Leica vs MF image quality

[Krosya]

I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF (as well as others) cameras besides their Leicas and other 35mm RFs. So, my question is - how do you think Leica, Zeiss, CV and other lenses compare to those MF ones, such as Fuji645, Bronica 645, Mamiya 6 and 7? I hear that they all have great lenses, yet some 35mm lenses are great too. Some are even compared to MF quality. Like Zeiss 25/2.8 ZM for example. Leica lenses sure cost as much as some MF setups. So, what do you think, after using both - is it really worth it to have both systems? are they pretty close? Lets say if largest photo would be 11x14 inches - would I see a difference between the two systems?

 

[FrankS]

Yes, you certainly will see a difference!
It is huge at 11x14, and quite evident at 8x10.

Of course there are many times where you can only get the picture with a smaller 35mm camera.

 

[sherm]

As to whether it would be worth it to have both systems that is a purely personal choice. Depends a lot on what you are shooting and as you stated how big your prints may be. I have both systems and to me MF is markedly better than 35 whether it's Zeiss or Leica or CV for that matter. I do own examples from all of these manufacturers. It's not so much the lens as it is the size of the negative. You get much more detail and smoother tones with MF than with 35mm. If you were to take four photos and lay them out, I'm pretty sure that even the untrained eye could pick out the MF examples.

The big question mark that comes up here daily is availability of film for your MF outfit. My advice to you would be try it now, the MF systems can be purchased for mere pennies on the dollar compared to 5 years ago and you can hoard film to have for future shooting.


Sherm

 

[rogue_designer]

No matter how good a lens/system is. It's hard to overcome the benefit the larger negatives give you in enlargement.

Especially once you are looking at 6x7 negs or larger, and prints 11x14 or larger.

That said - there are things that it's very hard to do with an MF rig. So I have, and use both systems. Just for different jobs. 🙂

 

[x-ray]

I shoot 35mm to 8x10 formats. On my documentary work I carry a wide range of equipment including my Leicas and Zeiss bodies (usually 2-4 bodies and a range of lenses), sometimes my Canon SLR's for micro and long glass, frequently my Hasselblads including a SWC/M, Fuji 6x17 and GSW690II and sometimes but not often 4x5 or 8x10.

It's no so much a matter of glass quality but a matter of enlargability of the film. A small neg no matter how sharp and how fine the grain just doesn't enlarge with the same quality as a larger neg and the same can be said for MF vs LF. The basis that I select one camera over the other has more to do with lighting conditions, mobility and speed of shooting or the desire for one shape vs another (square vs 35mm proportions).

When I can I go for the larger format. My 35mm work is usually restricted to low and poor light with active subjects. Many locations it's just impossible to shoot with anything other than 35mm, fast film and fast lenses. In the series that i'm doing in serpent handling churches I shoot 400 B&W with my 75 summilux at 1.4-2 along with my 35, 50 and sometimes 90. My shutter speeds will range from 1/4 second to 1/125 depending on where the person is in the light. The lighting is 100 wat bare bulbs in the ceiling and they're sparcely placed. It's a challence for any system and photographer.

 

[rich815]

Even the very best of 35mm lenses will not give the look, feel, smoothness and tonality of a good MF neg/chrome. It's some bit of trade off but it's there.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,

I use my Lieca's and Rolleiflexes on a regualr basis. 35mm can never outperform MF. Even an humble Rolleicord will yield technical better pictures than any 35mm sysem.
Every system has its merits. You just have to cjoose the one that suits you most or the one that suits the stuff you will do that day.
I won't use 35mm for any landscape work. I'd take my 4x5. On the other hand I will solely use my 35mm sysytem for fast pj style street photography.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[iml]

As above. My lowly Rolleiflex 3.5 Tessar easily beats the image quality of my M6 with any glass I've tried on it. Big negs are better, end of story. 35mm has many uses though, and a look that is right for many things.

Ian

 

[Sparrow]

You don’t need anything fancy; in good light my granddad’s 6x9 Bessa (1931) outperforms my dad’s 6x6 Tessa/Rolleiflex (1950ish) and that outperforms anything I have in 35mm, as with a lot of things size matters
😀

 

[Finder]

I have 35mm, 35mm pano, 6x6 and 6x12 medium-format, and 4x5 inch large-format systems. Each has their place. My most used systems are medium format because they bridge the gap between the versatility of 35mm and the quality of large format.

Smaller formats can never have the quality larger formats do - it is the film that is the reason. Smaller format lenses HAVE to be better because they are working with smaller images, but that does not mean their results are better. To a point, you don't need high resolution lenses on large-format cameras. A big challenge for small digital sensors is making lenses with high enough resolutions. Resolving power is not an absolute quality defining image quality.

 

[Ben Z]

I'm really happy to read all the sane opinions here. I recall another Leica internet forum where if anyone even vaguely implied that medium format had an advantage over Leica 35mm other than at mural-size enlargements, the flamethrowers came out in droves 😱

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Ha! Size matters. And film is really amazing stuff. My M8 at its lowest ISO setting gives something very MF-like. But for creamy skin tones, go with a large negative, properly exposed and developed. Rollei TLRs and Hassie are favorites of mine, but look at Mamiya C330s these days. Best value in MF, in my mind.

Ben

 

[Meleica]

Photography is all about compromise and irony. Its almost sad a $ 150 Yashicamat TLR at apertures of f4.5 and smaller, will provide a "better" looking 8x10 (or larger) print than a $ 3500 used Noctilux lens or a $ 2500 50mm Summilux ASPH....

And by "better," I mean a print with rich tonality and high resolution. Again, size does matter.....

Dan

 

[35mmdelux]

My Mamiya 7 produced great results but it was too large to lug around everwhere, everyday. Today I have a Mamiya c330f for the times I want to produce an image with greater detail, generally portraits.

 

[Mackinaw]

It's not just traditional image quality that separates larger formats from 35mm, there are other subtle factors at work too. I particularly like the shallow depth-of-field one gets with a medium format camera when using a "normal" lens. This effect is very hard to duplicate with a 35mm camera unless you're using a high speed 50mm wide-open (not always practical). Maybe lens design has something to do with it too. The simple tessar formula used on some of my Mamiya TLR lenses produces a certain look that I find very appealing.

Jim Bielecki

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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.

 

[Ash]

35mm negs are tiny. You need the best possible glass to make the most of the format.

I can't match a 35mm neg with a £100 lens on a £400 to a fixed lens MF camera worth £20. That's because MF is larger, you get more detail in an enlargement.

So in a way, the cost for an acceptable negative decreases as negative size increases. Then consider paying the cost of Leica glass on a larger format and suddenly the most brilliant images are possible.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I guess that explains all those 8x10 cameras I've seen used at sports events, press conferences, National Geographic's utterly-correlateable excellence to their exclusive use of anything that is not 35mm...

Size isn't everything. Ash is onto something I'm too lazy to type out. 😱

 

[sherm]

Gabriel,

I thought you were going to take a break from RFF??? 😀

 

[Ash]

Gab, I was too lazy to explain further. I guess some people will pay big bucks for a tiny camera and the best it can do. It's more convenient than a huge camera.

That's why even dslr's are more expensive than medium format, and they are only just close to catching up to optimum image quality, people will choose them for event/press work.

People will prefer to pay for the faster digital image on the smaller camera with faster lens, than faff around with the big negatives and processing. Just like 35mm is quicker and easier than 120. 220, or larger.