[Leica] Re: 35mm vs. 120

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Peter Jon White:
>>>Indeed. Comparisons between formats are silly, and I've made the same
silly comparison in the past. There are things you can do with larger
formats; the tilts and shifts available in a 4x5, the larger print
sizes, etc. that are impossible with a Leica. But these are at the cost
of portability and hand-holdability. I can get astonishing "apparent"
depth of field with my 4x5 and 210mm lens shooting a landscape. But it
takes a minimum of 10 minutes to set up the shot, (usually more like
20). Try hand-holding a Wisner Classic!<<<


But try to remember the context. Erwin said that, to see the superiority
of Leica lenses on paper (i.e., in prints), you need either a very good
eye or you need to enlarge the negative past 12X, i.e., larger than
12x18.

Wouldn't that be similar to saying that if you never enlarge past 8x12,
you will never see the optical superiority of Leica lenses?

Incidentally, as I said, I don't agree with that statement.

However, assuming the statement is true, and you expect to enlarge to
12X or more on a regular basis, it is indisputable that larger formats
yield still greater image quality at these sizes. So Leica loses either
way--because by this argument, there is a way to achieve image quality
that is equal to, or greater than, the quality afforded by Leica lenses,
whether you make large or small enlargements.

I don't quite buy your point about larger formats being so much harder
to use. Have you ever used the Fuji 645 AF cameras? They're as handy and
portable as most 35mms. In any case, didn't Erwin specify that you must
use a tripod and a slow film to get the best out of the Leica lenses at
12X enlargements? So your argument about the "portability and
hand-holdability" of the 35mm camera, while true generally, doesn't
pertain in the present discussion, does it?

- --Mike