Leica vs MF image quality

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[aizan]

i've seen many trolls, and his behavior is a dead giveaway. they leave questions hanging through various means to bait responses, make controversial claims they can't and don't support, act like they own the forum, suck up to more established members, taunt at every opportunity, and simultaneously scream "witchhunt" and play it cool when outed. what's next? he'll lay himself prostrate and ask for forgiveness.

 

[Meleica]

whats going on...is this photo.net's Leica forum ?

....oops....spilled some beer.....

no, its RFF.....phew.....

 

[WoolenMammoth]

Different view points are one thing, but debating the color of the sky or how much water fills a graduate is some kind of fool suffering that can defy patience. Instead of address the primary issue here, which is resolution per mm, magus introduces us to his strawman every chance he gets. This isnt the US media, this is supposed to be one on one discussion and the simple fact is that its rude and condescending.

He claims "negative quality per square millimetre, for example, has nothing to do with enlargement" yet when called to defend that little bit of brilliance, he brings up plato and avoids the topic entirely. This of course just a few posts after he avoids Turtle's first hand experience with the issue and brings up "emotional red herrings" as some part of this forum which "must be corrected". For as pedantic as this guy comes across, that little bit is very funny.

Again, utliize 1/3 of your 35mm negative and enlarge it to the same size as your full frame 35mm negative and then report back to us, with all things being wholly equal, camera, lens, stop, film, developer, enlarger lens, stop, developer that the negative size is irrelevant. Aerial recon didnt use 8x10 because someone in the airforce thought big negs looked cool.

There is plenty of room for opinions, I prefer my leica over my rollei tlr most times but debating this topic is simply not understanding or considering fundamental building blocks of photography.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[aizan]

seems you're a contrarian and sophist troll, magus.

http://socialdiscussion.com/computers-internet/312-other-definitive-guide-internet-trolls.html

 

[Krosya]

WOW!!!
WHat have I started???? I asked a , what I thought a simple question, and...... look what developed. After I read through all the replies, and sorted out ones that actually help answer my question - thanks to those members, I have some general understanding as to what to expect when it comes to MF vs 35mm (Leica) when enlarged to 11x14 or so. I suppose I will have to experiment on my own more to see.
Thanks to all, even more so who remembered the original question and gave your answers base on experience.
Hope noone got hurt in a process.

 

[aizan]

i dunno about getting hurt, but i know one person who enjoyed the flames.

we shouldn't have to wade through all this, either.

 

[Turtle]

Magus,

Your lack of experience with MF does very really and actually compromise your position. You have no experience making actual comparisons based on your own practical usage at the taking and printing stages (which ultimately is what getting results hinges upon). One needs to understand the process as this impacts upon results. One has to be able to compare your own TriX 120 to 35mm ....and your delta 100 35mm to TriX 120...printing them and detemining the differences you see....and these differences are as clear as day, sorry! Whether you care or not or think it should matter, has nothing to do with the question asked.

You can scoff at this and continue to argue the toss, but those who do have the experience with the various formats know exactly what I am talkiing about. I have no interest in defending Leica or Mamiya for that matter but know what my own experience very clearly shows me, as do others. Nobody is suggesting that MF or any larger format does not have disadvantages, but the 'differences'[coming back to the original post] are blatantly obvious even from 35mm to 645 let along 6x7/6x9. I also print MF and 35mm for other people and I see it in their prints too....as do they.

I an no delicate flower I assure you, but you should not underestimate the (disruptive) effect that your posts have on someone who wants a blinking answer. Whats more, you have apparently sought to crank up the intellectual nature of this dicussion to stratospheric levels in what appears to be an attempt to bamboozle and intellectually intimidate (or look down on) others; largely demonstrated by your use of foreign languages and obscure terms.

Others have criticised you before for talking outside of your experience envelope and on at least one occassion I have defended you to prevent a witch hunt. On this occassion you appear to relish the prospect of spiraling confrontation and I dont understand it. We all trade on our credibility and one of the great things about forums is being able to help others overcome hurdles and understand things you take for granted. You cannot do that if you have no credibility left. I would not dream of suggesting that you have no right to take part in this dicussion because of your lack of MF experience, but equally, never having used other formats, you should realise when you are out of your depth entirely. It is this that should determine your contribution. another factor is that the poster asked for 'help' on an issue. What you have done to the thread has been entirely destructive and has not helped one bit. It is your failure to acknowledge this that ultimately disqualifies your contribution.

PS. There are good practical reasons to buy Leica, but their ability to compete with MF on grain, tonality and on print detail is NOT one of them. 1/4 the price spent on MF would be a far wiser deicision based on these criteria.

If you wish to make your point, maybe you could provide a direct answer to the question posed below. If you could explain your reasoning that would be helpful, as would a simple, down to earth response, you know for normal people:

I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF ..... 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?

 

[Toby]

I agree with pretty much everything Turtle says. This kind of thing is really driving me away from this site. I have a lot of experience with medium format, 6x7 in particular, my website and flickr are full of examples of hand held black and white MF shooting, but to be honest I'm really not in the mood to share what I know if I'm going to get embroiled in arguments with people who've never shot a single frame of MF in their life. And of course it's not the trolls who miss out, its those who want an honest answer to a simple question.

 

[Bertram2]

Magus,

PS. There are good practical reasons to buy Leica, but their ability to compete with MF on grain, tonality and on print detail is NOT one of them. 1/4 the price spent on MF would be a far wiser deicision based on these criteria.

I/

True and basta. What wasn't said tho until now is the fact that the benefits of the larger format concerning tonality get visible below the critical enlargement factors. Even a 13X18cm MF print can show a clear advantage compared to a 35mm neg, the higher the film speed the clearer the difference.

Tha fact that we all use 35mm (too) has absolutely nothing to do with the idea, any magic 35mm camera could be on par with the impression a MF gives us.
It is btw not about sharpness and and grain and detail as a theoretical advantage , it is the impression , the look, the footprint of this format, more vivid, more 3d, more natural.

If you shoot the same place with a Leica combo and a Rolleicord with a Xenar side by side and enlarge it to 20X30cm , everybody will prefer the Rollei photo later ! And surely NOT because it looks "sharper " .

What comes next? Shall we discuss if the world is really round ? I've read the whole thread and I couldn't really get it. At the latest when it comes that sorta esoteric lala to which the "sparkling" thing belongs to we should stop for a moment and see where we have landed...... :bang:

Bertram

 

[Turtle]

I agree with pretty much everything Turtle says. This kind of thing is really driving me away from this site. I have a lot of experience with medium format, 6x7 in particular, my website and flickr are full of examples of hand held black and white MF shooting, but to be honest I'm really not in the mood to share what I know if I'm going to get embroiled in arguments with people who've never shot a single frame of MF in their life. And of course it's not the trolls who miss out, its those who want an honest answer to a simple question.

Toby,

I know it is annoying but I know how you feel at times. This thread is one of the most blatant displays of self-immolation I have ever seen, but it is not representative of the forum as a whole. There is nowhere else that you get as much RF related info as this!

I don't think Magus was trolling per se but perhaps did not realise that there are people here, who might not make flowery speeches but have a heck of a lot of practical experience, know the difference between an apple and an orange, but acknowledge the merits of both.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I saw the thread when it started and thought the first page of replies were pretty sane with only a hint of what might happen later. I came back to this thread after a few days and read the last page only to have my suspicions confirmed that it would deteriorate. I have limited experience with MF and have used LF just a little. I would have to say size of the neg matters, with larger being better. I got rid of my LF set up and still have a few MF cameras that get little use as I find that for my use 35mm will do. If an untrained eye such as mine can see the difference I would not dream of arguing which is better technically. If it were me, I would try it as cheaply as possible by using a folder or TLR such as a Yashica Mat 124 or Minolta Autocord to determine for myself if it is suitable/better for my intended use.

Bob

 

[ferider]

I would be interested to read somebodies opinion who has
used both MF _and_ 35mm with the newest generation of
lenses, specifically either ZM 25/2.8 or 35/2 Summicron ASPH.
This was the original question which I found very interesting.

Thanks,

Roland.

 

[FrankS]

Are there any RFF members nearby Magus in Europe who would lend him a MF camera for a short while. (You may even be offered his M7 and lenses in trade for it once he sees what it can do. )

 

[ferider]

Again, Frank, the original question was about modern 35mm lenses.

Joe, can you lend Frank your Biogon ?

 

[Turtle]

I would be interested to read somebodies opinion who has
used both MF _and_ 35mm with the newest generation of
lenses, specifically either ZM 25/2.8 or 35/2 Summicron ASPH.
This was the original question which I found very interesting.

Thanks,

Roland.

I own Zeiss and Leica lenses for my Leica M bodies (28 Biogon, 35 planar, 50 planar, 50 ASPH Summilux, 90 Elmarit M). I also have owned a Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RZII and currently own a RF645. I also own quite a few LF lenses and cameras, some of which have included older lenses. I also print a friends Mamiya 7 negs shot off a 50mm, 80, 150mm)

But to drive the point home, I will say this:

I took a circa 1918-20 Zeiss capsule camera into the field to have a play as it had belonged to my grandfather. It leaked light and the focus scale was bent, but tape made it light tight and I decided to bracket focus as well as exposure. The lens is about the size of a dime and uncoated. It took one roll of film and shot one frame that I have sold a number of times over. luckily it was the only one that was in focus AND had no flare and framed right (the finder was also bust). The film was 120 and the neg size 6x9

At 18" the resolution is superb (shot at f22 or F32, cant recall as bracketed) and the tonality and grain far superior to 35mm...compared to any frame shot on any lens/camera in my 35mm arsenal. I could not have produced this result on any 35mm combo IMO as to do so I would probably have had to use a microfilm and I hate the tonal response these films have. The tones are sumptuous (film was Pan-F) and the grain invisible (which for this shot was seriously important). People simply don't believe me when I show them the gnarled capsule camera used. This is the ugly truth. however, a Rolleicord is soft wide open and to get great wide open performance of MF you would have to look for a more expensive lens design.

None of my 35mm gear can compete with my old Rolleicord Va in grain, apparent resolution and general 'photo-reality' when shot at apertures where the Xenar lens performs well, say f11-16.

None of my 35mm can compete in grain, tonality and apparent detail against my RF645 at any aperture...or my friends Mamiya 7 at any aperture. Both these MF rangefinders are very sharp very quickly and need little stopping down. My rf645 at f5.6 produces a print with more percieved detail and info, tonality etc than any of my Leica/Zeiss glass at f4-5.6 (about optimal). Bust.

None of my MF kit can compete against any of my LF kit on the same basis...even my RF645 or friends Mamiya 7 against a 5x4 neg shot using my old Kodak 203 Ektar...Up to 11x14 some of teh MF kit competes very closely but at 20x16 there is absolutely no contest whatsoever.....unless comparing MF with delta 100 and Xtol against 5x4 HP5 in rodinal......

There are certain print sizes where grain/tonality is little different and not worth caring about and even smaller print sizes where smaller formats actually look sharper AND remain grain free by virtue of being just short of grain emergence. a 6x7 neg may look sharper on 10x8 than a 5x4 neg....when the same film is used etc.

35mm is lighter, faster, more economical, less obtrusive, OF COURSE!

And you want to know what else?

My Canon 135 f2L is as good optically as ANY of my Zeiss/Leica glass and was a lot cheaper. Nobody asks if the best L glass can rival MF, but leica has this mystique in largely promulgated by amateur Leica fetishists who have no idea what they are talking about.

Leica and Zeiss glass cannot make up for the small format, not even close. What is does do is give superb results where 35mm is used!!! Obviously!!!

 

[Jamie123]

Are there any RFF members nearby Magus in Europe who would lend him a MF camera for a short while. (You may even be offered his M7 and lenses in trade for it once he sees what it can do. )

Well if he's ever in Switzerland I'd be glad to lend him my Hasselblad.

 

[ferider]

I own Zeiss and Leica lenses for my Leica M bodies (28 Biogon, 35 planar, 50 planar, 50 ASPH Summilux, 90 Elmarit M).

: : :

None of my 35mm gear can compete with my old Rolleicord Va in grain, apparent resolution and general 'photo-reality' when shot at apertures where the Xenar lens performs well, say f11-16.

: : :

And you want to know what else?

My Canon 135 f2L is as good optically as ANY of my Zeiss/Leica glass and was a lot cheaper. Nobody asks if the best L glass can rival MF, but leica has this mystique in largely promulgated by amateur Leica fetishists who have no idea what they are talking about.

Leica and Zeiss glass cannot make up for the small format, not even close. What is does do is give superb results where 35mm is used!!! Obviously!!!

Thanks, Turtle. I was seriously asking for advice, I use vintage lenses
mostly for both 35 and 120, my Hasselblad has been neglected and
I have had GAS for ZM 25 or 28, ever since the 25 MTF charts were published.
And I was wondering about the Canon lenses, but I don't use Canon
bodies ... I shoot color and landscapes, mostly, also with the M mounts.
Didn't feel this was adressed before.

Best,

Roland.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I would be interested to read somebodies opinion who has
used both MF _and_ 35mm with the newest generation of
lenses, specifically either ZM 25/2.8 or 35/2 Summicron ASPH.
This was the original question which I found very interesting.

Thanks,

Roland.

Roland-

Ive recently shot with a hassleblad and an elmar-m 50 on the same subject (i dont have the chromes to post which is a shame) and would make the same statement about a comparison between one of my rollei tlr's and a version 2 rigid 'cron. Bigger neg wins.

What nobody has addressed explcitly yet is why, if MF is so much "better" would anyone use 35mm and the answer is because 35mm, with its lack of resolution in comparison, is better for some applications than others. When the situation comes up where I have the choice between a square frame and the bulkiness and slowness of a medium format setup or 35mm, I'll chose the bulky square every time, but there arent alot of shooting scenarios I personally get in where I can even make that choice and shoot probably %85 on 35mm and also dont wish I could shoot too much more on medium format. Sometimes ou WANT the compressed crappy feel of 35mm, especially so if you are a grain fiend. Better may be better, but its not always appropriate and thats real important to make explicit since this thread has orbited out to the drama stratosphere. If you want the best negative possible, you should be shooting 8x10 but there are usually a lot more factors involved in the decision to use which format that go beyond best neg possible.