Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/04/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]4Season wrote: > > Uh, what's the point of this experiment, and if Leica had a better wideangle > lens, would you buy only Leica's lens, even though you really wanted to use > it with some of the Hasselblad's features? I use these two systems very > differently: If that were not the case, I would've long since decided on one > or the other, and been done with it. > > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > >> Hasselblad versus Leica lenses > >am heavy into both and would think this would be a great setup to find > >out. My money would be on the Blad with their unfair size advantage and > >non hurting glass but it could be close. > >If it were 20 by 24 I would put big money down on the Blad if I were a > >betting man which I'm not. If the quality if Leica is improving so that the quality of a decently sized print is indistinguishable from Blads you could sell your Blads or you Leica's. The Design of the Blad makes you use if differently but you'd use it much differently if you didn't have it cause you didn't need it. I think there are optical reasons in a Medium Format Neg that makes it hard to contend with in these ultimate quality comparisons with 35. Even a cheaper Medium format system might produce a result that would stand ahead of 35, even new ASHP Leica 35. The way to know is someone makes the prints and sticks them up on the wall and the evidence is there. I like the idea of the point source and Tech Film. I might usually use 4oo and a softlight but I like to know what the bottom line is. Mark Rabiner ...DoRD Department of Redundancy Department