Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/02/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You're right there is that side to it too. That the Leica thing starting with Barnack is all about getting serious with a format which others thought was beyond insignificant. Two steps down. Not only was it roll film it was small roll film. They thought 120 film was a huge compromise the most popular format was 5x7" when the Leica was invented or 7x5 as you Brits say. I think in ten years twenty years will kick ourselves when we look back at 2013 in not having in the perspective in fully realizing just how early in to the digital age where're into right now. Its a big revolution and people are just figuring it out. And I think we're just past square one now. The full frame compacts are just coming out. The photo industry is real excited about them but no one of course knows what the real effect will be. How many cameras will be bought and made and by who and for what and for how much. My thoughts is it might echo what happened with the film compact premiums but I may be wrong. I do know how amazing my files are to work with from my D700 Full frame and how much better they are then from my D200 DX 1.5x crop. I'm excited as hell about the new full frame Leica M and also the Monochrom. And also the Sony full frame compact. I think all of these cameras will be game changes. I'm thinking positive. I think in 8 or 12 years the results from a 1.5 crop camera will be as good as the full frames now. But the full frames then will then be as good as the medium format is now. I'm used to the 35mm 24x36 format. My glass I've been using for decades is sized for that. Though I also have Hasselblad glass for getting into medium format digital as well. My darkroom sink I used for most of my career was build for 20x24 inch trays. I hung 20x24 shows and has a 20x24 inch portfolio. Most my photog friends topped out at 16x20 but I was glad I had the space to do that instead. It was real obvious to me the effect of my Rolleiflex and Hasselblad image over stuff coming from my 35mm cameras. And my 4x5's over that. Barnack I think thought a 5x7" was a blow up. There's no overlap Its hard to compare the way we think of what in imagine needs to do compared to what his idea was. Most our output now is for web galleries and websites a few hundred pixies across. And a 2x crop or less is fine for that perhaps. But there are still those who know that they will have to make blowups sometime to hang a show or for a client. And for us to click a pic but have it be on a fingernail sized format is a very frustrating experience because we know we don't really have the shot. Its just too small to make a full sized print from that. On 2/3/13 4:00 AM, "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> wrote: > Yes Mark but you are -just- like Barnacks contemporary critics, never > accepting that a smaller format could ever produce acceptable results. > > Well Leica proved them wrong, not as good as MF, 5x4 and 10x8 obviously, > but > entirely useable for reasonably sized prints and much more convenient for > use > hand held, traveling, climbing etc.. > Today few people argue that MF digital sensors don't produce better results > (at least in bright light), but superb and totally acceptable results in > prints much bigger than Barnack would ever have believed possible are being > made in their billions by people using the smaller sensors nowadays. > Just like 35mm film displaced 120. > Get used to it, you are a dinosaur - just like all Barnack's critics back > in > the 1920s. > FD > > On 3 Feb, 2013, at 08:05, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > >> Well Gary I think that there was a guy named Barnack who thought a lot of >> work could be done with a quality compact camera with a 24x36mm format. >> After much thought he didn't go with 24x18 as a few others in the time >> were >> going. Which was called "single frame" he went with "double frame" taking >> up >> twice the film in length an at the time a bit of an unusual move. >> His hunch was proved right. It turned out that most of what you'd ever >> want >> to do could be done in that format for a hundred years later. >> There's really nothing arbitrary about it and its not a minor subject. >> As is its WAY more of an important issue that lenses. >> If the thread bores you please continue playing with your cameras which >> could come out of a box of crackerjacks and ignore the posts about eagerly >> waited for larger format compacts. >> Me I'll be not be totally happy until the first medium format compact >> comes >> out. An in effect: digital Fuji folder >> >> >> On 2/3/13 1:40 AM, "Gary Benson" <bensonga at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> All these arguments over format size get very tiresome, very quickly. >>> Some people will think if any subject is worth shooting at all, only >>> 8x10 film will do. Others are quite happy to shoot with something >>> else. >>> >>> I really thing good photos can be made with any camera.....they will >>> just be "good" in different ways >>> >>> I say.....pick the camera or format that works best for you and your >>> shooting requirements and leave the rest of us to do the same. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark William Rabiner >> Photography >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/