Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:25 PM 11/27/96 +0100, you wrote: >3. Yes, the larger negative area of the 120 format allows for a much larger >print, when both formats are enlarged to the same degree. The Pentax versus >Leica comparison used a section of 30x40 *INCH* were I used *30x40* CM. >Thats a factor of 2,5 more. I also stated that at enlargements that big the >Leica could not compete with the 120 format. There is no disagreement here. Yes, someone else pointed this out too. I was careless in reading your post. Though I haven't done the test at 16 x 20 ", it seems to me, as I said, that at that size there's quite a noticable difference between 35 and 6 x 7. >4.The point I would like to make is that at moderate enlargements the Leica >is on a par with the H'blad as far as image recording capabilities are >concerned. I don't doubt that. I feel, though, that the post you did creates the impression that 35 really can produce as well as MF. I think that would only be true for up to about 11 X 14 ", as you suggest, and so MF certainly does have its place, if you want big enlargements. You might be interested to know that a well-known landscape photographer, Robert Glenn Ketchum, switched from 4 x 5 view camera to the Pentax 67, and, at a retrospective of his work I visited, challenged me to pick out the chronological point at which he made the switch. His point was that with the improvements in both lenses and film, 20 year old large format shots were no better than contemporary 6 x 7. Of course these improvements have their effects on 35 too! Thanks for your posts. You always teach me something.--Charlie Charles E. Love, Jr. CEL14@CORNELL.EDU