quality in the corners: 100 lpm for 35mm, and 50 lpm for 6x9, etc., in the center. I also find that with MF, I end up stopping it down to get the same DOF I get with 35mm; that means I crave faster film with MF or risk camera shake. The better tonality and grain that I would expect to get with MF is thus compromised. In other words, given the same conditions, the trade-offs tend to cancel each other out, and it becomes a matter of which trade-offs you prefer; I prefer lots of DOF, so I prefer 35mm most of the time.
The price difference isn't that big a deal, either, in the end. I am looking to buy a 35-55mm lens to cover 6x9, and a great Schneider or Rodenstock lens goes for $600-1000 used; my 2.8/19 Elmarit-R was $800. I could get a decent 65mm for $100, but then I could get a Canon 28mm for less. The Rotelar, which has a chip off on the front glass, was $360, including CLA, and I paid $300 for my Elmarit-R 2.8/180 and can get a Summicron-R 2/90 for the same price. BTW, the real bargains in the MF world are the Mamiya and Bronica SLRs, if you can tolerate their slower lenses; you can have a complete set up for less than $1,000!
In terms of the "look", each of my R lenses has its own personality, as do all others. The R lenses tend to have much better resolution in the corners, which gives a more "even" look than any of the MF lenses, which definitely prefer the center. Then again, I'm one of those people who love the "donuts" on mirror lenses...
I use the MF equipment mainly with daylight and with studio flash; given enough Watt-seconds and using the same film, it's absolutely true that you get much, much better result with MF. This has become more true now that film is being scanned to be printed. Whenever I mess up the focus, however, I regret not having shot in 35mm...
Leaf shutters are nice, too, for daylight flash, but most flashes can't be used with anything faster than 1/125 at full power, so my R8 with 1/250 sync is good enough...
:angel:
J
Welcome to the Forum Jordan!
A lot of what you say is totally true, but thats why the photo Gods created tripods, so we don't always have to use fast film with the bigger formats! That said, I have never used a tripod with my 35mm RF and probably never will, by virtue of the fact that I never carry one and love the speed and sponteneity. For static tripod work I use MF or LF, where - film speed and thus camera shake removed as an issue - I can lap up 20 sq inches of Fuji Acros if I want to!
I dont find 5x4 a bother in the darkroom, but handling 10x8 negs can be a pig. I have no idea how people handle ULF negs I really dont.......I know what you mean, 6x9 is a very nice neg size to work with. If Only they made a Mamiya 9!!!
Post deleted by posters request
sepiareverb
07-28-2007, 05:13
And lets not forget the effect the enlarger has on large prints- I never was satisfied with the prints over 1114 I got out of my Beseler 45 as the thing couldn't be aligned perfectly. My current LPL enlarger makes 1620 prints from 35mm negatives possible due to the strictly locked alignment of negative plane, lens and easel. An enormous difference, but one that was very hard to see at 810 from 35mm negs or 1114 from 67 negs. Once the degree of enlargement got much over that the errors compounded and made for mush somewhere.
Bertram2
07-28-2007, 05:27
I have done a lot of resolution tests, and the MF and 35mm lenses essentially all can be counted on to produce an equivalent lpmm with similar drops in quality in the corners:
J
The question of resolution performance is misleading here. Many 35mm lenses have a better resolution performance than MF lenses.
It is the size of the detail on the large neg which brings the advantage and which makes a different sort of photo, sometimes getting visible well at 18X24cm prints.
How close 35mm ever can come it can't achieve the impression of MF. This is a fact which is not discussable.
The question tho if one should afford the efforts and limitations of the larger format to get "it" is very well discussable. Each of us has to find his own answer.
bertram
The question of resolution performance is misleading here. Many 35mm lenses have a better resolution performance than MF lenses.
It is the size of the detail on the large neg which brings the advantage and which makes a different sort of photo, sometimes getting visible well at 18X24cm prints.
How close 35mm ever can come it can't achieve the impression of MF. This is a fact which is not discussable.
The question tho if one should afford the efforts and limitations of the larger format to get "it" is very well discussable. Each of us has to find his own answer.
bertram
My opinion exactly.
Enlarger has a great deal to do with it as well as the light source. My Omega D5 is topped with an Ilford MG diffusion head. Diffusion gives more detail in highlights and more open shadows compared to condensor. My LF enlarger is a condensor Durst 138 Laborator and really isn't suitable for 35mm. Of all the enlargers that i've used over the years the Durst laborators are the best in terms of alignment.
It's true that a 1x1 inch section of a 35mm neg will enlarge equally to a 1x1 inch section of a MF or LF neg but the 1x1 section of the 35mm will be sharper due to sharper lenses in 35mm. That really makes little difference in the practical world since we don't generally take sections of MF or LF the size of a 35mm neg. Square mm's count when it comes to enlarging not only in apparent sharpness but in tonality. Tonality is the big issue here. A 4x print from a 35mm neg will have the same tonality as a 4x print from an 8x10 neg but if you need a 30x40 print the 35mm neg will not look as good. The value of any format is relative to application or conditions that the image will be captured and degree of enlargement. Viewing distance comes into play here too. The other big factor is 8x10 or even MF isn't practical to shoot some subjects like sports and 35mm isn't suitable for other subjects like detailed landscapes and big enlargements.
Resolving power is misleading. MTF limit has to be taken into account as well as target contrast ranges. No matter how you slice it, larger format have the advantage because they can work at lower resolving powers to resolve the same detail. They can simply resolve the detail better because MTF limit increases with a lowering of resolving power.
As far as the equal DOF argument, you are still resolving over a greater film area and so the advantage of media limitation (granularity) goes to the bigger piece of film.
None of this makes 35mm bad or inferior in any way.
ZeissFan
07-28-2007, 06:16
Exactly. Each format has its strengths and drawbacks. Creativity and compromise.
Even so, it's preposterous to argue from a technical standpoint that a 35mm negative will give you the same tonality as a medium format negative. And that's OK, because sometimes you want that grittiness or that look you can achieve best with 35mm.
On the other hand, you use medium format because it gives you the look that you want.
One isn't better than the other. Just pick the right tool for the job.
Enlarged 35mm will look good to a point. Enlarged medium format will look good to a larger point.
RObert Budding
07-28-2007, 06:23
A lot of people here a missing the big picture (pun intended).
It is very difficult to find MF lenses which are faster than f/2.8, and the ones at f/2.0 or larger [aperture] are rarer than pleasant headshots of Sarah Jessica Parker. (yes, yes, the DOF w/larger formats, too small, f/4.5 already too narrow, yadda yadda...that's the point)
If big is the name of the game, then Large Format it is. If portability, available light, K.I.S.S. and spontaneity is the name of the game, the 35mm world has a lot to offer, and this is part of Leica's contribution to photography.
I've found that larger apertures are pretty useless for MF and LF. I'm often shooting MF at f/5.5 and f/8 when I want shallow DOF. Large format I use f/11 and f/16 for shallow DOF when the subject is with 10 feet of the camera.
Post deleted by posters request
you're forgetting that a larger format uses higher magnification to get the same picture. when you shoot 6x7, your image is magnified twice as much as with 35mm. if that weren't the case, which is to say that if the larger format wasn't larger, your argument would be true.
and what happened to that hypersensitive eye? 11x14 prints from 35mm and medium format hardly look the same.
Hi, I am back in this thread after having done some homework. A few weeks ago I wrote:
"I think , what Magus refers to, could be partially found in this old article:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/mp/
While I would generally agree that MF has lots of advantages over 35mm in terms of sheer image quality, there's a certain "sparkle" in 35mm images from top lenses, which is difficult to reproduce in MF unless you go with a few "mythical" optics, and you use careful technique too. This has been apparently found to be related to very high MTF values at certain frequencies."
Subsequently FrankS wrote:
"I really would like to see an example of this."
and
Finder wrote
"I would say that is the Leica urban legend. I see no ceratin "sparkle" in any format. MTF plots do not show it either. You certainly cannot take MTF as absolute performance of a lens. It is alway is relation to the imaging system AND the human visual system. Two things MTF ignores."
and, I replied:
"FrankS and Finder,
Well, if you read the related link, you can already see an example of this kind, where a Leica B&W shot, even with less texture than the Hassy shot, still looks more "sexy"...
The "sparkle" term has been used by those in the know for some time now, however, since I am a curious type, I am going to make a simple test, possibly next week, when my new Biogon 25/2.8 arrives: I will set up a tripod for a landscape scene, and will shoot on the same film (XP2) with this lens, with the Distagon 25 ZF and with the SWC/M - they have roughly the same horizontal FOV.
Then will scan on the same scanner at the same DPI, and process in the same way. I am not sure the film will do the justice to these lenses, however since I shoot 35mm film rather than digital precisely for the sake of B&W, then be it, and we will see if some sparkle is there, or not... :-)"
Here we are with the "proof in the pudding" (or the lack of thereof)
I have set up a simple landscape scene and shot from tripod with the Biogon 25 T* ZM (on a Bessa R4A), and Biogon 38/4.5 T* on a Hasselblad SWC/M.
The film used was my habitual B&W choice: ILFORD XP2@ISO200, the films got processed in the same pro lab ("Chrome", Milano), and the pictures scanned on the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED @ 4000dpi (glass plate was used on the 6x6 scans).
I have chosen the Biogons, because I know for certain, that they are outstanding in the resolution and general image quality department, and funnily enough, from Zeiss official claims, while the resolution of the 25 ZM Biogon can reach 400lp/mm in the center, that of the 38 SWC Biogon can reach 200 lp/mm, (2:1 ratio !) both quite extraordinary results in each format.
The post processing was minimal and uniform, save some brightness adjustments in order to make the appearance more comparable.
I wanted to see both the general aspect of the full frame at a decent enlargement, and a comparison of 100% crops, to see if at least at the same enlargement level the Biogon 25 ZM would show the famous "sparkle" and superior resolution in an evident way.
Here are the full frame shots - I have cropped both negatives to the 1600/1200 aspect, as this is the max I upload on flickr. The original files are 5000pixel wide for the 35mm and 8650 pixel wide for the MF.
Biogon 25 ZM:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/929169898/
SWC/m Biogon 38:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/928328839/
Honestly, I cannot see much of a difference at this enlargement size, and this is what more or less I was expecting, although on a print the MF version will be prettier.
Now, let's look at 100% crops.
Biogon 25 ZM:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/928215113/
SWC/m Biogon 38:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/929167062/
I don't know what you see, but apart from some more contrasty appearance of the 25ZM, I cannot see any evident superiority from the 35mm example respect to the MF.
At this stage, a terrible uncertainty has crept up to my mind : and what if I compared the 25 Biogon to a lens which is simply too good, and not representative of an average MF outfit? What if I tried this against a middle of the road lens and not THE MYTHICAL 38/4.5 BIOGON , with a resolution probably better than a good part of conventional 35mm lenses?
At this point I started looking for " a dog", and luckily the least "legendary" Hasselblad lens in my posession - the Distagon 40/4 C T*, produced more than 40 years ago was of a very close focal length, so the comparison could still be quite fair. I won't hold your curiosity for long, here are the respective shots:
Distagon 40/4 full frame:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/928734141/
and
Distagon 40/4 100% crop:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/929575868/
I have looked at all these shots at 100% and full screen for some time, and to my mind the differences in rendition at 100% are so tiny, that the conclusion is quite evident:
- at this level of image chain ( Ilford XP2 on the one hand and Nikon Coolscan 9000 on the other) the lenses tested are not a limiting , or even not a greatly differentiating factor. True, these are pretty good MF lenses, so the judgement is out for "inferior" glass.
I believe more quality differences in this type of imaging chain are actually caused by other factors, like better hand holdability with less image shake, biger dof, etc of the 35mm cameras and rangefinders in particular against the MF.
Whenever we come across resolution tests, lens comparisons, etc, the imaging chain usually ends at the film level - i.e. the negative (typically a B&W microfilm) or the slide (typically Velvia 50) are being examined directly, and not from a print or a scan on a video screen.
In real life instead, the typical photographic scope is the print, especially in B&W photography. The dimensions of your typical print along with the preferred subject matter should probably dictate the kind of equipment to use. I have been "born" as a MF photographer, and have shot formats from APS-C (digital) to 4x5. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, so the 35 mm rangefinders are not any different, even with today's most extrordinary lenses.
The conclusion?
- I was wrong about the "sparkle"
- Magus will decide for himself.
- The best solution is the British way:
"Horses for courses"...
sepiareverb
07-28-2007, 13:58
Wow! A very impressive homework assignment mfogiel! A+ and extra credit.
In looking at the full frame images there is on my monitor- yes another layer of diffusion, but a consistent one here- I find there is a 'sparkle' in the ZM25 missing from the SWC/M Biogon. Damned if I could explain it, but there it is.
I like how this thread has evolved into a real investigation!
Bertram2
07-28-2007, 16:39
- at this level of image chain ( Ilford XP2 on the one hand and Nikon Coolscan 9000 on the other) the lenses tested are not a limiting , or even not a greatly differentiating factor. .
This was said already, several times. The question of resolution does not play a role at all here, in this context. ALSO and in general because one cannot expect the lenses to be a limiting factor if film usually can reproduce only 30% of their maximum resolution ?
Tho scans are not suited to compare detail reproduction, because the results are only relative to the scanners performance, the better detail reproduction of the larger neg comes thru in your 100% crops anyway. Prints would tell the whole truth.
bertram
RObert Budding
07-28-2007, 17:45
I put on my hip boots and waded through the bullsh*t and urban legends in this thread. It's a good reminder of why I spend less and less time on "photo" sites and more time shooting and printing.
I personally shoot 35mm, MF, and large format. I develop and print all of my own B&W work. And I print, in a darkroom, my favorite color work. So my conclusions are based on experience. And I wouldn't give up any format that I use - because they are all useful in different circumstances.
What else did I learn from this thread? You can't argue with a Leicaphile.
Here's a link to dispel the urban myth that MF lenses lack resolution:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
monochromejrnl
07-29-2007, 04:18
magnus - a case of cognitive dissonance?
Post deleted by posters request
Bertram2
07-29-2007, 04:59
magnus - a case of cognitive dissonance?
The name is not Magnus but Magus. Refers to the historic Simon Magus (died 65 pcn in Rome) , a magician of the Gnosis (Finding), who once was adored as a god (theios aner) by his disciples.
bertram:angel:
sepiareverb
07-29-2007, 06:46
Geez Bertram perhaps you ought to find another elswhere where cocktails are served :D - lighten up! Once again, we all have different opinions and 'feelings' for the various bits and pieces of equipment we use and have tried. I don't think the idea of this thread is to unilaterally decide what is correct for you- rather a place for the OP to hear some varying ideas on what exactly we see when we look at MF and Leica made images. We all see differently.
I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF (as well as others) cameras besides their Leicas and other 35mm RFs. So, my question is - how do you think Leica, Zeiss, CV and other lenses compare to those MF ones...
...So, what do you think, after using both - is it really worth it to have both systems? are they pretty close? Lets say if largest photo would be 11x14 inches - would I see a difference between the two systems?
I've much more experience with LF than MF and 35mm combined, does that make my insights into what I've learned/seen through my RF & MF cameras any less valuable to him? Perhaps. I offer my answers to his question because I think I maybe can help. If you disagree with some of us, fine- but disagreement need not be distasteful nor personal. It really just gets tiresome.
I have to get this apology off my chest. I have considerable experience shooting and printing 35mm up to LF and this is what my previous comments were based upon. ...Based upon shooting, developing, printing and considering images and my ability to achieve stated goals. Looking at them and not giving rat's ass which camera it was shot on because in all cases I owned that camera and had no agenda. I now know how superficial I have been and that I should have ignored the bleedin'obvious and looked deeper and off to one side.
While MF is not inherently superior to 35mm as a whole it is inherently superior in certain respects should you have certain goals...just as 35mm is in other respects with the two being NO different in some cases, again depending upon criteria amply explained before.
Most of the claptrap still being promulgated, is, I am sorry, UTTER BOLLOCKS touted by the inexperienced or people using convoluted arguments to avoid a loss of face...or both. Lots of people have made valuable comments, usually based on experience, as to the relative merits of the formats and areas where the differences (not to suggest superiorities) exist. Some persist in muddying the actually very clear waters. I can choose formats knowing what I get. I choose depending on what I want. I have yet to be let down. Some of the resistance here prevents this understanding being readily absorbed by those who do not have this experience. Magus appears to have tried to legitimise his previous posts on the basis of his very narrow requirements...an issue amply covere in others' postings about formats, print sizes and 'look'. These needs are very real (I desire a similar look sometimes) but do not exist to the exclusion of all others. This narrowing of the argument was to be expected.
Bertram2
08-11-2007, 06:34
Geez Bertram perhaps you ought to find another elswhere where cocktails are served :D - lighten up! Once again, we all have different opinions and 'feelings' for the various bits and pieces of equipment we use and have tried. I don't think the idea of this thread is to unilaterally decide what is correct for you- rather a place for the OP to hear some varying ideas on what exactly we see when we look at MF and Leica made images. We all see differently.
.
This was defintively NOT what the the controverse was about. It's been about facts, not about about any perception relative to an individual, tho there was the attempt to bend it all to this direction.
To say it precisely, the discussion had been exactlcy about the opposite to what you claim above..:rolleyes:
bertram
Post deleted by posters request
Wow, lets cool down a bit folks.
Magus' arguments sounds reasonable, but it is fundamentally flawed. It assumes optical resolving power is an absolute indictor of image quality irrespective of the system. (Obviously cameras manufacturers don't believe that or the f-number range on all lenses would terminate at the same relative aperture.) Since what is of interest is the final result of the system, reducing systems to similar physical limits (for example, same film area) would not show anything useful.
What any photographic system needs to be tested in reference to is the human visual system. There are standard viewing conditions which makes comparisons very easy. As far as image quality, there is no doubt bigger is better. As far as the right tool for the job, then the answer can be very different. I think there is a personal reflex that the quality statement is saying 35mm is no good. That is not a logical conclusion as 35mm creates excellent images. The format has other benefits beyond simply image quality as well.
Vincenzo Maielli
08-11-2007, 08:12
The question don't exist. The Medium Format frame is absolutely better, not only in respect to the Leica M or Zeiss Ikon ZM cameras, but in respect to the all 35 mm cameras. In 1930, when was born the Leica II, there are the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta or Voigtlander Bessa models, in 4,5x6, 6x6 and 6x9 frame. Why the Leica concept was winner? For compactness and lightness, large selections of formidable lenses, more numbers of shots: all true winning cards in the photojournalist play. In the architectural or landscape shots, the bigger dimensions of the medium format films make the difference.
For the same reasons, the Nikon F and the others professional SLR 35 mm have won the medium format SLR Hasselblads and Rolleis: moreover, a shot of a Planar 80 surely won a shot of a Nikkor 50, in therms of pure image quality. In this case also, the choice between the 35 mm or medium format is simply the job: street photography on 35 mm, landscape or architectural work in medium format.
Naturally, the street photography is very superb also with the Mamiya 6 or 7, but whit only 12 or 10 shots, while the Leica M7 or the Zeiss Ikon ZM allow 36 shots.
Ciao.
sticking a medium format lens on a 35mm camera means you aren't shooting medium format anymore.
Wow, lets cool down a bit folks.
Magus' arguments sounds reasonable, but it is fundamentally flawed. It assumes optical resolving power is an absolute indicator of image quality irrespective of the system. (Obviously cameras manufacturers don't believe that or the f-number range on all lenses would terminate at the same relative aperture.) Since what is of interest is the final result of the system, reducing systems to similar physical limits (for example, same film area) would not show anything useful.
What any photographic system needs to be tested in reference to is the human visual system. There are standard viewing conditions which makes comparisons very easy. As far as image quality, there is no doubt bigger is better. As far as the right tool for the job, then the answer can be very different. I think there is a personal reflex that the quality statement is saying 35mm is no good. That is not a logical conclusion as 35mm creates excellent images. The format has other benefits beyond simply image quality as well.
EXACTLY.
The fact that most 35mm lenses can out-resolve medium format lenses is a well-known fact. These are absolute numbers of lines per millimeter which can be directly compared, and there is no argument that 80 is larger than 50 for example. But Magus, surely you understand that this is not what the OP was asking (even though one could literally/simply interpret the question that way.) Surely you understand that the OP was asking about differences in the end result. Magus, you argument has shifted over the course of this discussion. In the beginning your statements indicated that you thought 35mm Leica could compete in quality with MF. Later in the discussion, once you realized the error of your opinion, you began to narrow the argument and restrict the condition of your position to comparing same sized neg areas. If this was indeed your only argument from the beginning, you could have simply quoted resolution numbers, and not talked vaguely about qualities. Magus, you are a talented writer and have tried to extricate yourself from the morass of your opinion on this issue by altering/narrowing your argument, but I think you've been caught out. This is my assessment of this discussion, and I'm quite confident in its accuracy.
Hey, it's all entertainment. No bad feelings on my part. Sometimes it's fun just to argue/discuss/debate. :)
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
J J Kapsberger
08-11-2007, 09:39
Magus,
I agree that your responses could use a consolidation. Why don't you write an essay on this thread's two topics and post it in a new thread?
Post deleted by posters request
Bertram2
08-11-2007, 10:55
>>In the beginning your statements indicated that you thought 35mm Leica could >>compete in quality with MF.
<I still do, and how!!!
I am afraid of what comes now: You will explain to us , what "quality" really is, because we all just did not get it up 'til today.
Re- reading the whole thread i now think it would have been better to concentrate on the (resolution) limiting factor of Film to get this silly issue of the lens performance outta the way from the beginning on.
Maybe this would have saved us all your sophistical attempts to prove the above quoted nonsense.
That 's it for me now, I got enuff of it , I do not feel like investing one more word to comment this incredible nonsense statement above.
Bertram
Post deleted by posters request
Quote:
In the beginning your statements indicated that you thought 35mm Leica could compete in quality with MF.
I still do, and how!!!
This is one of the fundamental things I disagree with in all manner of threads, not just this one. "Competition" implies winners and losers, in my experience no format "competes" with another, they are ultimately aesthetic choices and they don't compete any more than you could say Michelangelo is 11% better than Monet or Brahms is 15% better than Bach. All I can say is that, for what I use it for my Pentax 67 is far more suited to what I want to do than a Leica. It is most closely suited to the vision in my minds' eye (for monochrome portrait work anyway). This is not just a list of technical specifications, this is also about how a subject treats you if you are using a really big camera (they take you more seriously) and how fast you can work (I benefit from being slowed down). A really interesting piece of writing would be more to with the ritual of the photograph and how that ritual changes with the equipment that you use. This is the comparison across formats that would have real value, rather than the crude measurement of "qualities" which whilst full of "sound and fury" as this thread demonstrates, ultimately signify nothing (with apologies to the Bard).
Maybe I can save some effort. Here is one 35mm/medium format comparison:
http://www.photographical.net/mf_vs_35mm_vs_digi.html
I have used for many years Fuji 6x9 RF camera and several Rolleiflex TLR cameras. I almost exclusively used ASA50 or ASA100 transparency film for about fifteen years. I would use the 35mm cameras "on the side". My photography was mainly of open space scenics with occasional animal photography where a 500mm lens was King.
When I discovered RF photography, I switched over not because of finer grain images, because that is not what you get when you use 35mm film compared to 120 film. The type of photos with a MF camera typically differs for me.
The discussions here are heated and informative. As pointed out by others, there is no need to get overexited by opinions. This is all we have here:"opinions".
Issues like grain or even tonality are not a problem in the discussions. MF is better suited here. Maybe the definition of what a "better image" can be is important. What is "quality" here? Is it measureable? Have we fully defined the factors that together contribute to a "high quality image"?
Our friend Magus is an informed person who also voices out his opinions and views as he sees them fit for us to read. I would not get annoyed at anyone's posting unless he/she posts insults.
Enjoy this great weekend.
Tuolumne
08-11-2007, 17:36
I just checked back in to this thread. Holy Cow! What is happening here? Cut it out guys, will ya?
/T
:-)
I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF (as well as others) cameras besides their Leicas and other 35mm RFs. So, my question is - how do you think Leica, Zeiss, CV and other lenses compare to those MF ones, such as Fuji645, Bronica 645, Mamiya 6 and 7? I hear that they all have great lenses, yet some 35mm lenses are great too. Some are even compared to MF quality. Like Zeiss 25/2.8 ZM for example. Leica lenses sure cost as much as some MF setups. So, what do you think, after using both - is it really worth it to have both systems? are they pretty close? Lets say if largest photo would be 11x14 inches - would I see a difference between the two systems?
Nice thread thus far, far far off topic; but then the OP asks:
1. How do 35mm RF and MF lenses compare?
2. Would having both 35mm RF and MF systems have "worth"? ( I suspect this is a loosely worded...)
3. "...would I see a difference between the two systems?"
And posted to the Leica M Forum, not the MF-specific... I have used LF, MF and most regularly 35mm RF systems (4x5, Pentax 67, and Leica rigs). When I get it right, the larger neg systems do not beg questions of "What lens?" because there is simply so much more information in the source representation(neg) to work into the print/image. Admittedly, I haven't the breadth of LF and MF lenses to even consider item "1" above... and also lack the relative means to assess lenses of these systems fairly. However, from the source neg, wrt item "3" above, I can see a difference between these systems.
That leaves item "2": wither the worthiness of having several systems. For my purposes there is no worth in having all systems, nor seeking L/MF "quality" in 35mm RF. The qualities are certainly there between them, but too few shared; thus, it's simply what do I want and how do I get it? For some, getting what s/he wants may demand both MF and 35mm gear availability/"at hand". I'd suspect for these folks--and has been posted--these systems are so distinct, however subtle, that they're nowhere near "close" in comparison, and sans pareil. Oh, and I include costs relative to films, scanners, &c.
