Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As someone who has been a long-time Leica shooter and a once-upon-a-time Hasselblad owner/user/fan I think that this whole topic is a) argument for arguments sake, b) painfully obvious, and c) wholly irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that most of the LUGGER's would agree, while looking at 2 16x20 prints, one produced with a Leica and one from a Hasselblad, that on purely technical grounds the 2-1/4 will win. It'll appear to be sharper, will contain a greater depth of detail, and, probably, smoother tonal gradation. But in the end there are reasons why we've chosen to use 35 mm, and those reasons hold regardless. It's hard to imagine Cartier-Bresson's images shot with anything other that 35mm -- just as it would be difficult to see Ansel Adams' using a 35 for his specific type of landscape work. In short, I think we all kind of know that AT THE SAME SIZE PRINT, the Hasselblad will beat our beloved Leica. Question is... so what?