Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi All, In a message dated 98-04-19 11:41:45 EDT, Tom Shea wrote: << The improvement in film would make the current minox print quality equivalent to 35 mm in days of old. >> This is exactly my point. I have, back when I owned one of those finicky Minox enlargers, made surprisingly good 8 x 10 inch prints from Minox EC and TX negatives, usually with Agfapan 25. Now, isn't this the exact sort of statement made by early adopters of 35mm photography? << I know some will not agree, but the improvement of 35 mm film has rendered medium format largely unnecessary. The quality improvement for images up to 11 x 14 with medium format are very small, if they exist at all. The reason is that the lenses for medium format are now the limiting factor for that format. They are not nearly as good as the best current lenses for 35 mm. This means that the increased resolution of the new films is to some extent wasted in the medium format. The lenses are not good enough to take full advantage of the film. >> Well, most of them. I would agree with your basic point, that 35mm using appropriate film is capable of making excellent 11 x 14 inch enlargements - I do this all the time. But I have owned the 50mm Zeiss FE lens for the Hasselblad, and it is as sharp as any 35mm lens I've ever used. Having said that, there are also other considerations. For example, the Minox is a 15mm f3.5 or 5.6 lens. This gives an added depth of field advantage that 35mm similarly enjoys v.v. medium format, resulting in a "look" other cameras cannot quite duplicate, in my experience. Or maybe my imagination... Finally - there are cases where graininess is not a bad thing, stylistically. No, I'm not defending the trendy Holga-Diana-disposable art trend: that is a different thing entirely. Will von Dauster