Sean Moran
Established
I was in Madrid for the first time, a few weeks ago.
One evening, near the Prado museum, I took a photograph with a 1956 Leica M3 + Rigid Summicron 50. The sun was at a low angle, illuminating a fountain beautifully as its rays passed through an avenue of trees - contre jour.
Immediately, I resolved to return the next evening at the same time, bringing along a newly-acquired 1955 Rolleicord, with a very clean Xenar lens.
So I did.
On my return to Tipperary, Ireland (a long way), I printed up both of the photographs and asked a few random friends and colleagues which one they preferred.
Every single person preferred the Leica photograph. All had different reasons, but their choice was unanimous.
Now, as I said, this was not a scientific text. Apart from the scene being pretty much the same on both evenings, and the paper being glossy Ilford Multigrade, there were many confounding variables. The Leica contained Tri-X; the Rolleicord HP5+. The Leica negative was printed through a Leica lens; the Rolleicord through a Schneider Componon.
But, it did tell me that I needn't take a Rolleicord on international trips to photograph the kinds of things that the TLR is reputed to be good at (scenes), as well as the rangefinder for things that it is good at (street). The Leica is good enough for both.
What, then, is the Rolleicord for?
Suggestions welcome.
Sean.
One evening, near the Prado museum, I took a photograph with a 1956 Leica M3 + Rigid Summicron 50. The sun was at a low angle, illuminating a fountain beautifully as its rays passed through an avenue of trees - contre jour.
Immediately, I resolved to return the next evening at the same time, bringing along a newly-acquired 1955 Rolleicord, with a very clean Xenar lens.
So I did.
On my return to Tipperary, Ireland (a long way), I printed up both of the photographs and asked a few random friends and colleagues which one they preferred.
Every single person preferred the Leica photograph. All had different reasons, but their choice was unanimous.
Now, as I said, this was not a scientific text. Apart from the scene being pretty much the same on both evenings, and the paper being glossy Ilford Multigrade, there were many confounding variables. The Leica contained Tri-X; the Rolleicord HP5+. The Leica negative was printed through a Leica lens; the Rolleicord through a Schneider Componon.
But, it did tell me that I needn't take a Rolleicord on international trips to photograph the kinds of things that the TLR is reputed to be good at (scenes), as well as the rangefinder for things that it is good at (street). The Leica is good enough for both.
What, then, is the Rolleicord for?
Suggestions welcome.
Sean.
msbarnes
Well-known
Taking pictures.
No seriously, if you're more comfortable with your Leica then maybe you're a Leica/RF/35mm type-of-guy. I have Rollei's and Leicas and I like them both for different reasons.
Denton
Established
MF lens vs. RF lens?
MF lens vs. RF lens?
Maybe DOF was better suited to shorter fl lens?
I find I compose differently with TLR vs Rangefinder vs SLR. Funny, but I see quite differently. Wish I could carry all three!
Denton
MF lens vs. RF lens?
Maybe DOF was better suited to shorter fl lens?
I find I compose differently with TLR vs Rangefinder vs SLR. Funny, but I see quite differently. Wish I could carry all three!
Denton
Vics
Veteran
Were they both printed full frame? The leica rectangle and the Rollei square? That could explain it. The rectangle has more inherent energy.
Gumby
Veteran
Which is better -- an apple or an orange?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Gumby
Veteran
34567890
froyd
Veteran
Could you post scans of both prints? It won't be the best sense of what the actual prints look like, but it would answer some of the cropping, framing, DOF questions.
FrankS
Registered User
Yeah, pictures or it didn't happen.
goffer
Well-known
My guess is the square format threw them off
Dan Daniel
Well-known
I also prefer Tri-X over HP5 in gelatin prints, pretty well every time....
raphaelaaron
Well-known
i would agree that you should show the pictures. it'd help make the unscientific part a little more scientific.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Different cameras for different personalities and ways of working.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
"Confounding variables." Sean, are you trained in research methodology and statistics? Sounds like it. OK here's another variable: Which picture did you like best? That one should receive a strong weighting factor!
Richard G
Veteran
I am waiting on the mail for my first TLR. Have I made a terrible mistake.....????? Not likely. The square format, higher resolution, tonal gradation, lower vantage point, slower working method, choice of subject are all likely to lead to satisfaction with the camera I suspect.
Indeed, the very experiment itself is in some ways flawed as it would be unusual to be taking the same scene in different formats, and knowing you were and knowing you'd have both, you invested less in each, and the Xenar Rollei came second, an anticlimax...
Indeed, the very experiment itself is in some ways flawed as it would be unusual to be taking the same scene in different formats, and knowing you were and knowing you'd have both, you invested less in each, and the Xenar Rollei came second, an anticlimax...
zauhar
Veteran
Suggestion - crop the M3 image square before you post it.
Randy
Randy
Vics
Veteran
NO!!!! We want to see what he showed people, so we can judge their reactions!
Richard G
Veteran
The next experiment should make use of four cameras. Two identical Leicas and two identical Rolleicords. Have an assistant load one Leica and one Rollei with the same film, and the other two cameras should be loaded with a roll of heat damaged or other film. A coded master file should be locked in a filing cabinet at a separate location with the key to which camera has which film.
You should have a $100 bet with two separate photographers about how good an image you are going to get. This adds incentive. You should go with you assistant and the four cameras to an ideal location and make the picture, knowing that possibly only one shot will work out. The assistant randomly chooses one of the Leicas and one of the Rolleis for the shoot. You should repeat the exercise five times.
This way you are likely (<0.05 chance of failure) to have two images from the two different cameras at the same location and time, even though you will have taken each shot as though it will be the only worthwhile picture on that occasion.
Then crop as Randy mentioned.
Let us know how it goes.
You should have a $100 bet with two separate photographers about how good an image you are going to get. This adds incentive. You should go with you assistant and the four cameras to an ideal location and make the picture, knowing that possibly only one shot will work out. The assistant randomly chooses one of the Leicas and one of the Rolleis for the shoot. You should repeat the exercise five times.
This way you are likely (<0.05 chance of failure) to have two images from the two different cameras at the same location and time, even though you will have taken each shot as though it will be the only worthwhile picture on that occasion.
Then crop as Randy mentioned.
Let us know how it goes.
benlees
Well-known
I think it goes with out saying that either camera is capable of shooting a multitude of different scenes. Back to your question; the square can be harder to nail composition? Who knows? Rolleicord is cheap and cheerful? All things being equal you will get bigger prints from the Rollei.
It's funny, though. I saw an exhibit years a go that featured Robert Capa and Gerda Taro. Taro used a Rolleiflex (?) and Capa used you-know-what. Taro's pictures really looked good and Capa's were good, too. But they lacked something. End of science lessons!
It's funny, though. I saw an exhibit years a go that featured Robert Capa and Gerda Taro. Taro used a Rolleiflex (?) and Capa used you-know-what. Taro's pictures really looked good and Capa's were good, too. But they lacked something. End of science lessons!
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Blow them both up to 30" and see which one people like more.
Enlargement and the ability to hold detail far past what 35mm can is one main strength of medium format.
Phil Forrest
Enlargement and the ability to hold detail far past what 35mm can is one main strength of medium format.
Phil Forrest