Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/27

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

Subject: Re: H'blad vs Leica
From: imxputs@knoware.nl (Erwin Puts/imX)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 21:25:25 +0100

To answer some of your remarks.
1. The Planar 2,8/80 and the Summicron were used with an aperture of 8,0
and 5,6 respectively to offset the smaller depth of field of the larger
format used at the same distance. At these apertures both lenses are at
their best. The Planar is still used by the Zeiss people to demonstrate the
resolving power of their line up. So I would not regard this lens as a
laggard.
2. The panel consisted of a group of photo experts with more than thirty
years experience in evaluating pictures.
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.

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. The Leica M, as a photographic instruments, has its special
virtues in a few selected area, as does the H'blad in some other areas. No
comparison here.
5. The 'famous' Leica 'glow' which has been the subject in this group some
time ago, is unknown to me. I respect the Leica lenses for its unique
combination of sharpness and excellent rendition of fine detail, which
enhances the impression of roundness and plasticity of 3-D objects. In this
they lead the world, be it with only a small margin to their nearest
competiotors, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon.
Erwin Puts