Re: H'blad vs Leica

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

This post quite surprises me.  I did a similar experiment with a Leica R
camera with a 50 mm. Summicron vs. a Pentax 67 with 105 mm. lens--large
tripod, great care, etc.--to find out whether the Pentax would represent a
real gain before buying one.  In my case I used Kodachrome 64--a film that
was available in both 35 and MF in those days (pre-Velvia).  Prints were
made using Cibachrome paper, on the same enlarger and by the same person,
and I had the center section of both images enlarged as if they were part of
a 30 X 40 inch print.  To put it bluntly, there was no contest--anyone could
see the difference, which was in favor of the Pentax.  

I respect Mr. Puts a great deal, and so I have been trying to think of
reasons for these results.  Several possibilities come to mind:  First, the
Pentax produces a much larger negative/transparency if you consider the area
you actually print--if you print to fill the paper, the Hasselblad is
actually a 6x4.5cm., while the Pentax is a 6x7--a real difference.  Also,
the Hasselblad 80 is an old design, and according to no less a theorist than
Ernst Wildi (from whom I took a workshop once) not their best lens by a long
shot (he said that the 110 mm. f2 for the focal plane Blads was a lot
better).  Despite their low prices, some of the Pentax lenses are very
competitive with the best.  (I should add that I have recently obtained a
Mamiya 7, and its lenses are fabulous.  The Mamiya 6 has a 50 mm. lens that
has reached legendary status--many say better than the Blad equivalent.)

I have used Medium Format for a while now, and I think it's ahead of 35 in
both rendition of detail and smoothness, as well as lack of grain.  You can
really see the difference in grain, even with slow film, if your image
contains a uniform surface like the sky.  I have lots of Cibas done from K64
in 35 that go up to 13 1/2 x 20 (I usually print full frame) and they look
very good, but you can see the difference between one of these and a MF 16 x
20 quite easily, in my opinion.  The difference is just as apparent with
Velvia, my current film of choice for landscape photography (and a film that
is finer-grained than K64).

Obviously 35 has many uses where MF would be inappropriate--this isn't a
putdown of Leica.  I'm also quite aware that the best 35 lenses put more
lines on the paper than the best MF lenses.  But the huge difference in
negative size (especially with 6 x 7) just has to, and does, make a
difference, I think.


At 08:13 PM 11/26/96 +0100, you wrote:
(I cut some of this, but I think the main point is still made, for those who
didn't see the full post--CL)
>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 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.
Charles E. Love, Jr.
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU