Finder
Veteran
Sparrow said:
I am not sure I would use your terms, but I guess you have hit on the spirit of the statement. Format is simply one criteria that can be considered and that affects image quality (which can be objective or subjective depending on what you are looking at; for example, granularity (RMS) or creaminess).
Fabian
Established
I think there is the right camera for every situation. There are things that can only be done with a Leica and there are things a Leica will never do a very good job, compared to other formats.
For example a street shot in low light just looks better with a lot of grain and a kind of rough look, while on the other hand a picture of a lake in the fog would propably call out for LF.
If you just talk resolution 35mm will always loose, but MF will never win either as long as there are people shooting 12 x 18 and contact printing.
I believe that 35mm, MF and LF can coexist very good and I would love to have a complete setup of each.
Regards Fabian
For example a street shot in low light just looks better with a lot of grain and a kind of rough look, while on the other hand a picture of a lake in the fog would propably call out for LF.
If you just talk resolution 35mm will always loose, but MF will never win either as long as there are people shooting 12 x 18 and contact printing.
I believe that 35mm, MF and LF can coexist very good and I would love to have a complete setup of each.
Regards Fabian
mfogiel
Veteran
FrankS and Finder,
Well, if you read the related link, you can already see an example of this kind, where a Leica B&W shot, even with less texture than the Hassy shot, still looks more "sexy"...
The "sparkle" term has been used by those in the know for some time now, however, since I am a curious type, I am going to make a simple test, possibly next week, when my new Biogon 25/2.8 arrives: I will set up a tripod for a landscape scene, and will shoot on the same film (XP2) with this lens, with the Distagon 25 ZF and with the SWC/M - they have roughly the same horizontal FOV.
Then will scan on the same scanner at the same DPI, and process in the same way. I am not sure the film will do the justice to these lenses, however since I shoot 35mm film rather than digital precisely for the sake of B&W, then be it, and we will see if some sparkle is there, or not...
Well, if you read the related link, you can already see an example of this kind, where a Leica B&W shot, even with less texture than the Hassy shot, still looks more "sexy"...
The "sparkle" term has been used by those in the know for some time now, however, since I am a curious type, I am going to make a simple test, possibly next week, when my new Biogon 25/2.8 arrives: I will set up a tripod for a landscape scene, and will shoot on the same film (XP2) with this lens, with the Distagon 25 ZF and with the SWC/M - they have roughly the same horizontal FOV.
Then will scan on the same scanner at the same DPI, and process in the same way. I am not sure the film will do the justice to these lenses, however since I shoot 35mm film rather than digital precisely for the sake of B&W, then be it, and we will see if some sparkle is there, or not...
FrankS
Registered User
Okay, I followed the link and got to the 2 pictures from the Hasselblad and the Leica. All I can say is that there is something horribly wrong with the writer's Hasselblad. Anyone without first hand experience themselves and who accepts the results of this photographer's comparison, will certainly reach an erroneous conclusion!
x-ray
Veteran
FrankS said:
You're totally right. So much of a persons results comes down to how good a technician the photographer is.
One thing is for shure, the greater the magnification of enlargement the greater the difference in any two formats. With care I can make enlargements from 35mm that are very difficult to tell from MF enlargements up to 14 inches. Beyond that the differences become more apparent the larger you go.
The fact that 35mm brings us super fast lenses gives us the ability to record under very low light and shoot fast with great mobility unlike any other format.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
FrankS
Registered User
Totally meaningless?
Gee, I sort of know what sharper means.
Gee, I sort of know what sharper means.
aizan
Veteran
maybe he means that sharpness (and tonality to boot) is meaningless when it is produced by a non-leica. you never know...
iml
Well-known
It's simple. In any purely technical image quality terms, a larger negative is superior to a smaller one.
This is not to say that 35mm is incapable of making superb images, or that all MF or LF images are necessarily more aesthetically pleasing than all 35mm images, but I don't suppose anyone would ever suggest such a thing. All formats have their uses, and all formats involve competing choices of lenses, films, lighting, processing, etc, many of which fundamentally affect the look of the final image.
The excellence of certain 35mm lenses should not blind anyone to the advantage larger formats have even with less-than-stellar optics. Anyone who's spent any time shooting larger formats knows the results can be spectacular, even with lenses widely regarded as not being particularly special.
Ian
This is not to say that 35mm is incapable of making superb images, or that all MF or LF images are necessarily more aesthetically pleasing than all 35mm images, but I don't suppose anyone would ever suggest such a thing. All formats have their uses, and all formats involve competing choices of lenses, films, lighting, processing, etc, many of which fundamentally affect the look of the final image.
The excellence of certain 35mm lenses should not blind anyone to the advantage larger formats have even with less-than-stellar optics. Anyone who's spent any time shooting larger formats knows the results can be spectacular, even with lenses widely regarded as not being particularly special.
Ian
Last edited:
jtzordon
clicking away
I notice a big difference in the 5x5 proof prints I get from my Rolleicord and the 4x6 proof prints I've gotten from any 35mm I've shot (Nikon zooms and 50mm, Minolta AF and MF, Canonet, Zorki with the Jupiter 8, GSN, Pentax K and M42, ... I'm sure there's more). I wouldn't necessarily say it's in the detail as they're just proof prints, but there is a completely different look. My wife sees it as well and comments without suggestion from me, and she has no pretensions of being a photographer or having knowledge of photography.
Shoot some and see for yourself.
Shoot some and see for yourself.
R
RML
Guest
OK, Magus. Explain something to me. How would you describe what others mean by sharp? It's fine acting all high and mighty but it's better to get off that high horse and educate people, me for instance. Teach me, Magus.
sherm
Well-known
RML said:
Well said !!!!
Xmas
Veteran
Leica dust is bigger the 6x7 dust. The Leica was never about quality, cept fondling.
Noel
Noel
Graham Line
Well-known
Perhaps Magus would favor us with a summary of his personal criteria. I certainly agree sharpness is not the only quality to look for, and sometimes not the most important .
ferider
Veteran
I think Magus is simply refering to sharpness being a meaningless term
without talking about both contrast and resolution.
No reason for personal insults, RML.
Roland.
without talking about both contrast and resolution.
No reason for personal insults, RML.
Roland.
sherm
Well-known
OK,
Deja' Vu all over again. I don't quite think that it was an insult, but that's your interpretation. Remember what we talked about last week???? If you enter into any given thread chances are not everyone will agree. As far as an insult by RML..... I have to believe that your fellow countryman has a thicker skin than that Ferider.
As I said, if Magus has a problem with this thread move on to another that's more pallatible.
Deja' Vu all over again. I don't quite think that it was an insult, but that's your interpretation. Remember what we talked about last week???? If you enter into any given thread chances are not everyone will agree. As far as an insult by RML..... I have to believe that your fellow countryman has a thicker skin than that Ferider.
As I said, if Magus has a problem with this thread move on to another that's more pallatible.
FrankS
Registered User
I think it's cool that Magus has an alternative view - life would be pretty boring if we all agreed about everything. Let's just discuss the issue.
Photography is about much more than technical aspects such as sharpness (the accurate rendering of fine detail). The best photography envokes emotion and that can be done without sharpness.
But, the question was, is there a difference in technical qualities between 35mm Leica and larger film formats. Most posters have stated their opinions that there is. Magus, what would you like to say about this issue?
Photography is about much more than technical aspects such as sharpness (the accurate rendering of fine detail). The best photography envokes emotion and that can be done without sharpness.
But, the question was, is there a difference in technical qualities between 35mm Leica and larger film formats. Most posters have stated their opinions that there is. Magus, what would you like to say about this issue?
sherm
Well-known
Ahh Frank,
Always the voice of reason and calm
Way to bring it back !!!
Sherm
Always the voice of reason and calm
Way to bring it back !!!
Sherm
Tuolumne
Veteran
My personal experience
My personal experience
I think I know what Magus means. If you look at reproductions in books of famous phtographs by 35mm shooters, say HCB, the first thing you notice is what a great picture it is. The second thing I notice is that it's not very sharp (by this I mean details are blurry). This always surprises me, since I consider sharpness to be one of the qualities of a great picture. So, many pictures lack sharpness but are great nonethelss, others can lack sharpness and are great partly because of that.
Nonethelss, for us mere mortals, in most of our shooting, detail, not to say sharpness, makes a big difference. Let me give you an example from personal experience. I just got a medium format Fuji 6x9 rangefinder. I was just shooting some cityscapes with it, not expecting that much. I got the 6x9 tranparencies back and the first time I pulled them out I was almost knocked over (literally). The details and color were so sharp and intense it was breath taking. There were more details I could see in the trasparency just holding it up to the light than I can usually see from slides in a magnifying slide viewer.
This experience completely changed my view of mf vs 35mm picture quality. I now mostly shoot landscapes in MF. 35mm just doesn't cut it for me anymore. I am sooo glad that professionals are throwing away their MF gear in favor of digital gear. These MF cameras that used to cost megabucks are now affordable by the rest of us.
/T
My personal experience
I think I know what Magus means. If you look at reproductions in books of famous phtographs by 35mm shooters, say HCB, the first thing you notice is what a great picture it is. The second thing I notice is that it's not very sharp (by this I mean details are blurry). This always surprises me, since I consider sharpness to be one of the qualities of a great picture. So, many pictures lack sharpness but are great nonethelss, others can lack sharpness and are great partly because of that.
Nonethelss, for us mere mortals, in most of our shooting, detail, not to say sharpness, makes a big difference. Let me give you an example from personal experience. I just got a medium format Fuji 6x9 rangefinder. I was just shooting some cityscapes with it, not expecting that much. I got the 6x9 tranparencies back and the first time I pulled them out I was almost knocked over (literally). The details and color were so sharp and intense it was breath taking. There were more details I could see in the trasparency just holding it up to the light than I can usually see from slides in a magnifying slide viewer.
This experience completely changed my view of mf vs 35mm picture quality. I now mostly shoot landscapes in MF. 35mm just doesn't cut it for me anymore. I am sooo glad that professionals are throwing away their MF gear in favor of digital gear. These MF cameras that used to cost megabucks are now affordable by the rest of us.
/T
R
RML
Guest
ferider said:
I wasn't insulting anyone. I want to know why Magus said what he said. Why is sharpness meaningless? Explain it to me 'cause I don't understand it. I lack knowledge here and I want to learn. No sarcasm intended, no offence meant.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.