Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:53 AM 8/8/97 -0500, you wrote: >I sold my Hasselblad stuff because in my real-life location situations >the results from it were often not as sharp as what I get from 35mm. >Sure there is less grain but it is also often less sharp. Some will >swear other-wise and I agree with the theory and I have some great 2 >1/4 negs but I have much more that I'll never use too! 35mm gives >me better results! (note: 10" x 14" is my standard print size) > >I think it's due to three reasons: Less depth of field for medium >format lenses, less actual resolution (lpm) of medium format lenses >and subject and camera movement due to having to stop down further to >achieve more depth of field. There is always some wind in Ecuador no >matter where you go and you can forget about hand holding a Hasselblad >anywhere in my opinion. > >I found my studio stuff from it was incredibly sharp, but those >situations eliminated all three of the above factors. > >Duane Birkey Hi Duane, This makes no sense to me and is totally opposite of my Hasselblad experiences. I've had two complete Hassy systems over the years and have found that the results are exemplary. Marc or Erwin, do the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses have less lpm resolution than 35mm Leica lenses? Since a 2-1/4 sq. image area is about 4x 35mm image area, the resolution difference would have to be really big to be noticeable (this is a guess.) Is it possible that a 25 lpm lens on a 2-1/4 would produce similar results to a 100 lpm lens on a 35mm ? Assuming the same size final print. The one thing that I could see as a problem, that is, is your Hasselblad an old focal plane shutter (1000F or the like) model? These cameras could not be hand held and required a studio tripod to hold them down in order to get sharp pictures. Jim