[Leica] LF MF Leica

["TSL" <eno22@enter.net>]

SNIP
>>MF and LF allows me to take pictures
>>that I can't with Leica's, and not only because of the larger film area.
>
>>But they sure don't feel as comfortable and natural as using a Leicas,
>>especially if you have to carry them all day...
- --------------
More directly related to the essential point which started the 'why' thread.
LF MF and Leica.  If LF enlarged to 20x24 on tripod! and...  M6 35/2 asph at
1/500 half open to 20x24.
Yeah the laws if done according to conditions A.B,C will necessitate the
former having a "better" image (i.e. what a crowd of 10 non-photographers
will agree is better).  The interest being 'potency'.  To make a bad
analogy, 14kt gold - a brick of 10oz.  And a 1oz 'pure' nugget.  They are
not so easily dismissed as "well they're good depending on..."
I don't have any figures but if one adds more to the nugget to finally equal
the content in the brick...wouldn't one be inclined to say that the "pure"
piece is preferable to the mixed, larger but equal content of the other?
Forget what's heavier or more discreet.  The total is more than the sum of
it's parts - why?  Because the other has "stuff" in it and the other is pure
in terms of substance.  So then what about the original piece, is it not in
this sense 'superior' in quality to the quantitatively superior brick?
One could argue that it's not a lens issue but film size.  True enough but
the variables can be reduced and the comparison not so easily set aside as
theoretical and more importantly an excuse for Leica to be superior not only
in terms of usage and convenience but 'measure for measure'. A good response
may be restricted to empirical grounds, but this is only the start of a
solid opinion...It's not a bad thing to elevate Leica in any case.