M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Leica vs MF image quality
- Thread starter Krosya
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 240
- Views: Views 18K
- Status
Toby
On the alert
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).
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).
Finder
Veteran
Maybe I can save some effort. Here is one 35mm/medium format comparison:
http://www.photographical.net/mf_vs_35mm_vs_digi.html
http://www.photographical.net/mf_vs_35mm_vs_digi.html
raid
Dad Photographer
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.
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
Veteran
I just checked back in to this thread. Holy Cow! What is happening here? Cut it out guys, will ya?
/T
/T
DaveSee
shallow depth of field
Nice thread thus far, far far off topic; but then the OP asks:Krosya said:
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
Turtle
Veteran
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.
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
We're all light!
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
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
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
Well done...
Well done...
Barrett,
What a wonderfully eloquent (and elegant) post.
Regards
Ernst
Well done...
Barrett,
What a wonderfully eloquent (and elegant) post.
Regards
Ernst
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
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.
Finder
Veteran
Magus, please simply show us. All I see are words and you contradicting yourself.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
jack palmer
Well-known
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.
FrankS
Registered User
Look up the word sophistry in the dictionary.
FrankS
Registered User
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.
ywenz
Veteran
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.