H'blad vs Leica

[imxputs@knoware.nl (Erwin Puts/imX)]

Brad,
I did a thorough investigation in the comparative merits of Leica versus
Hasselblad. The test parameters:
A Hasselblad with 2,8/80 and a Leica 9M6) with Summicron 2,0/50. The leica
was operated by me, the 'blad by a professional and experienced 'blad user
for more than 15 years. The film: Ilford Delta 100, the developer Paterson
FX39 (the best you can buy). We photographed the same objects (landscapes,
architecture) in exactly the same position, side by side under identical
lightning and with the same exposure (measured with a hand held meter of
high reputation). A use of a tripod was mandatory.
All films were developed in the same tank, so gamma values etc are identical.
Negatives were exposed in the same enlarger, same quality lenses
(Schneider) and on the same paper.
The negatives were enlarged to the same picture area (30x40cm). The Leica
14 times and the Hasselblad 8 times. Then the results were presented to a
group of people who knew of the experiment but did not know which picture
was taken with what camera. Every one failed to see ANY difference between
the prints.
Of course, if you would blow up the Hasselblad neg to 14 times you would
get a larger print with the same quality as the Leica has at 30x40cm. But
most people would consider a 30x40 print acceptable for exhibition work.
If anything the Leica pictures were a shade sharper, but the Hasselblad had
a very slight edge in smoothness of grain in the highlights.
To conclude: in order to get top quality from 35mm negatives you have to
work at the limits of your own capablities and at equipmemt limits. And use
100ISO material. With 400 ISO the Leica is at a distinct disadvantage.
The same top quality with the Hasselblad is relatively easy. So if your
working methods are a little relaxed and you would like top quality, the
Hasselblad is unbeatable.
Hope this helps. Do not hesitate to ask more info if needed.
Greetings
Erwin Puts