Leica vs MF image quality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Finder said:
Magus, the science is there.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
ferider said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Finder said:
The newest lenses will not change the results to bring the format on par.
Click to expand...

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 ....

Finder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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:
 
Finder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ....

zhang xk said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom