HankOsaurus
Member
Hello Forum.
For a while I have been trying to get a grasp of just how "limited" the earliest Leicas were which were used for the first 35mm images appearing in LOOK, LIFE, and National Geographic.
We know that in the 1930s and 1940s a lot of images appeared in picture magazines and which were shot with 35mm cameras such as the Leica and Contax. And, for the time, those pictures looked pretty good... good enough that the magazines thrived.
By comparison to later Leicas from the fifties and until the present, I will guess that those first ones must have been somewhat more limited, but how much?
Would anyone here have a grasp of the capabilities and limitations of the Leitz 50mm f3.5 Elmar in use then? Line pairs per mm, for example.
Were the films of the time a further limitation, or did they easily outperform the optics then available?
I have been wondering for a while just what minimum level of performance, expressed in terms of current digital technology, would be required to "more or less equate" to those very first groundbreaking Leicas that made the then "miniature" 35mm format "good enough" for mainline magazines of the 1930s.
I think about the fact that Nikon's first "Pro" digital of a decade ago was only several megapixels, and some "pros" have used the 4.1 Mpxl D2H with good effect for their purposes.
Of course, there are many other factors that are involved. I understand that an endless discussion about such things could ensue. However, I wonder if it is possible to approximate the capability of that early time in a general simplistic way that would answer the question.
For a moment, imagine five 35mm cameras fitted with different sensors.
1 megapixel, 2 megapixels, 4 megapixels, 8 megapixels, 16 megapixels, 32 megapixels
Assuming other factors more or less equal, and competent optics in use, which is the least of the above which would approximate the overall quality of 35mm images which appeared in LOOK, LIFE, and National Geographic back in the 1930s?
Thanks for your insight in this.
For a while I have been trying to get a grasp of just how "limited" the earliest Leicas were which were used for the first 35mm images appearing in LOOK, LIFE, and National Geographic.
We know that in the 1930s and 1940s a lot of images appeared in picture magazines and which were shot with 35mm cameras such as the Leica and Contax. And, for the time, those pictures looked pretty good... good enough that the magazines thrived.
By comparison to later Leicas from the fifties and until the present, I will guess that those first ones must have been somewhat more limited, but how much?
Would anyone here have a grasp of the capabilities and limitations of the Leitz 50mm f3.5 Elmar in use then? Line pairs per mm, for example.
Were the films of the time a further limitation, or did they easily outperform the optics then available?
I have been wondering for a while just what minimum level of performance, expressed in terms of current digital technology, would be required to "more or less equate" to those very first groundbreaking Leicas that made the then "miniature" 35mm format "good enough" for mainline magazines of the 1930s.
I think about the fact that Nikon's first "Pro" digital of a decade ago was only several megapixels, and some "pros" have used the 4.1 Mpxl D2H with good effect for their purposes.
Of course, there are many other factors that are involved. I understand that an endless discussion about such things could ensue. However, I wonder if it is possible to approximate the capability of that early time in a general simplistic way that would answer the question.
For a moment, imagine five 35mm cameras fitted with different sensors.
1 megapixel, 2 megapixels, 4 megapixels, 8 megapixels, 16 megapixels, 32 megapixels
Assuming other factors more or less equal, and competent optics in use, which is the least of the above which would approximate the overall quality of 35mm images which appeared in LOOK, LIFE, and National Geographic back in the 1930s?
Thanks for your insight in this.
Last edited: