Leica vs MF image quality

[sepiareverb]

Wow! What a week to be away! Just to throw a slightly different towel into the fray, I've found that in my work (handheld) the reduced depth of field for field of view that comes with MF has made the difference in negative size a wash as I end up using a faster film to get the depth of field I want. The bigger grain seems nearly always to negate the gain in negative size. It is this reason that I currently have no MF cameras. I've had the Hasselblad, Pentax 67 & a couple of fuji 645's, and despite the stunning look on the proofsheet, for me the current M lenses, coupled with this gain in depth of field gives the 35mm stuff a great balance that works best for me. Again, I'm talking about how it works for what I'm doing.

And not meaning to add to the sour taste of some of this, but not having shot or printed MF shouldn't automatically disqualify one from stating an opinion. Nearly all of us have seen prints from medium and large format negs, and the knowledge of how these images are different doesn't only come from making them does it? It was the studying of others prints that got me shooting 810 in the first place, and my initial hopes for MF being a good compromise of tonality/d.o.f. were also based on the study of prints. And it was the seeing of the difference between Nikon SLR prints and Contax G prints that sold me on RF.

 

[rxmd]

And not meaning to add to the sour taste of some of this, but not having shot or printed MF shouldn't automatically disqualify one from stating an opinion.

You're completely right. On the other hand I would hope that the consciousness of not having hands-on first-hand experience with medium or large format should render a person a little more open-minded about the explanations and arguments of people who do.

It was the studying of others prints that got me shooting 810 in the first place, and my initial hopes for MF being a good compromise of tonality/d.o.f. were also based on the study of prints. And it was the seeing of the difference between Nikon SLR prints and Contax G prints that sold me on RF.

Then again, you probably were ready to be influenced by what other human beings with first-hand experience actually said. Neither did you explain away their talk about differences in visual impression with a discussion of the semantic inaccuracies of their usage of terms for these impressions in common language, nor did you, when someone took some pains to give you a technical explanation for what was observable, brush them away with an off-hand statement that they weren't really arguing within the same syllogism, nor did you ask them whether Plato's "Dialogues" and the great court cases had failed to make an impression on them. I think the difference is all in the attitude and in the response; to put it in Plato's terms from the "Apology", "that which I don't know I don't assume to be knowing."

Your point about MF shooters using faster film and, hence, grain size eating up the enlargement factor advantage is very true. I've noticed similar things when shooting MF hand-held, even though I was using faster film mainly to compensate for slower lenses and for having to use faster shutter speed to avoid camera shake. I think medium format really lends itself to a slower mode of photography and should be treated as such, which is why a medium format rangefinder is not for me. (I just sold my Moskva-5 and my Super Ikonta III in April.) On the other hand my Kiev with the Sonnar, the Flektogon and a monopod feels more portable than a comparable 4x5 or 5x7 setup with a tripod, so there is still some justification for me for using it. But medium format has sometimes been criticised for being somewhat half-baked - if you want portability, then you often have to use faster film which negates many of the advantages, and if you don't need portability, then you can use large format and enjoy the advantages to an even greater extent. Ultimately, as you say, it all boils down to personal preference, and for the time being medium format is a nice compromise for me.

Philipp

 

[LOOP]

35mm vs MF

35mm vs MF

The discussion about the merits for both formats ran really smoothly in this thread but ...some Leica fans could not accept that it would go on saying that a 140$ iskra/yashicamat/ikonta would give better pictures than a Leica kit which would cost 5000$.

I really like both formats:
* with a konica hexar AF silent mode you get unnoticed for making street picture
* with the iskra or an ikoflex but easy to propose a portrait after being asked: what is it ? A camera ?

A good picture is not only defined by : sharp / capacity of making big poster because one cannot do the same pictures /capture the same moment with MF and 35 mm.😉 😉 😉 😉

 

[Bertram2]

Then again, you probably were ready to be influenced by what other human beings with first-hand experience actually said. Neither did you explain away their talk about differences in visual impression with a discussion of the semantic inaccuracies of their usage of terms for these impressions in common language, nor did you, when someone took some pains to give you a technical explanation for what was observable, brush them away with an off-hand statement that they weren't really arguing within the same syllogism, nor did you ask them whether Plato's "Dialogues" and the great court cases had failed to make an impression on them. I think the difference is all in the attitude and in the response; to put it in Plato's terms from the "Apology", "that which I don't know I don't assume to be knowing."
Philipp

Sums it all up perfectly. Applause for the Plato quote, it's on spot !🙂 🙂 🙂
When there is a bunch of experienced guys around you MUST necessarily crash if you talk about things you do not really know, no matter if it is the format question or Plato....
"Self immolation" was used by somebody, not bad either.

Bertram

 

[Finder]

It is funny, I went to medium format because I could use 400 speed film and get better results than 100 speed 35mm film.

There is a Japanese saying that works well here: 10 men, 10 colors.

 

[Thardy]

It is funny, I went to medium format because I could use 400 speed film and get better results than 100 speed 35mm film.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[JordanJShin]

I vote for it's all the same... I may be a heretical rube, but at least I haven't switched to digital... 😉

I am primarily a Leica R shooter, and I've owned Yashica TLRs and a bunch of 35mm RFs and now use a Century Graphic (it has a RF) with 2.8/80 Xenotar and 4.5/180 Rotelar. 6x9 is the largest "practical" size for DIY analog DP&E, I've found. The M3 is in the mail; I couldn't wait to join the club, so I made a model, as you can see. 🙂

I have done a lot of resolution tests, and the MF and 35mm lenses essentially all can be counted on to produce an equivalent lpmm with similar drops in quality in the corners: 100 lpm for 35mm, and 50 lpm for 6x9, etc., in the center. I also find that with MF, I end up stopping it down to get the same DOF I get with 35mm; that means I crave faster film with MF or risk camera shake. The better tonality and grain that I would expect to get with MF is thus compromised. In other words, given the same conditions, the trade-offs tend to cancel each other out, and it becomes a matter of which trade-offs you prefer; I prefer lots of DOF, so I prefer 35mm most of the time.

The price difference isn't that big a deal, either, in the end. I am looking to buy a 35-55mm lens to cover 6x9, and a great Schneider or Rodenstock lens goes for $600-1000 used; my 2.8/19 Elmarit-R was $800. I could get a decent 65mm for $100, but then I could get a Canon 28mm for less. The Rotelar, which has a chip off on the front glass, was $360, including CLA, and I paid $300 for my Elmarit-R 2.8/180 and can get a Summicron-R 2/90 for the same price. BTW, the real bargains in the MF world are the Mamiya and Bronica SLRs, if you can tolerate their slower lenses; you can have a complete set up for less than $1,000!

In terms of the "look", each of my R lenses has its own personality, as do all others. The R lenses tend to have much better resolution in the corners, which gives a more "even" look than any of the MF lenses, which definitely prefer the center. Then again, I'm one of those people who love the "donuts" on mirror lenses...

I use the MF equipment mainly with daylight and with studio flash; given enough Watt-seconds and using the same film, it's absolutely true that you get much, much better result with MF. This has become more true now that film is being scanned to be printed. Whenever I mess up the focus, however, I regret not having shot in 35mm...

Leaf shutters are nice, too, for daylight flash, but most flashes can't be used with anything faster than 1/125 at full power, so my R8 with 1/250 sync is good enough...

:angel:

J

 

[Turtle]

Welcome to the Forum Jordan!

A lot of what you say is totally true, but thats why the photo Gods created tripods, so we don't always have to use fast film with the bigger formats! That said, I have never used a tripod with my 35mm RF and probably never will, by virtue of the fact that I never carry one and love the speed and sponteneity. For static tripod work I use MF or LF, where - film speed and thus camera shake removed as an issue - I can lap up 20 sq inches of Fuji Acros if I want to!

I dont find 5x4 a bother in the darkroom, but handling 10x8 negs can be a pig. I have no idea how people handle ULF negs I really dont.......I know what you mean, 6x9 is a very nice neg size to work with. If Only they made a Mamiya 9!!!

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[sepiareverb]

And lets not forget the effect the enlarger has on large prints- I never was satisfied with the prints over 1114 I got out of my Beseler 45 as the thing couldn't be aligned perfectly. My current LPL enlarger makes 1620 prints from 35mm negatives possible due to the strictly locked alignment of negative plane, lens and easel. An enormous difference, but one that was very hard to see at 810 from 35mm negs or 1114 from 67 negs. Once the degree of enlargement got much over that the errors compounded and made for mush somewhere.

 

[Bertram2]

I have done a lot of resolution tests, and the MF and 35mm lenses essentially all can be counted on to produce an equivalent lpmm with similar drops in quality in the corners:

J

The question of resolution performance is misleading here. Many 35mm lenses have a better resolution performance than MF lenses.
It is the size of the detail on the large neg which brings the advantage and which makes a different sort of photo, sometimes getting visible well at 18X24cm prints.

How close 35mm ever can come it can't achieve the impression of MF. This is a fact which is not discussable.
The question tho if one should afford the efforts and limitations of the larger format to get "it" is very well discussable. Each of us has to find his own answer.

bertram

 

[FrankS]

The question of resolution performance is misleading here. Many 35mm lenses have a better resolution performance than MF lenses.
It is the size of the detail on the large neg which brings the advantage and which makes a different sort of photo, sometimes getting visible well at 18X24cm prints.

How close 35mm ever can come it can't achieve the impression of MF. This is a fact which is not discussable.
The question tho if one should afford the efforts and limitations of the larger format to get "it" is very well discussable. Each of us has to find his own answer.

bertram

My opinion exactly.

 

[x-ray]

Enlarger has a great deal to do with it as well as the light source. My Omega D5 is topped with an Ilford MG diffusion head. Diffusion gives more detail in highlights and more open shadows compared to condensor. My LF enlarger is a condensor Durst 138 Laborator and really isn't suitable for 35mm. Of all the enlargers that i've used over the years the Durst laborators are the best in terms of alignment.

It's true that a 1x1 inch section of a 35mm neg will enlarge equally to a 1x1 inch section of a MF or LF neg but the 1x1 section of the 35mm will be sharper due to sharper lenses in 35mm. That really makes little difference in the practical world since we don't generally take sections of MF or LF the size of a 35mm neg. Square mm's count when it comes to enlarging not only in apparent sharpness but in tonality. Tonality is the big issue here. A 4x print from a 35mm neg will have the same tonality as a 4x print from an 8x10 neg but if you need a 30x40 print the 35mm neg will not look as good. The value of any format is relative to application or conditions that the image will be captured and degree of enlargement. Viewing distance comes into play here too. The other big factor is 8x10 or even MF isn't practical to shoot some subjects like sports and 35mm isn't suitable for other subjects like detailed landscapes and big enlargements.

 

[Finder]

Resolving power is misleading. MTF limit has to be taken into account as well as target contrast ranges. No matter how you slice it, larger format have the advantage because they can work at lower resolving powers to resolve the same detail. They can simply resolve the detail better because MTF limit increases with a lowering of resolving power.

As far as the equal DOF argument, you are still resolving over a greater film area and so the advantage of media limitation (granularity) goes to the bigger piece of film.

None of this makes 35mm bad or inferior in any way.

 

[ZeissFan]

Exactly. Each format has its strengths and drawbacks. Creativity and compromise.

Even so, it's preposterous to argue from a technical standpoint that a 35mm negative will give you the same tonality as a medium format negative. And that's OK, because sometimes you want that grittiness or that look you can achieve best with 35mm.

On the other hand, you use medium format because it gives you the look that you want.

One isn't better than the other. Just pick the right tool for the job.

Enlarged 35mm will look good to a point. Enlarged medium format will look good to a larger point.

 

[RObert Budding]

Large apertures not very useful for MF

Large apertures not very useful for MF

A lot of people here a missing the big picture (pun intended).

It is very difficult to find MF lenses which are faster than f/2.8, and the ones at f/2.0 or larger [aperture] are rarer than pleasant headshots of Sarah Jessica Parker. (yes, yes, the DOF w/larger formats, too small, f/4.5 already too narrow, yadda yadda...that's the point)

If big is the name of the game, then Large Format it is. If portability, available light, K.I.S.S. and spontaneity is the name of the game, the 35mm world has a lot to offer, and this is part of Leica's contribution to photography.

I've found that larger apertures are pretty useless for MF and LF. I'm often shooting MF at f/5.5 and f/8 when I want shallow DOF. Large format I use f/11 and f/16 for shallow DOF when the subject is with 10 feet of the camera.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[aizan]

you're forgetting that a larger format uses higher magnification to get the same picture. when you shoot 6x7, your image is magnified twice as much as with 35mm. if that weren't the case, which is to say that if the larger format wasn't larger, your argument would be true.

and what happened to that hypersensitive eye? 11x14 prints from 35mm and medium format hardly look the same.

 

[mfogiel]

Hi, I am back in this thread after having done some homework. A few weeks ago I wrote:

"I think , what Magus refers to, could be partially found in this old article:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/mp/

While I would generally agree that MF has lots of advantages over 35mm in terms of sheer image quality, there's a certain "sparkle" in 35mm images from top lenses, which is difficult to reproduce in MF unless you go with a few "mythical" optics, and you use careful technique too. This has been apparently found to be related to very high MTF values at certain frequencies."

