Leica vs MF image quality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beautiful. Your Leica vs. Leica test captured the essence of the thread starter's comparison, which was between relative image sizes on the negatives/slides rather than absolute image size. A 6cm image of a face (i.e., the maximum uncropped size on a 6x6 negative) blown up to 16" (40cm) will look better (dare I say appear sharper?) than a 3.5cm image of a face (i.e., the maximum uncropped size on a 35mm negative) blown up to the same size. I expect there will be significantly greater cohesion (perhaps that's a more acceptable word?) in the enlargement of the 6x6 negative. Relative to the 35mm image, the 6x6 image has been defined by more grain, and the tightness of the grain has been eroded to a lesser degree during enlargement. The greater cohesion of the 6x6 shot would cause the image to appear sharper to the typical viewer.



WoolenMammoth said:
frank beat me to it... This is pretty typical of big fish/little pond stuff where some guy has to be right all the time and does it by debating semantics. Its odd that you guys are entertaining that, everyone here seems pretty level headed, but Im pretty new here.

this discussion did a good job of addressing the original poster, bigger negative has more information (grain) per square mm than a smaller one, so if that doesnt yield a sharper or whatever damn word you want to use to identify information per square mm, you guys might be out to lunch.

You really shouldnt confuse the discussion with big words that are apparently disctracting like "medium format". Simply take your Leica with the best glass in the world or whatever fantasy you want to have about it, and go take a picture of a brick wall. Then take a whole bunch of steps back until your brick wall now only fills 1/3 or 1/4 of the frame and take a similarly framed photo to match your original camera position. Take those two frames, both shot with the worlds best camera and the worlds best glass and go develop them in your favorite developer. Next, print these two frames 11x14 on the exact type of paper, developed in the exact type of chemistry. Print the first full frame, print the second so that the brick wall fills the frame to match the framing of the first picture, using only 1/3 or 1/4 of the neg depending how you framed it.

Now argue about which print appears "sharper" viewed from 6 feet away. Or the color of the sky or how you pronounce the word "tomatoe", all three would amount to equally efficient and worthy discussions.

Just remember, if you continue to argue this you are arguing with someone who claims that (and will surely now begin to backpedal or distract with language) that "As to the rest (35mm vs. MF), negative quality per square millimetre, for example, has nothing to do with enlargement. These are completely different syllogisms." If this statement had any bearing on planet earth people wouldnt be caught dead hauling 70mm Imax cameras to the top of everest, they'd just shoot on super 16mm and let magus work his physics defying logic on their negs.
Click to expand...
 
A few months ago I made a test between my Rolleiflex (Zeiss Planar 3.5/75mm) and M6 (Cron-C 40mm f2.0) because I also wanted to know the answer for my practical purposes. (fast film in the Rollei and slow film in the Leica) for my methods the difference isn´t shattering so I stick to the Leica and use the Rollei for special shots, one of the problems is that the theoretical resolution and "sharpness" can´t be touched by my scanners. edit: minolta DSIV vs. Epson perfection 3200

so...to round off this completely pointless (sh1ty mf scan looks equal to 35mm ..duh) post is attach some pics, maybe you find them interesting nevertheless:
 

Attachments

  • Vergleich Rollei Leica1.jpg
    Vergleich Rollei Leica1.jpg
    147.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Vergleich Rollei Leica - crop Leica1.jpg
    Vergleich Rollei Leica - crop Leica1.jpg
    152 KB · Views: 0
  • Vergleich Rollei Leica - crop Rollei1.jpg
    Vergleich Rollei Leica - crop Rollei1.jpg
    145 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Magus,

Ohh you outed me and my PM. I only PM'd so as not to dirty up the thread any more than you already have. Sarcastic you bet, are there rules of engagement for PM's as well?

You won't tolerate PM's of this nature????? Go start your own forum like Frank G did or see if you can buy this one from Stephen.

Maybe we should meet in person to discuss? Let me know where and when.

Thanks,
Sherm
 
trying to play it cool? give me a break.

all these insults about childishness, virginity, and insecurity are quite ironic.
 
while we're making insults impossible to make on the internet, let's add arguments and claims that stand up to scrutiny.
 
I agree with Magus that there is not reason/point in getting agitated because of this discussion. We do this for fun, remember?

"Scrutinise my arguments, refute them if they are unworthy!!"

I think we've already done that. :)

Magus, not having printed a MF negative does not disqualify you from this discussion, but it sure compromises your opinion. You argue your point based on the mere wish that Leica could rival MF results. The unfortunate (for you) reality is that it can not. I can tell you this from personal experience (which you lack on this issue), and so can several other posters in this thread already. So sorry, my friend. :)

Just because Magus has a different viewpoint, this is no reason to run him out of town. Same as with FrankG. I enjoyed his contribution here. (Totally disapprove of his personal site though, otherwise I'd argue for his return.)

Feel free to send this to FrankG too, Jon.
 
Last edited:
aizan said:
it's not that he has a different viewpoint, it's that he's a troll.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I'm sure that Magus genuinely believes what he writes, and that he posts to state his opinion rather than post to purposely cause problems. And the problems that are caused is by folks who get too excited about these issues. Yes it is frustrating to try to get someone to see your logic if they seem blind to it. But remember, this is supposed to be fun. :)
 
Having won 5 rolls of Rollei Scanfilm CN 400, 3 of 120 & 2 of 135, I wanted a quick idea of what to expect from it. Since I don’t shoot much compared to many here, I got out my Mamiya 330, a couple of lenses & shot a roll of 120. The Mamiya is a camera that few, including me, would call convenient to shoot with. Yet I enjoyed the shoot; it was a little awkward, but fun. I also like one of the 12 shots, & will have it enlarged to 20 x 20 inches. I wouldn’t spend money on an enlargement that size with a Leica shot, though may do it myself just for a kick (ambiguous enough?) with a b/w shot whenever I get my darkroom set up.

Apparently if I reread Plato's Dialogues, I wouldn’t be so timid about spending money on a 20 x 20 enlargement of a 35mm neg. I would not be lusting after a Nikon Coolscan 9000, nor would I be so keen to take the Mamiya, awkwardness & all, out again soon. My casual Rollei film test and this thread has encouraged me to do the latter. I’ve had other reactions, but they’re way off topic.

Someone should post a couple of Raid style comparison scans. I could do it, but the results would take until November at my pace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom