Leica vs MF image quality

[sherm]

And the thread keeps going.... I have the Biogon and MF still woops it!!

 

[ZeissFan]

Artistic merit is one thing, and technical details are quite another.

I have folders full of medium format negatives that aren't worth a hoot, but man are they ever sharp with tons of detail and great tones in them.

Even so, all other things being equal, if you have a 35mm negative and a 6x6 negative of the same subject, the larger negative should yield the "better" print.

But which is better, of course, ventures into the area of art. Objectivity goes out the window, because what you might find undesirable in a photo might appeal to someone else.

 

[lns]

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 have neither of those lenses, but I do have the 35 summilux asph and the 50 summilux asph, which I hope you will accept as adequate substitutes. I also have medium format cameras. I too hesitate to contribute to this thread because I don't want to be dismissed or attacked. But I think that your modern-lens distinction unfortunately does not change the answer. Those newer 35mm lenses are fantastic, but the images they produce are on a smaller negative, and therefore those images cannot be enlarged to the same size as a 6x6 negative. At least not with the same quality. To refer to the original question, based on my experience, a person certainly would see the difference at 11x14. Even comparing those premium Leica lenses to my $103 Rolleicord. I see the difference. Moreover, 11x14 is the limit of enlargement for most people of a 35mm negative. But to me, compared with medium format, the 35mm images -- not the lenses, but the images captured on the negative and enlarged -- have less detail and tonality at much smaller print sizes than 11x14. For some subjects, I can see a difference on a proof print or a contact sheet. Of course, for some subjects, detail and tonality matter less.

I hope that contributes something.

I really don't see how this can really be debated. Not honestly. It is, as said above, a fact on par with the earth being round. Not that the question was bad, nor Ferider's refinement of it -- I thought those were great questions. Just that no matter what fancy words an objector uses, how aggessive he is, or how many smoke screens he throws out, the answer is clear and accepted by general consensus.

You can profitably point out that when taking pictures the negative size difference is less important than other things (for example, camera size, or availability of fast lenses), or that the 35mm aesthetic is valuable in itself, or that some subjects don't require ultimate quality. But the larger negative will give you better tonality and detail and greater enlargement possibilities. If that's what you want. I personally use 35mm much more than medium format. The smaller size has too many advantages for me. And the lenses are great. But facts are facts. When I use medium format, I see a difference. That's not the lens, per se, it's the negative.

-Laura

 

[Toby]

One thing that's worth adding is that the big advantage for me in 6x7 is the different way a the lenses render a because of the increased focal length for a particular FOV. My standard lens for 6x7 is a 105/2.4 the way this renders a scene at any given aperture compared to a 50mm lens of whatever quality is HUGELY different in the feel it gives, here is an example at F4 or slightly wider:

(sorry about the large file but I wanted to make the example obvious)

Medium format can render a scene in a way that is nothing like the human eye sees it, and this is what I find so interesting about the format.

 

[MikeL]

I just like square sometimes. Another boat for Toby.

 

[FrankS]

I'm thinking that we've laid this issue to rest. If Magus were to continue to argue this point, well ...

 

[x-ray]

I shoot both Zeiss and asph Leica glass and also Zeiss T* glass for my Hasselblads. My 4x5 kit consists of glass from the 70's to the current XL Schneider Super Angulon 72mm and my 8x10 kit is vintage glass from the 60's and 70's. As said befor in a small enlargement 35mm holds up fine and in large enlargements the bigger the neg the better. Glass has less to do with tonal gradation and the final look of the print compared to film, processing and the ratio of film size to enlargement. Oh yes let's not forget what it's enlarged on, diffusion, condensor or point source. Certainly as we know lenses have their own signature but to get that rich tonality and smooth gradation with sharpness then the size of the neg is the secret. The larger the neg the less the lens quality needed to look good. I shot for many years with a late 1800's tripple convertible Zeiss Protar 10-1/4 inch on 8x10. It was a stunning lens but not sharp in large enlargements atleast not compared to mosern lenses but in 16x20 it would knock you out and the tonality was spectacular and mainly due to the large film area.

The attached image was shot with the Protar on Tri-X at f 256 for a ten munute exposure. Tonality will kill any 35mm enlargement the same size (8x10).

 

[dreamsandart]

Although I have a selection of Leica cameras and lenses to keep me happy and appreciate the way they can be handled quickly and with fast lenses, when I have been traveling the past 10 years or so the one camera I take is a Rolleiflex 6x6. It just does everything I need and the negatives and positives I get back are just beautiful, a step up from 35mm and something very different at the same time. That little Ziess 75mm is very 'sharp' with good contrast, flare resistant and in general everything I'd want in 'look' WITH a bigger original 'hard-copy'. A well exposed transparency 6x6 on a light table jumps out and can send shivers up my back like no 35mm can.

 

[rxmd]

One thing that's worth adding is that the big advantage for me in 6x7 is the different way a the lenses render a because of the increased focal length for a particular FOV. My standard lens for 6x7 is a 105/2.4 the way this renders a scene at any given aperture compared to a 50mm lens of whatever quality is HUGELY different in the feel it gives, here is an example at F4 or slightly wider:

Thanks for that beautiful shot!
You're using a Pentax 6x7 I assume? That is one of the cameras I've been eyeing rather often...

 

[Toby]

Phillipp

Yes, it's a pentax 6x7, my current favourite camera, and super cheap these days, the set up I was using was about a third of the price of one new leica lens - one of the reasons I've been 'upsizing' my film shooting equipment.

 

[ywenz]

Can never achieve something like this with a Leica...

 

[rxmd]

Yes, it's a pentax 6x7, my current favourite camera, and super cheap these days, the set up I was using was about a third of the price of one new leica lens - one of the reasons I've been 'upsizing' my film shooting equipment.

I've found myself gravitating towards trying it more than once, but I've never used one. How's handholdability with the 6x7? I've read a lot about mirror and shutter slap forcing you to use high shutter speeds. Also the 1/30 flash sync speed would be somewhat limiting (and so is Leica's 1/50).

The main reason why I never got into 6x7 is that I have some excellent cheap East German lenses for 6x6; I could rather see myself getting a $50 Kiev 60, which allows me to continue using the 50/4 and the 180/2.8, than a Pentax 6x7 which would force me to buy new (but excellent) lenses.

Can never achieve something like this with a Leica...

Nice model! I also like the slanted background. Nothing like breaking rules of composition every now and then. Given the context of this thread, was this an MF shot?

Philipp

 

[Finder]

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

Joe, can you lend Frank your Biogon ?

The lens is not going to make 35mm into medium format. I use medium format and I have used high-end modern 35mm lenses. There is still no equality as far as image quality goes as the film size is what makes the difference.

 

[Tuolumne]

It is amazing the convolutions and contortions this thread went through to render this final judgement which is as old as the hills and as true now as it was when the hills were young.

/T

 

[FrankS]

I think post #2 answered the original poster's question.

 

[Toby]

Philipp

As a rule I use 1/250 as my 'safe' hand holding speed with both 165 and 105 lenses. I should add that I have the wooden grip for keeping the camera steady, although I'm not sure how much difference this makes. This is fine for outdoor work with 400 or 100 iso film, depending on light levels. I rarely use on camera flash with this camera because of the 1/30 sync speed, but I bought a large lastolite reflector and a stand which although cumbersome is actually a more pleasing lighting solution outdoors, as I've used this camera primarily for portraits.

 

[Bertram2]

It is amazing the convolutions and contortions this thread went through to render this final judgement which is as old as the hills and as true now as it was when the hills were young.

/T

Maybe this judgement is as old as the hills are, but not everybody knows it. A lack of experience is always helpful when sombody is going to invent the whole photography new.

Bertram

 

[FrankS]

True on both points, Bertram.

 

[ywenz]

Nice model! I also like the slanted background. Nothing like breaking rules of composition every now and then. Given the context of this thread, was this an MF shot?

Philipp

Thanks, this was shot on a Yashica 124G and 400iso film.. a cheapo MF still beats the best of the 35mm offering in image performance.

 

[dnemoc]

A big thanks to Turtle and Philipp for being so methodical and reasonable; I'll have to be a subscriber to this thread simply for the amount of information available here.