Many of you can make an image "I could never make", regardless of the kit used... but it does help if the kit provides enough flexibility to choose what sort of image is desired, and 35mm RF offers a lot more opportunity for me.
rgds,
Dave
What Magus's argument boils down to is that he prefers the look he gets with his kit at the print sizes he makes. Fine..but the issue is a little wider and need not be so subjective. Again, the pros and cons of MF vs. the pros and cons of 35mm are incredibly simple and obvious irrespective of preference. They are nowhere near as complicated as some post in this thread would suggest.
Magus, as for the argument that you claim to be challenging....'the one where some claim MF to be absolutely better than 35mm period'...this accounts for a tiny percentage of posts in this thread and is dwarfed by the vast majority of sensible and authoritative comments made by those who use multiple formats and take the 'pros and cons' approach. All that is happening now is that the useful info in this post is being buried beneath egos.
amateriat
08-12-2007, 01:40
Whew...a lot of stuff to get through on this thread!
When I started to "get serious" about photography over 30 years ago, I got to play with both 35mm and MF gear. And, yes, the "no susbstitute for cubic inches" rule was certainly in play: MF can, in many if not most cases, outgun 35mm in terms of extreme enlagements.
Yet, when push came to shove, I left MF behind for 35mm. Nothing's changed much for me since then, and I got an earful from certain elder shooters at the time about wanking away my efforts on "toy" cameras. I cheerfully ignored this, my philosophy being – to paraphrase Ralph Gibson on the subject of digital cameras – larger-format cameras excel in all the areas that are superfluous to my photography. (There, I've finally stepped on the third rail of an RFf thread) ;)
It's not that I can't, or don't, appreciate the extra "information" that MF (not to mention 4x5) can deliver; it's just that the format frequently won't deliver squat under the conditions I frequently find myself working. For me, 35mm, particularly RF, strikes a near-perfect balance of quality, speed, versatility and portability. And while I might not care to see everything I've ever shot enlarged to, say, 30x40", I could print most of my output to 16x20", and display it, without a shred of fear or apology.
Which gets to something else barely touched upon here: you get out of a format what you put in. Since 35mm lends itself so easily to spontaneous, on-the-fly shooting, most people approach the format with a gunslinger's attitude, blasting away with what amounts to "non-technique." Shaky hands, slipshod focus, scant attention to whether the shutter speed they've chosen (or, more likely, that the camera has chosen for them) is really "hand-holdable" for the lens they're using, all conspire to produce images that might barely stand enlarging to 8x10", never mind anything larger.
MF shooters, are, by necessity, a good deal more methodical in approach: with few exceptions, the cameras they wield are considerably larger, heavier, and slower-handling than their 35mm equivalents. They're also dealing with slower glass. They'll be pickier than the typical 35mm shooter about a number of things, paying attention to those details that play to MF's technical advantages over 35mm. At the same time, They largely won't be able to take the same sort of photos a good 35mm shooter can. It's really about priorites regarding one's own photographic ambitions, not about which format wipes the floor with another.
Being the contrarian that I am, I've occasionally gone out to do a few "you can't do that with 35mm" self-assignments. One of those was during a week of train-chasing in Virginia in summer of 1983. The subject was a trio of tired-looking B&O diesels parked on a siding some miles outside Richmond. Equipment was a Nikon F3, 85mm f/1.4 AI bolted on, K64 loaded inside. A number of years later, when I finally got hold of my first film scanner (used Nikon LS-10), I made a good scan and gorgeous 13x19" inkjet print (with minimal PS knob-twiddling). Shortly afterward, I brought this print, among a few others, into my then-fave camera shop (Camera Traders, mentioned by me in another thread hours ago). Several of the guys there looked over the prints, and largely seemed to like what they saw, but one of the guys seized upon the rail shot.
"Cool! What medium-format did you use?" I was stunned at the question, particularly from a guy whose main iron is MF.
"None", I said. "Just an F3 and Kodachrome."
"Can't be", he said.
"Scout's honor", I replied, making the sign.
He called over the all the other shop guys, and ever a few regular customers who happened to be there, to debate the print. Most agreed that the quality was astounding for 35mm, that they never (or rarely) saw quality like that from the medium.
This photo, of course, was taken under near-ideal conditions: late-afternoon sun at my back, electric-blue skies with few clouds, a decidedly stationary subject, and all the time in the world to set it up. And I did take my time.
But most people shooting 35 don't take this kind of time. Somehow, the cameras don't encourage that kind of contemplation. Especially with a fast motor-drive at hand. But the right approach can conjure so much out of that little chip of film.
One or two people might look at this image, and, upon discovering I'd shot it with a 35mm camera, might quip, "Man, If I was there with a 'blad, it would make this pic look sick." Well, maybe...except that he wasn't there to shoot it; I was, and shooting with the medium I'm incredibly comfortable with.
Good photographs should simply arrest your attention and captivate, shake you up a little (or a lot), make you think about a lot of things...but, fairly far down on the list of these things should be how'd she do it?, and much farther down the list, if it should be there at all, should be why didn't the so-and-so use a damn (insert favorite format/brand here). It's not that the tools don't matter, but that, when you're confronted with an image that grabs you by the hair and lifts you an inch or two off the floor, preoccupation with tools is, at the very least, largely beside the point.
- Barrett
Post deleted by posters request
Barrett,
What a wonderfully eloquent (and elegant) post.
Regards
Ernst
Post deleted by posters request
ZeissFan
08-12-2007, 05:07
I would say that a rabbit weighs more than a butterfly. And while the butterfly is beautiful, a truly hungry man with a big stick and quick hand will prefer the rabbit.
Magus, please simply show us. All I see are words and you contradicting yourself.
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
jack palmer
08-12-2007, 07:57
Wonderful thread, and I love to see someone take a stand and defend so well their position against so many attacks. I don't know about anyone else but I'm learning something from this.
Look up the word sophistry in the dictionary.
I think we should separate this thread into 2 sections: first, the discussion of the topic presented; second, posts with personal attacks. The mods can then delete the latter.
This thread is still alive? It has been a rather useless thread imho... I figured that out after 2 pages, I have not bothered to read the other pages.
Magus, the science is there.
Finder, your link is a report from June 2002. It does not account
for the newest lens developments (25 Biogon and 35 Asph Summicron).
The DOF of an 80/2.8 6x6 lens is just a little LESS SHALLOW than that of a
50/1.4 35mm lens, wide open.
Tonality depends on film and back-end process, NOT on format.
I find it interesting that some of the loudest people claiming that you have
to have MF printing experience to answer the original question,
obviously have never used the lenses referred to in the first post.
And, like Raid asked: WHAT IS IMAGE QUALITY ?
Roland.
Jenni, you're an engineer if I remember correctly. You are capable of phrasing a question more precisely than: "produces better images" . Are you, like Magus, attempting to use vague language to your advantage?
Roland, okay, ideally we should be hearing from those using the latest lenses and MF. Anyone out there?
Tonality, or richness/creaminess is affected by the grain of the film.
an oft heard refrain on other forums is "don't feed the troll". we're just too "polite" on this forum to call an apple an apple!
Finder, your link is a report from June 2002. It does not account
for the newest lens developments (25 Biogon and 35 Asph Summicron).
The DOF of an 80/2.8 6x6 lens is just a little LESS SHALLOW than that of a
50/1.4 35mm lens, wide open.
Tonality depends on film and back-end process, NOT on format.
I find it interesting that some of the loudest people claiming that you have
to have MF printing experience to answer the original question,
obviously have never used the lenses referred to in the first post.
And, like Raid asked: WHAT IS IMAGE QUALITY ?
Roland.
The newest lenses will not change the results to bring the format on par. DOF is not the issue. Tonality also is a product of the optics - otherwise why would you claim you need the latest lenses???
I never claimed you need MF printing experience.
i'm not talking about you, macaulay.
and i don't think i ever pm'ed you to be my friend...:confused:
The newest lenses will not change the results to bring the format on par.
Not sure (and yours is not a scientific statement :) )
Mfogiel's test (thanks!) is the first one of its sort and in my eyes his
results are not conclusive ....
DOF is not the issue. Tonality also is a product of the optics - otherwise why would you claim you need the latest lenses???
I never claimed you need MF printing experience.
We agree.
I was adressing earlier posts with comments on DOF and
tonality. Of course printing larger format might create better results.
But if you just look at the negative or a slide, it does boil down
to the lenses. And the fact is that medium format lens development
has stopped years ago, while 35mm and digital lens development
is continuing.
And re-asking the same question when environments change
is scientific :)
Roland.
Not sure (and yours is not a scientific statement :) )
Mfogiel's test (thanks!) is the first one of its sort and in my eyes his
results are not conclusive ....
We agree.
I was adressing earlier posts with comments on DOF and
tonality. Of course printing larger format might create better results.
But if you just look at the negative or a slide, it does boil down
to the lenses. And the fact is that medium format lens development
has stopped years ago, while 35mm and digital lens development
is continuing.
And re-asking the same question when environments change
is scientific :)
Roland.
Well, the lenses probably have test data. Why don't you run the numbers. You will find that small increments in lens performance will not be enough to over come the barrier of film size.
i don't mind. want to be my friend? :D :D :D
zhang xk
08-12-2007, 09:04
I can't believe a simple subject could be talked for so long.:D :bang:
Two issues could affect the quality(sharpness) of MF image:
1, Bigger lenses are harder to correct to the same specifications of smaller optics;and for the same angle of view, they(MF) have shallower DOF for a given F stop.
2, and the film is harder to keep flat on larger format cameras.
If these issues are addresssed, and both cameras use similar quality lenses, and film, is there anything more to discusss?:confused:
Well, the lenses probably have test data. Why don't you run the numbers. You will find that small increments in lens performance will not be enough to over come the barrier of film size.
There was a step from around 150 l/mm to around 400 l/mm in the MTF
charts of 35mm lenses, recently.
Not that it matters typically anyways; funny that nobody mentions tripods in this thread ....
1, Bigger lenses are harder to correct to the same specifications of smaller optics;and for the same angle of view, they(MF) have shallower DOF for a given F stop.
2, and the film is harder to keep flat on larger format cameras.
If these issues are addressed....
They are not, is the point. Modern 35mm lenses are better corrected. And reg. DOF your statement
is only true for the same aperture. Show me a 6x6 80/1.4 lens and how much it costs if it exists !
The typical 80/2.8 6x6 lens DOES NOT HAVE MORE SHALLOW DOF than the typical 50/1.4 35mm lens (both
wide open).
Roland.
OH DRAMA! now that we have totally skewed off the original topic, this thread is starting to get better. I'm sitting back with a bowl of popcorn and watching the drama unfold.. rawrr (a gay cat scratch motion)
please do continue..
Wow I'm a loser.
what was that dante stella quote? a mediocre lens in medium format makes a better print than a top flight lens in 35mm?
Post deleted by posters request
Well Magus, i am starting to see your agrument. It is purely rhetorical. I guess if I subtitute "better" with "more" you would agree.
take the "same" photo with 35mm and mf cameras and it's pretty easy to tell which 8x12 or 11x14 print is sharper. that's pretty much all i need to know about this apparently incomprehensible concept of "sharpness". :shrug:
The good thing about many of the postings in this thread are the explanations and clarifications of some technical terms.
alfred stieglitz would have something to say about this!
the aesthetics of sharpness are subjective, but the technicalities aren't.
Post deleted by posters request
Hello... I gave up watching FACE THE NATION this Sunday morning to read this entire thread. It's now Sunday afternoon. You people are hilarious!!! Thanks for the belly laughs.....Drink three whiskey, grab your favorite camera with just ONE lens and go practice..stay away from your computer until you are very good with your chosen kit ( a few weeks for some.. others are never to be heard from again)
That's all I have to say.
my metaphorical comparison would be making a cabinet with either balsa wood or mahogany.
my metaphorical comparison would be between making a cabinet with either balsa wood or mahogany.
Not really.
beethamd
08-12-2007, 12:57
When I look at old photos taken on quarter plate, from the 30s and 40s, I think they look far better than any 35mm print I've ever seen. They were probably taken with rather poor lenses by today's standards.
I went to the Joe Cornish gallery this week. Unbelievable quality - really remarkable images. All large format.
BTW, I don't think it is a guy thing - you say you don't care because you are a "lass." Mary Ellen Mark, Bernice Abbot, and Margret Bourk White, to name a few, selects format for its technical qualities.
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
sophistry and semantics
The answer to the OP's question is found in post #2.
The OP asked: With the improvements in 35mm lenses, can one see a difference if one uses Leica compared to MF?
The answer is yes, in technical qualities of graininess, richness of tonality/creaminess, and rendition of fine details. From my experience, this is evident in prints as small as 5x7 and these differences grow larger/more apparent with bigger prints.
Then he asks if it it worthwhile owning both systems. That is purely subjective. It would be worthwhile to some, and not to others.
This is my opinion, others may disagree, but they seem to be in the minority. I'm done with this (stupid) thread.
If only it were metaphysics, but it's not. It's quite straight forward. That's what makes this thread so exasperating, and tiresome. Do the tests, find out for yourselves.
i've got a print right here. it looked really sharp a moment ago, but now i'm not so sure...hahahahaaaaa
back alley
08-12-2007, 14:19
when i would argue endlessly in the hope of wearing down the argument and energy level of one of my ex wives she would say to me, 'you make me tired' and i knew i was close to silencing her.
I am silenced. ;)
On this topic.
I know something about medium format detail ... and the detail is, I have a Bronica RF645 arriving from Frank very soon ... maybe that's an unimportant detail? :rolleyes:
Sorry ... I'll just slink away quietly! :p
Post deleted by posters request
The OP asked: With the improvements in 35mm lenses, can one see a difference if one uses Leica compared to MF?
The answer is yes, in technical qualities of graininess, richness of tonality/creaminess, and rendition of fine details. From my experience, this is evident in prints as small as 5x7 and these differences grow larger/more apparent with bigger prints.
Then he asks if it it worthwhile owning both systems. That is purely subjective. It would be worthwhile to some, and not to others.
This seems to me to be the limit of what needs to be said on the subject.
Ian
dskphotography
08-13-2007, 00:37
didnt read but i sold my leica and bought an rz system for 1-10th the price much better image quality just not portable depends on what your looking for buy an old hasselblad have the best of both worlds ,, leica glass is ok but its not great go medium format theres only so much you can do with good glass
zhang xk
08-13-2007, 01:07
Some 120 folders are quite compact, and the leaf shutter of TLR and 120 folders are so quiet. I think 135 rangefider cameras are for street candid shots. 120 folders with a 6x9cm negative are more suitable for high quality landscape images.
mfunnell
08-13-2007, 02:27
Wow!
I'd not previously read any of this thread, figuring that the various differences between different film formats, and the systems using those formats, were rather well known. I only looked to find out "how in good heaven (or, more likely, the other place) did they get in 300+ posts on that topic?" Having had my attention held in horrified fascination through the whole thing, I know what happened but I sure don't know why.
Perhaps because none of my personal oxes are being gored, I think I can see where most who have posted actual content are coming from. And I'm left bemused that the various parties couldn't or wouldn't see the different perspectives on offer - and kept (and keep on) talking past each other.
"Its just the internet - its like that" seems insufficient... :( :( :confused: :(
...Mike
Post deleted by posters request
back alley
08-13-2007, 04:49
i've had enough...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.