Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
SNIP
>The arguments of MF being 'too heavy', 'too bulky', and 'too slow' are just
>crap.
actually it's tough to do that with a MF
>You can do anything you want with any size camera;
Well that sums it up.
>even the almighty
'>street photography' with a 4X5! (Or do y'all fergit about Arbus or Lange?
>How about every newspaper photog from the 30's? What do you think they were
>using out in the STREET?) double sheeese.
You mean cheese?
>Pushing a 35mm print beyond 16X20 is usually outside the performance
>envelope of miniature film quality.
Missing Variables here? Try it with no-tripod and see.
> Oh sure, a person CAN get prints that
>size and larger from a 36mm neg, but is it of the same image quality as a
>645 neg taken to the same size? NO.
Well, shooting at 1/2000 on a tripod with, umm...100/2.8 APO with K. 25 half
open you could do one of those placebo tests (for example 'customer'
response) and then you may be surprised. Theoretically, yes. But exhibit a
wall of ten 20x24's and the attention will go to the picture that is the
best - they won't care so much about the difference unless you are
exhibiting Yellowstone National Park...
> [SCREW the subject matter- it's just a line chart OKAY?]
>Put any 35mm camera/lens combo up against a 645 neg, shooting the same LINE
>CHART- and lets see where the 35mm stops looking good. How much further
>will the 645 bunny run with the same boring shot? Much further. Simple.
You'd be surprised how many, including those highly educated in these
matters, really care when the picture is being viewed as content...
>It doesn't have to be a 4'X6' wall mural, as though sheer enormity makes up
>for lack luster quality CONTENT, but there's something to be said for
images
>that can be seen from across the room - "seen", as defined by being able to
>ascertain or comprehend the content without your nose stuck in the middle
of
>it. If it only holds together at 8X10, why not just put it in a book
>instead of on a wall??
I've shot with 180/2.8 at dancing giraffes and angry elephants and violent
baboons and no tripods (I don't use them just for fun) and I display
20x24's and they are, like it or not, sharp as a razor. From across a
giant room they are crisp and detailed. Most people (a)don't think about
film size or (b) wonder how it is so saturated and sharp (myself included).
On the wall? No, Leica pics on a wall? Unheard of.
>And ANYWAY, at issue was only about wasting the same money on a single lens
>when you could get a whole camera instead. Buy the camera sir.
Bigger is Better! You must love Fast Food!
>no archive
No Archive
>An 'oh yeah'; I traveled in the Orient and Central Asia last Fall doing all
>kinds of photography along the way. Using an M6, 645 SLR, DV cam, and a
>Minox GL; on and off all manner of transport, in and out of all kinds of
>bizarre locales, up and down rocky paths and trails, without a stitch of
>black tape anywhere, even lugging a tripod along- never broke anything,
>never lost anything, never had anything stolen, never had a problem, never
>fogged my film in x-ray machines, and came back with truly outstanding
>images. If I was to point at any one piece of equipment that produced the
>best results it's the 645 SLR.
>Of course. Your intentions must be to also have the non-best results or
you would not have been armed as such. You >mentioned earlier that "You can
do anything you want with any size camera;"
>Seems like you wasted a bit of time bringing all the others.
>still no archive
Still Impressed
Still No Archive