Medium format equivalent of Leica rf and...

[FrankS]

Any of the MF cameras mentioned so far will outperform any Leica with any Lieca lens in terms of image quality (grain, tonality, etc.)

Leicas will excell in handheld low light situations.

 

[Meleica]

Any SLR would be anti-Leica RF, wouldnt it ?

 

[oftheherd]

I'm certainly not going to start a heated argument over this, just want to state my disagreement with this opinion. Could not leave that uncontested.

Have to agree with Frank. Nobody doubts the quality of Hasselblad glass. But I never new anybody who doubted the MF glass of any of the major brands. Pentax, Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, they all have/had good glass. I can vouch for the Mamiya glass for the Universal/Super Press 23. I would be surprised if they lessened the quality for the Mamiya 6/7 cameras. Fuji glass has gained respect in recent years that it never got for its 35mm cameras when they were new. Look at the current prices.

And anyone who stated that Hasselblad glass had twice the resolution (by the way, that is usually in lines per mm) of other glass has a problem. Was the Hasselblad twice the rental fee of any other system by any chance? I never saw any charts that indicated that. Even so, to each his own. I am personally just not buying any of those wolf tickets.

And as others have stated, with the larger negative, even though the MF glass may well give less resolution, it works out giving better photos with more detail. I have always read that holds true as you work your way up the format scale.

 

[benm3]

It's just false to claim that a leica will produce a better image than a medium format camera-- verifiably false. Perhaps leica people need to believe that they have cameras better than medium format system, so they can justify the outlandish cost of their little itty-bitty cameras. Have you noticed that a used M6 body costs more than a used Mamiya 7 with lens? I simply don't understand that. Leica lenses can be faster than a lot of Medium format lenses, but the image quality of a leica simply cannot compare to the image quality of medium format. This is not just my opinon--it is a verifiable scientific fact.

 

[Harry Lime]

I agree about the Zeiss (Hasselblad, Rollei etc) glass performing above the average MF glass. I have a Hassy and Rolleiflex and have shot Mamiya at work and I can see a difference. The Zeiss glass really is sharper and delivers more snap.

That said the sharpest set of lenses for MF are those for the Mamiya 7 RF. They match or even edge out some of the Zeiss glass and deliver resolution and contrast figures that you normally only see in the best 35mm glass.

 

[clintock]

Rolleiflex, Rolleicord with Tessar, Xenar or better.

 

[jamiewakeham]

Have you noticed that a used M6 body costs more than a used Mamiya 7 with lens? I simply don't understand that.

Same reason that a laptop costs more than an equally powerful PC. It gets harder to fit all that stuff into a smaller space.

Or, to put it another way, you don't need to engineer an MF lens to give as good resolution as a 35mm lens; you just don't need it. Maybe Hasselblad lenses have it (I don't know) but unless you want to print photo wallpaper it's probably overkill.

I quite like my choices. Arax - high resolution but heavy and slow. RFs or 35mm SLR - lower resolution but light and fast. Pick your tools. Some people choose to pay the premium for high(ish) resolution and light and fast. I can't afford to, but hey.


Jamie

 

[jaffa_777]

How cool would it be if Leica made a medium format rangefinder body and lenses with all the leica attributes and styling. Be pretty expensive though considering what leica already charges for their 35mm gear.

That said, I am really enjoying my Mamiya 6's. It isn't zeiss glass in the terms of delicate smooth colours, bokeh and rendering, but they are blistering sharp and contrasty. I can hang one over each shoulder and walk around no problems, and can shoot down to 1/30th and still get a sharp picture handheld. You couldn't do these things with a Hassy.

Who's saying Hassleblad/Zeiss glass has twice the resolution?

 

[FrankS]

Who's saying Hassleblad/Zeiss glass has twice the resolution?

Someone heard it from someone else! I don't believe it, and I own one. Both my Mamiya 6 and Rollei 3.5E Planar gave sharper results than my H-blad.

(This is no where near a heated argument.)

 

[FrankS]

Within the next few days, I'll be printing up some family portraits done with both H-blad and Bronica RF645. I'll get back to you then about results. One has to remember that the Mamiya 6 and 7, and the Bronica RF645 are fairly recent cameras/lenses. H-blad did have a superior reputation among MF cameras many years ago. Not so much lately, I think.

 

[Solinar]

NickTrop - If one is considering the Barnack philosophy of "a small pocketable camera which can easily be taken everywhere" I would recommend a restored MF folder

So nice of you to mention a couple of fine high end medium format folders with CRF. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are in the Barnack tradition, because the concept pre-dates Leica, but they are portable.

On folders, I will point out that, if one is coming to the table from a Leica M6 or newer rangefinder , they'll have a bit of an adjustment curve ahead of them.

The Mamiya 6 and 7 series while not as portable are definitely in the Leica tradition of late. Mamiya's lenses resolve better than any folder I've ever used or have a need for printing an 11 by 17 print.

Dan - that last photo is stunningly beautiful.

 

[Meleica]

Which lens produces the actual highest resolution is pretty irrelevant to me - the larger neg will more than compensate for modest resolution differences. I speak from MY experiences with Leica, Fuji 645, Fuji 690 and Pentax 67.

If the end result is a 16 x20 inch print ( MY favorite ), the med format negs ( even 645 ) have surpassed MY Leica negs at this size print. Not only do I feel the overall resolution is better, but the tonality is not even close at 16x20.

Having said that, I would say the Leica lenses ( pre ASPH ) do produce a nice 3-D effect that is absent from most of my Med format negs...

Just my experiences.
Dan

PS - at the risk of really starting a feud, I'd go so far as to say my Canon Rebel XTi with 50mm 1.4 produces better PRINTS than my Leica.... but thats another thread :>

PPS - thanks Solinar!

 

[Solinar]

Who's saying Hassleblad/Zeiss glass has twice the resolution?

Zeiss glass of old has a certain balance, especially with regards to resolution and contrast. It is quite pleasing in B/W. The look is definitely less clinical than some of today's smart performers.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

The Fuji GS645 folder fits in a large pocket but doesn't handle like a 35mm.
The Bronica RF645 handles like a 35mm camera, but is not pocketable.

Chris

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Having been through nearly all the 120 RF models i would say the Plaubel Makina's are the closest in use to the Leica M's i use. The 80/2.8 lens collapses into the body and the Nikkor lens is very sharp @2.8 and the focus thumb-wheel surrounding the shutter button makes the shooting operation very fast. And it has a built in 5 degree spot meter. FOV is approx 40mm on a 35mm. Another interesting variant is the Plaubel Makina W67 with a Nikkor 55/4 lens but this is a very expensive camera on the used market. I much prefer the Plaubels to the Mamiya 6 and 7i and ii's which i've owned.

The Fugi 690's and 670's are another camera all together (fantastic lenses) but these are not as compact as the Plaubel and Mamiya 6's (which are both collapsible making them good 35mm RF companions) making the choice of camera bag bigger and heavier - not always a practical option for me.

 

[schaubild]

Modern MF cameras deliver normally very good quality on film, the rule bigger is better definitively works here. And the Mamiya 7 is well known for its outstanding optics. The Fuji 690 RF's have a good reputation as well. If you go for maximum quality, then Alpa comes into play, but at a price 🙂

To see quality differences between brands at that level you have to compare original size prints with identical shots, identical workflow, side by side. Then the differences become obvious.

 

[Finder]

I'm certainly not going to start a heated argument over this, just want to state my disagreement with this opinion. Could not leave that uncontested.

I second Franks opinion. Also lab techs are not the greatest authority on optics.

 

[dnemoc]

I'm glad that my inquiry resulted in this rigorous conversation. There is a lot of insight, perhaps a little argumentative (that's natural), and very enjoyable to go through.

Anyone who is interested in MF would have to forego portability, unless a folder is one of the options. Personally I don't like folders, particularly in extremely humid conditions the bellows will quickly get infected by fungi.

The debate of 35mm vs MF is quite unfounded; each has its own place, demands, philosophy, and usage. I simply started the thread with identifying an `equivalent' system, or one that comes closest to Leica, as my objective, in terms of quality of glass and not portability and other obvious differences between 35mm and MF.

There is also a clear distinction between Zeiss glass and Leica glass, those who understand will perhaps just characterize them by simply ``Zeiss'' and ``Leica'' instead of going deeper and adding further epithets to them 🙂. It's my personal opinion, going by the pictures I've seen, that the latest Mamiya glass comes closest to mimicking the Leica characteristics that I've seen in 35mm actual Leica glass. But my opinion formed simply seeing the pictures; actually experimenting with lenses is a complicated and challenging matter, keeping identical conditions throughout all tests, etc, and I certainly haven't seen such a scientific comparison before.

I'm eager to see where we go from here. This is developing into a nice thread 🙂

 

[Finder]

If you are to compare resolutions between formats, you must also be aware that resolving power requirements are not the same. Nor do they need to be. My old Optar on 4x5 film will make an image with more detail than the 35mm Hexanon on my Hexar AF, even though the Hexar lens has higher resolution. There are not absolutes here.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

To be honest my pathway through the 120 rangefinder models in the last 20 odd, years wasn't based on sharpness and lens performance per se (especially when i'd been used to the Type 55 Polaroids with a working a practical ASA of 12 and negs from a 10" x 8" ) it was more to do with the handling, versatility and speed when actually using them in the field to make pictures. All of the 120 RF's i've used have delivered good results and yielded 20" x 24" prints with ease. It's their day to day practicality that counts for me. I like the fixed lens 120 RF's they force you to work with one FOV - sadly not all of them are easy to handhold in poor light. This is where 35 RF's with fast glass excel.