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: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:05:33 -0700

Matthews Brian wrote:
> 
> 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.

Despite what the Leica Rep. used to say. The Image a I get from the Hblad (nice
abreave.!) are noticeably better at 16 by 20 with the same film then with even
the Leica at 35mm. It just doesn't matter how great a lens is we are talking
real estate. And if a lens really could make that much a difference which in an
ultra extreme example we are starting out with Zeiss. And if you think they are
beatable or not they are not going to be beatabel by much.

Using slow film in the comparison test might minimize the differences because
although you are staring at the full resolution of both systems. If they are
both virtually grainless that is the biggest thing that pops out at you: the
grain. No grain, no big thing pops out at you. But a larger format looks richer
and smoother as well as sharper that there is a highlight creaminess which is
really evident as you step up into Brownie film and then sheet film.

But this issue is: do you have a shot to print?
I just did a job in which the client picked 3 images from the Leica Contact
sheet. The two sheets shot with the Hblad were too "stiff." I should have blown
one up anyway although they were 8 by 10's to see that difference as I shot TriX
400 with both and souped both in the same tank at the same time in Xtol.
I think I will tomorrow.

Mark Rabiner