Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello LUG. Look, Leica prints will be sharper until I buy a Hasselblad, OK? To be a little more serious (but not too much more), when I take a portrait I'm using the format vertically. The neg is 36mm high, compared to, what, 56mm for the 'blad. Now that's a 1 to 1.55 ratio. Sure, the neg area is 3.63 (rounded) times bigger, but for a head and shoulders portrait, its that 1 to 1.55 ratio that makes more sense. So, a 'blad will use 1.55 times more film area for something that will be shot vertically on 35mm (provided the width of the subject fits within the 24mm neg width). And this is true of the portraits I take - not too many of my subjects have heads that fat. The same applies for a horizontal group shot. Now, the other variables. An M camera vibrates less (so I'm told - I've only ever dry fired a 'blad, in a dream factory called Phototime in Melbourne, Australia. Sounded like a lot of stuff moving around in there, and it didn't feel steady in my hands). M lenses are generally faster, which can mean using higher shutter speeds, to obvious effect. Or slower film, again, an obvious advantage. 35mm lenses provide greater depth for the same field of view (don't they?), an important handheld photography factor. We're chipping away at that ratio. Now factor in some of Erwin's MTF comparisons, the M is now neck and neck with the 'blad. Add a pinch of my own unashamed bias, and, hey presto, Leica wins! When I'm allowed to spend 1.55 fortunes on a Hasselblad system, I will recalculate the proof provided above to ensure that the two systems come out equal, measured across a range of applications. And each system will win in it's respective specialisation. I'll be doubly happy! Regards Rick (I'm convinced and that's all that matters) Dykstra