Re: [Leica] apo 90 versus 4/150

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

A regular on an IRC chat room I frequent has chellenged me to compare a
print he made with his 4x5 camera (and lens of his choice) to one made with
my APO 90 M lens (on 35mm film, obviously).  My counter offer to him would
be to have him choose the best 1 square inch from his best 4x5 negative,
enlarge that to 10" x 10", and I'll do the same with a square inch from a
negative shot with my 90.   My gut instinct would be that the Leica image
will win hands down, but I don't think he will accept such a counter offer.

Dan C.

At 09:36 AM 19-03-00 +0000, Mike Johnston wrote:
>>>>I did say that Leica pictures deliver comparable quality
>and sometimes under suitable conditions may challenge 120 format
>pictures up to 12 times enlargement. An enlargement from a Leica
>negative to a format of 12x16inch is a factor of 12, The same print
>for a 120-negative is an enlargement of 5 to 6 times. If under these
>unfavorable conditions a Leica print can be compared favorably to a
>Hasselblad print speaks very well for Leica lenses.<<<
>
>
>
>Our research specifically and conclusively disproves the above
>statements. We made the prints, and showed them to a panel of viewers.
>The viewers decisively and overwhelmingly chose the medium-format prints
>as being of higher quality at this size. The above conclusion therefore
>does not stand up to experimental corroboration.
>
>To reiterate the test conditions:
>
>The same scene was shot with a Leica M6 and 50mm Summicron lens very
>securely affixed to a very heavy tripod. Exposures were made at f/8 on
>Kodak Ektar 25 film. Prints were made in a very well equipped
>professional darkroom on an Omega D5 Dichroic with Chromegatrol and
>Apo-Rodagon 90mm lens (yes--the original one). Scenes were chosen that
>did not create problems for the inherently high contrast of this film.
>
>These were compared to prints made from negatives made with a Pentax 6x7
>camera and 90/2.8 lens, on 100-speed Kodak VPS, handheld. These
>negatives were printed with the same enlarger on the same paper.
>
>I.e., the small-format prints were optimized for image quality, and the
>medium-format prints weren't.
>
>Viewers included professional photographers, photography students,
>professional visual arts people such as art directors and graphic
>designers, and non-photographers. We didn't direct their conclusions--we
>simply asked them to choose which print they thought had "better
>quality" however they chose to define it.
>
>At smaller than 8x10 sizes the 35mm prints won. At 8x10 it was a wash.
>By 11x14 there was a preference for the medium-format prints, but it was
>not overwhelming (although the professionals more clearly preferred the
>medium-format prints). By 16x20--it was very close to 12X--everyone
>chose the medium-format prints. We didn't make prints larger than that.
>
>Incidentally, we did the same experiments comparing 6x7 and 4x5, with
>very interesting results, but that's OT for this forum.
>
>I'm sympathetic to the temptation to compare things like MTF percentages
>and extropolate out to what "should be" the case, but it amounts to
>wishful thinking--more careful research than that is required to find
>the truth. There is more to "print quality" than lp/mm.
>
>--Mike
>
>
>