Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Another Leica vs medium format debate
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:50:09 -0700

Dan,

If you get flamed it would only be by those that do not understand.  As
wonderful as a Leica lens may be, you were 100% correct by stating that
there is no substitute for a larger negative.  Hence the reason there are
still so many medium format cameras such as the 'blad still in widespread
use.

Peter K

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dan S [mailto:dstate1@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 12:32 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Another Leica vs medium format debate


All films and conditions being equal there is no comparison.  You would have

to use a finer grain film in a 35mm format to try to equal the results from 
a Hassleblad 6x6. There is no substitution for a larger negative.

If you are trying to APPROXIMATE 6x6 results try using Kodak Tech pan film 
rated at ASA25.  This is the finest grain, highest resolution film 
available, exceeding the best lens' resolving power.  For color try 
Kodachrome 25.  That said, at 16x20 you will start to see the slight grain 
pattern even with the 25 speed films.  A tripod will be necessary of course,

which tends to negate the size advantages of 35mm.

I'll probably get flamed for this but if you are really picky about maximum 
image quality and portability is not an issue go for the Hassleblad.

Best wishes
Dan



>I'd be interested in how you feel about 16X20 prints from Leica versus
>Hblad, all films etc being equal. Also, what films would tend to minimize
>the grain and resolution differences between the two systems.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com