[Leica] Leica love fest... from Luminous Landscape!

[jonathan at openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden)]

  Alastair Firkin wrote:

>
> On 26/07/2005, at 4:16 PM, R. Clayton McKee wrote:
>
>
>> On 26 Jul 2005 at 7:05, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> While nobody will dispute the excellence of Leica glass and the  
>>> beauty
>>> of the Leica M concept (that is after all why most of us are  
>>> here), I
>>> don't think the article is particularly good, and the photos used to
>>> illustrate it are mediocre at best (actually I think they are  
>>> pretty awful).
>>>
>>
>> Something about this doesn't ring true.  If the quality of his images
>> is the be-all and end-all of his existence, then why is he working
>> with miniature-format cameras at all?  Certainly Leica lenses are top
>> rank, but the kind of stuff he's shooting is more naturally suited so
>> a larger negative, and 35mm Efke25 behind a `cron, as lovely as it
>> is, is going to be simply blown away by 4x5 Efke25 behind a
>> SuperAngulon or any of  half-dozen other high-end optics.  Can't beat
>> square inches for the kinds of subjects he's shooting.
>>
>
> In general this is true, but there are "problems" with larger  
> format cameras. The real issue is how large do you wish to make a  
> print. At some size, the half frame will look as good as the 4 x 5.  
> Once you have decided on the size you need, go back to your  
> printing chain, work backwards and choose the smallest format which  
> makes the "grade". A smaller format camera has: greater DOF, faster  
> lenes ( and therefore faster shutter speeds), is held more easily  
> on a tripod, can take many images at a faster rate etc. So SIZE  
> does matter ;-)
>

Right. One might speak of the purely technical quality of the image  
but that assumes that one can obtain the image with the equipment.  
For example, it is rather difficult to do street photography with an  
8x10, or to get spontaneous snapshots of children, sports etc.  The  
Leica M has essentially the form factor of a snapshot camera  
(essentially w.r.t. a view camera) but glass that allows as high  
quality photos to be obtained in the 35mm medium.

What might be an interesting comparison would be the quality of  
candle light photos taken with the Nocti vs. say a full frame digital  
sensor. Having used high speed B&W film, I find that I prefer to use  
slower, but higher quality film (e.g. ASA 100) and accept whatever  
blur might occur with a partially moving target e.g. a hand gesture  
as someone is talking. On the other hand, a digital sensor might be  
able to produce less golfball sized grain and better shadow detail  
than a 3200 speed film at a lower IS0 (?)

Jonathan