[Leica] Big blowup format comparisons

[Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>]

Mitch Alland wrote:
> 
> Mike:
> 
> Mike Johnston >>>>My opinion is that, using the same film,
> >with both cameras on a tripod,
> >and both negatives enlarged with careful technique to more-or-less
> >16x20, that most people would pick the medium-format print as being of
> >"higher optical quality" or "higher print quality" however they
> >may choose to define it.
><Snip> 
> Now, many people will say that some prints look better smaller while others look better larger. That may be true, but how can one charterize precisely the type of print that looks better smaller and the type that looks better larger -- and is there likely to be consenses on these specific characteristics? Moreover, I suppose that these characteristics would differ depending whether were talking about photographs that are: (1) fine grain b&w, (2) coarse grain b&w, or (3) color.
> 
> -Mitch

In response to Mitch and Mike and Erwin on this big blowup trans format
comparison thing:
My 90 is the current Elmarit. It is exquisite. Much better than my previous
Nikons quality certainly the zooms.
Better than my 150 Sonar for the Blad?  Boy! I don't think upgrading my Elmarit
to the newer modern APO Summicron or upgrading my 150 Sonnar to the newer better
180 is going to make any difference. It's 35 against medium format. And I think
there istoo much catching up to do.

I've made hundreds to thousands of 16x20's from both 35mm and Hasselblad and
Rolleiflex. And hundreds of 20x24's. From color neg, color positive and fiber
black and white. And a couple of nice stacks of color 30x40's.
The 35mm camera is a completely viable instrument for producing these sized images.
We can go to our local rental lab the U Develop here in Portland Oregon and
stand by the machine and watch the prints come out and wonder what format they
were shot with. Sometimes as the person grabs their print and ask and it turns
out I was wrong.
But I've never seen 35mm surpass medium format in quality at the larger sizes.
The lenses may resolve more but they have more blowing up to do on thinner film.
Perhaps Erwin can give us the numbers how these numbers translate.
I've shot with the same 150 f4 Sonnar lens for 20 years and just got it back
from a CLA.
Do I think (despite Erwin saying so) that any 35mm lens is going to outdo this
lens? That's a hard one. Sure they will resolve more. But on a much smaller
chunk of film
I've done plenty of jobs in which I ended up with a stack of 16x20's both from
the Hassy and the Nikon.
There was not an extreme comparison. Certain prints were not putting others to
shame on the quality end
But for any 35mm camera to surpass what I get from my Hasselblad in a large
print I'm gonna expect thunder and lighting and earthquakes and a name change.
All that curvy film stuff does not add up to a hill of beans!
Mark Smageler