RANDALL
Newbie
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.
That's all I have to say.
aizan
Veteran
my metaphorical comparison would be making a cabinet with either balsa wood or mahogany.
Last edited:
Finder
Veteran
aizan said:
Not really.
beethamd
Unix-like
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.
I went to the Joe Cornish gallery this week. Unbelievable quality - really remarkable images. All large format.
Finder
Veteran
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.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
FrankS
Registered User
sophistry and semantics
The answer to the OP's question is found in post #2.
The answer to the OP's question is found in post #2.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
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.
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.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
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.
aizan
Veteran
i've got a print right here. it looked really sharp a moment ago, but now i'm not so sure...hahahahaaaaa
back alley
IMAGES
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.
FrankS
Registered User
I am silenced. 
On this topic.
On this topic.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
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?
Sorry ... I'll just slink away quietly!
Sorry ... I'll just slink away quietly!
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
iml
Well-known
FrankS said:
This seems to me to be the limit of what needs to be said on the subject.
Ian
dskphotography
Member
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
Well-known
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
Shaken, so blurred
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...
...Mike
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...
...Mike
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.