Re: [Leica] FIGLIO4CAP@aol.com wrote:

[Bill Carson <poppie@fidalgo.net>]

Jerald:  I don't have a V35.  I do all my projection printing with a very trusty
Beseler 45MX with a E-Z-Focus and a 35mm Negatrans - the ultimate in darkroom
delights!  Nikkor El Nikkor, of course.Regarsds,  Bill Carson

Jerald Rosenfeld wrote:

> I am not sure what we are trying tosay using a 35MM LEica is superior to
> a 4x5 or 8x10  image. WE are trying to compare apples and oranges. As
> for sharpness I think that it is hard to beat a LF chrome that has
> applied  the appropriate movements.  For me there is nothing like a 8x10
> chrome. It will knock the socks off anything.  We all believe that there
> is not anything better than a LEica 35MM image. If that was absolutely
> true than there would not be a need for the MF industry or the LF
> industry. Leica over the years would have totally destroyed there
> markets. IT has been said that the 150MM F4 Schneider Tele Zenar for the
> Rollei 600x cameras is is as sharp of the portrait lens that there ever
> was. I believe that LEica is as good as it gets but there are other
> options that can not be discounted.
> I am new to Leica. I have not owned a 35MM camera for 5 years. I don't
> have as much energy carrying a 8x10 or a 4x5, or a MF Rollei in the
> field. So I felt I would find and buy the best 35MM tha there is. Sold
> my Rollei 6003 and a few of the LF lenses to finace the LEica kit. I am
> keeping the 4x5   and shooting the LF and the new Leica. Hope to meet
> many of you at the show in New YOrk. I am coming in for the day from
> Detroit.
>
> Jerry Rosenfeld
>
> I would like to thank  everyone for all of the information and the silly
> questions that I have asked frm what type of bag to why does the battery
> burn so fast
>
> Mark Rabiner wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > >
> > > Against 'conventional wisdom' about the benefits of large format w.r.t image
> > > sharpness is the article
> > > http://www.photodo.com/templates/display.lasso?show=489
> > > which, to sumarize, states that with tmax 100 film, 35mm,MF, and LF have
> > > similar sharpness. I believe the issue is that top 35mm lenses are sharper
> > > than equivalent large format lenses. On the other hand if Tri-X is used, LF
> > > wins.
> > >
> > > Jonathan Borden
> > >
> > > Bill Carson
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Bob:  Don't kid yourself about large forma!.  I've used 4 X 5 and 5 X 7
> > ><Snip>
> >
> > To each his own but don't kid yourselves!
> > Jonathan and Bill if you look at the top of the page is says Nikon.
> > I assure you that the reason a huge segment of pro photogs and serious amateurs
> > don't sell their medium format and larger sheet film format gear is that there
> > is real reasons for using them. There is a visible quality difference between
> > each format which compleatly justifies it's existence. Plenty of people here are
> > happy with the V35 Leica enlargers in their darkroom to print all thier 35mm
> > negs but just as many others KNOW what their twin lens Rolleiflex can give them
> > and on from there to their Speed Graphic of whatever sheetfilm deal they might
> > have. Rent a Hasselblad for weekend and find out for yourself. Or borrow a
> > Rolleiflex. Don't' trust that lens chart on that Nikon thing for a second!!
> > I would love to sell my Blads and fill out my Leica system/s but I can't live
> > without them, or my Rolleiflex TLR.
> > And yes on the other hand plenty of people have just committed to 35 and have
> > simplified their operations and just have that cute little V35 in their little
> > darkrooms and I say "good for them".
> > I love to tap dance on those bigger negs sometimes. Something you can sink your
> > teeth into!
> > Mark Rabiner