Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/01[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
>enlarged more than E-6 films. Much more. It is highly >questionable whether even a 120 film with Zeiss or >other good lenses can actually outperform the L/K >combo. This is an interesting question. Back when Kodak made Kodachrome 64 in both 35 and 2 1/4 sizes, I owned both a Leica R4 and a Hasselblad with an array of lenses. I had a Leica RT-300 projector and a Hasselblad 2 1/4 projector. I feel that the camera quality, lens quality, projector and projector lens quality were on a par. I had been shooting some 2 1/4 before 120 Kodachrome came out and when it did I shot a series of pictures with each camera with 64 Kodachrome and projected them side by side. I was surprised that the 2 1/4 didn't blow the 35mm away. As a matter of fact in many cases I thought that the 35 was better and had more detail. It was than that I decided to sell the 2 1/4 equipment and stick to 35mm. My wife has a sight problem and that is the reason we project our slides - she couldn't tell the difference and I was tired of glass mounting the 2 1/4. This was not in any way a scientific test, merely of the way I took pictures. I wondered at the times whether the 64 Kodachrome film was the same for both the 35 and the 2 1/4. However, I sure liked that prints from negative film with the 2 1/4. If I only shot print film I probably would have stayed with the Hassy. Your statement above brought back some old memories. Dick Hemingway Plano, TX P.S. I have been using Kodachrome over 50 years and love it. Not being a commercial photographer I am not particularly bothered by processing delays. BTW I never have had a processing problem with Kodachrome. The only film I have had lost was E-6.