Subsequently FrankS wrote:

"I really would like to see an example of this."

and

Finder wrote

"I would say that is the Leica urban legend. I see no ceratin "sparkle" in any format. MTF plots do not show it either. You certainly cannot take MTF as absolute performance of a lens. It is alway is relation to the imaging system AND the human visual system. Two things MTF ignores."

and, I replied:

"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... 🙂"

Here we are with the "proof in the pudding" (or the lack of thereof)

I have set up a simple landscape scene and shot from tripod with the Biogon 25 T* ZM (on a Bessa R4A), and Biogon 38/4.5 T* on a Hasselblad SWC/M.
The film used was my habitual B&W choice: ILFORD XP2@ISO200, the films got processed in the same pro lab ("Chrome", Milano), and the pictures scanned on the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED @ 4000dpi (glass plate was used on the 6x6 scans).

I have chosen the Biogons, because I know for certain, that they are outstanding in the resolution and general image quality department, and funnily enough, from Zeiss official claims, while the resolution of the 25 ZM Biogon can reach 400lp/mm in the center, that of the 38 SWC Biogon can reach 200 lp/mm, (2:1 ratio !) both quite extraordinary results in each format.

The post processing was minimal and uniform, save some brightness adjustments in order to make the appearance more comparable.

I wanted to see both the general aspect of the full frame at a decent enlargement, and a comparison of 100% crops, to see if at least at the same enlargement level the Biogon 25 ZM would show the famous "sparkle" and superior resolution in an evident way.

Here are the full frame shots - I have cropped both negatives to the 1600/1200 aspect, as this is the max I upload on flickr. The original files are 5000pixel wide for the 35mm and 8650 pixel wide for the MF.

Biogon 25 ZM:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/929169898/
SWC/m Biogon 38:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/928328839/

Honestly, I cannot see much of a difference at this enlargement size, and this is what more or less I was expecting, although on a print the MF version will be prettier.

Now, let's look at 100% crops.

Biogon 25 ZM:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/928215113/
SWC/m Biogon 38:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/929167062/

I don't know what you see, but apart from some more contrasty appearance of the 25ZM, I cannot see any evident superiority from the 35mm example respect to the MF.

At this stage, a terrible uncertainty has crept up to my mind : and what if I compared the 25 Biogon to a lens which is simply too good, and not representative of an average MF outfit? What if I tried this against a middle of the road lens and not THE MYTHICAL 38/4.5 BIOGON , with a resolution probably better than a good part of conventional 35mm lenses?

At this point I started looking for " a dog", and luckily the least "legendary" Hasselblad lens in my posession - the Distagon 40/4 C T*, produced more than 40 years ago was of a very close focal length, so the comparison could still be quite fair. I won't hold your curiosity for long, here are the respective shots:

Distagon 40/4 full frame:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/928734141/

and


Distagon 40/4 100% crop:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/929575868/

I have looked at all these shots at 100% and full screen for some time, and to my mind the differences in rendition at 100% are so tiny, that the conclusion is quite evident:

- at this level of image chain ( Ilford XP2 on the one hand and Nikon Coolscan 9000 on the other) the lenses tested are not a limiting , or even not a greatly differentiating factor. True, these are pretty good MF lenses, so the judgement is out for "inferior" glass.

I believe more quality differences in this type of imaging chain are actually caused by other factors, like better hand holdability with less image shake, biger dof, etc of the 35mm cameras and rangefinders in particular against the MF.

Whenever we come across resolution tests, lens comparisons, etc, the imaging chain usually ends at the film level - i.e. the negative (typically a B&W microfilm) or the slide (typically Velvia 50) are being examined directly, and not from a print or a scan on a video screen.

In real life instead, the typical photographic scope is the print, especially in B&W photography. The dimensions of your typical print along with the preferred subject matter should probably dictate the kind of equipment to use. I have been "born" as a MF photographer, and have shot formats from APS-C (digital) to 4x5. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, so the 35 mm rangefinders are not any different, even with today's most extrordinary lenses.

The conclusion?

- I was wrong about the "sparkle"
- Magus will decide for himself.

- The best solution is the British way:
"Horses for courses"...

 

[sepiareverb]

Wow! A very impressive homework assignment mfogiel! A+ and extra credit.

In looking at the full frame images there is on my monitor- yes another layer of diffusion, but a consistent one here- I find there is a 'sparkle' in the ZM25 missing from the SWC/M Biogon. Damned if I could explain it, but there it is.

I like how this thread has evolved into a real investigation!