Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] leica vs medium format
From: Summicron1@aol.com
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 11:28:00 EDT

ted wrote:
I believe we would have to concede the larger neg should yield the finer 
grained image in the general sense. However using extra fine grain film for 
35 to a medium emulsion Hassie film we might find the prints of equal 
credibility.

But then any comparison in this kind of camera/film to camera/film only 
works under a controlled situation. Otherwise it's a lot of airtime for 
nothing.

i couldn't agree more. I just got back from shooting the Grand Tetons and, 
yes, took my R3 and a variety of lenses for hiking purposes. Can't beat the 
mobility.

But for tripod-mounted shooting where mobility was not an issue I used my 
Graflex XL and 6X7 film backs and 100mm Zeiss Tessar lens. Bulky, slow, 
ponderous, but versitile in the extreme and the negatives (EK 100 and XP2) 
will be able to be enlarged into astonishing prints without having to do the 
technical gymnastics that you need to come near to that same quality with a 
35 mm system.

so, as the man says, it is apples and oranges. You must first decide what 
kind of shooting you want to do, then decide what tool you  need to do it, 
then get the best you can afford. Any auto mechanic knows this, why don't 
photographers?

charlie trentelman
ogden, Utah