Leica vs Leica (81 years apart)

shawn said:
Hard to do this in 1932....

46806663765_d1cacbc976_c.jpg


33845925498_3b34bca883_c.jpg


46806678695_8db1ee2d99_c.jpg


Shawn
Click to expand...

Agfa color did it!!

Here from Dr. Paul Wolff photobook from his works 1924-1934.
Agfa Color film, Elmar 9cm f4. 1/4s at F6.3

Second edition 1939.
48065013727_6433f893cb_b.jpg
 
Comparison tests are useless if one makes scans of film..
OK Imacon might be way better..
but Film made for projection printing and then be sick at result!
It may not be digital winner..
 
Toreno said:
Agfa color did it!!

Here from Dr. Paul Wolff photobook from his works 1924-1934.
Agfa Color film, Elmar 9cm f4. 1/4s at F6.3

Second edition 1939.
48065013727_6433f893cb_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Cool, I knew Kodachrome wasn’t out in 35mm till 1936ish. What speed was Agfa color film. Based on that shot it must have been very slow, single digit iso maybe? That would have made these shots tougher hand held.

Shawn
 
David Hughes said:
Everything I have seen suggests film was about 8, 10 or 12 ASA or ISO as we say these days. Tripack colour and three negative colour have been around a lot longer than people think.


Look here for samples:-


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky


Regards, David
Click to expand...

This site is saying around ASA 2.

https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Colour_Darkroom/Early_Agfa.html#anchorfilm

So that sailboat shot above would have been around 1/3 of a second. (Original DNG is ISO200, f4, 1/350)

Shawn
 
What a creatively Fun endeavour...Thanks for that Shawn !

My favorite shots were a mix of film and digital:
 
The Leica III holds up incredibly well compared to the M240! I would have expected an obvious difference. But, on the contrary, in some of these you can't immediately tell which is which.
 
The acid test, imo, would be a print 3ft by 2ft or something as large. We are looking at very small* pictures on a screen and there's nothing like a small version of text or image to hide the flaws.

It would be interesting to get hold of a later (meaning coated) f/3.5 Elmar and repeat the tests with just the digital body...

Having said that the results are fascinating, so thanks for showing us.


Regards, David


* The winch was easiest to measure and is not even a half megapixel picture (800 by 533 pixels).
 
Interesting! I enjoyed the photos. Thanks very much for doing this.
 
David Hughes said:
The acid test, imo, would be a print 3ft by 2ft or something as large. We are looking at very small* pictures on a screen and there's nothing like a small version of text or image to hide the flaws.

It would be interesting to get hold of a later (meaning coated) f/3.5 Elmar and repeat the tests with just the digital body...

Having said that the results are fascinating, so thanks for showing us.


Regards, David


* The winch was easiest to measure and is not even a half megapixel picture (800 by 533 pixels).
Click to expand...

Album with larger versions here:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/39387871@N06/Lb2Gg9

Winch in full size (click it I think to view full size and then click again to see at 100%)
48075512061_7520401af9_o.jpg


48075511891_c64d1cd9f5_o.jpg


Full size on the M240 has 4x the resolution of the Pakon scan. (6mp vs 24)

Shawn
 
BillBlackwell said:
The Leica III holds up incredibly well compared to the M240! I would have expected an obvious difference. But, on the contrary, in some of these you can't immediately tell which is which.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was very impressed with it too. I'll probably try another just Elmar and Elmar on the M240 in color to see how they compare.

Shawn
 
I'm sure in 81 more years, that 1932 Leica III will still be humming along (assuming it's treated with care). Whether film is available, that's another question...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom