[Leica] 35 mm format is best?

[jsmith342 at gmail.com (Jeffery Smith)]

I'm with you on that. If the most important facet is high resolution, 
Panatomic x might still be on the shelves. And Holga would be a very bad 
idea that never materialized.

Jeffery


On Aug 26, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:

> Mark scribbles:
> 
> 1x crop is what Barnack would be shooting if he was cruising the streets of
> 
> Wetzlar and Cologne (K?ln) right now.
> 
> 
> If you guys were shooting film would you be out with a stupid Minox?!?!?!
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> Give it up Mark. The differences in format sizes that you are obsessing
> about are almost irrelevant. Next you will be arguing about how many angels
> can dance on the point of a pin. But don't worry, Mark. Your position as 
> the
> LUGs "stone in the shoe" is secure.
> 
> 
> There is no particular photographic or aesthetic merit in the standard 35 
> mm
> frame size even though some of us fetishise it. Remember that Oskar Barnack
> settled on the 24x36 mm frame size simply so he could use leftover lengths
> of 35 mm movie film in a camera small enough for an asthmatic engineer to
> carry on hikes. He considered the ur-Leica to be a personal camera small
> enough to be carried in a coat pocket. In much the same way Walter Zapp
> designed the Minox as a personal aide memoire camera small enough to be
> carried in a watch pocket. Neither intended their cameras to be a great
> pictorial instruments.
> 
> 
> Extraordinary means have to be used with Leica sized film images to get
> better than just adequate photographs. I'm  impressed by most Leica 
> pictures
> posted in the LUG Gallery but Lug members tend to be much better than
> average photographers and are dedicated to achieving the best possible
> technical results. When the present supply of Leica lenses has crumbled 
> into
> dust, photo historians will treat the 35 mm frame size as just one step in
> the reduction of image sensing formats from full plate to the future
> equivalent of miniature size.
> 
> 
> No REAL photographer still using film would shoot important commercial work
> or landscapes with anything smaller than medium or large format. Every type
> of camera has it's nitch. Exceptional photographs have been taken with
> cameras of all sizes, even Minoxes. If you don't believe that, check out 
> the
> results of a photo contest just posted on today's Submini-L group at
> YahooGroups.com.
> 
> 
> http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
> 
> 
> But cameras of whatever size are just tools, photographic enablers which
> realize images already in the mind of the photographer. Just as you 
> wouldn't
> use a sledge hammer to drive a tack, you wouldn't use a tack hammer to 
> drive
> a railroad spike.
> 
> 
> If you don't believe the vitriol aimed at the 35 mm format, just read the
> Medium Format and Large Format web sites. They read exactly like your
> comments about the toy like 4/3 format. Even for digital, if the 24x36
> format was big enough, why would Leica have developed the S2?
> 
> 
> I'm sure that by now I have irritated most members of the LUG. It helps to
> remember that the Leica is just a camera, not a religious icon.
> 
> 
> Larry Z
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information