[Leica] apo 90 versus 4/150

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>I did say that Leica pictures deliver comparable quality
and sometimes under suitable conditions may challenge 120 format
pictures up to 12 times enlargement. An enlargement from a Leica
negative to a format of 12x16inch is a factor of 12, The same print
for a 120-negative is an enlargement of 5 to 6 times. If under these
unfavorable conditions a Leica print can be compared favorably to a
Hasselblad print speaks very well for Leica lenses.<<<



Our research specifically and conclusively disproves the above
statements. We made the prints, and showed them to a panel of viewers.
The viewers decisively and overwhelmingly chose the medium-format prints
as being of higher quality at this size. The above conclusion therefore
does not stand up to experimental corroboration.

To reiterate the test conditions:

The same scene was shot with a Leica M6 and 50mm Summicron lens very
securely affixed to a very heavy tripod. Exposures were made at f/8 on
Kodak Ektar 25 film. Prints were made in a very well equipped
professional darkroom on an Omega D5 Dichroic with Chromegatrol and
Apo-Rodagon 90mm lens (yes--the original one). Scenes were chosen that
did not create problems for the inherently high contrast of this film.

These were compared to prints made from negatives made with a Pentax 6x7
camera and 90/2.8 lens, on 100-speed Kodak VPS, handheld. These
negatives were printed with the same enlarger on the same paper.

I.e., the small-format prints were optimized for image quality, and the
medium-format prints weren't.

Viewers included professional photographers, photography students,
professional visual arts people such as art directors and graphic
designers, and non-photographers. We didn't direct their conclusions--we
simply asked them to choose which print they thought had "better
quality" however they chose to define it.

At smaller than 8x10 sizes the 35mm prints won. At 8x10 it was a wash.
By 11x14 there was a preference for the medium-format prints, but it was
not overwhelming (although the professionals more clearly preferred the
medium-format prints). By 16x20--it was very close to 12X--everyone
chose the medium-format prints. We didn't make prints larger than that.

Incidentally, we did the same experiments comparing 6x7 and 4x5, with
very interesting results, but that's OT for this forum.

I'm sympathetic to the temptation to compare things like MTF percentages
and extropolate out to what "should be" the case, but it amounts to
wishful thinking--more careful research than that is required to find
the truth. There is more to "print quality" than lp/mm.

- --Mike