Re: [Leica] image quality and format

["Thomas J. Donovan" <75674.3465@compuserve.com>]

Mark Rabiner et al,

>>Lenses for 35 mm camera optics tend to resolve<<
>>much better than the optics designed for medium<<
>>format. But do they resolve 2.5 times better? I don't<<
                                     >>think so.<<


Per a "Leica Fotografie" article "The format question in the 
in the light of technical progress", dated Jan./2000, page
20-21, the following conclusion is given: "One can say,quite
unambiguously that, provided moderate-speed films of the top
class are used & the enlargement ratios do not exceed 30 x 40
cm ( 11.7 x 15.6 in. ), no quality differences can now be detected
in comparison to the best medium format camera/lenses". 

An R8 with; a.) 100 Apo Macro. b.) 180 f2.8 apo. c.) 280 f4 apo
( with 1.4 & 2x converters ) were compared with various 
medium format systems. Including the Hassy (503 CX & 203 FE)
with the Zeiss 250 SA, 350 Tele SA & the f8 500 apo lenses which
were ranked as the top medium format lenses.

Hans Bortsch ( the writer) makes the following comment; "The popular 
notion that picture quality improves proportionally with the increase
in usable negative area is still in circulation. Yet, this theory was only
valid in the early days of photography. After all, there are quite a number
of factors which influence image quality in addition to the lens
aberrations,
such as film resolving power and those mechanical aspects which 
affects precision of the film plane".

One can only infer from his quote above that these particular Leica
optics have world-class resolving power; and, that film flatness
with Hassy gear *might* be a factor. I dare say Hans only implies
that "film flatness" with a Hassy might be an independent variable;-)! 

Now let me state unambiguously, I do not own any sort of test lab which
would allow me to verify such statements; however, I do own an R8 with
the lenses mentioned in the article. I have owned & used Hassy gear
( sold all of it )  with those lenses mentioned in the article. 

"Something is afoot" ;-)!  Assuming this article has scientific merit,
rather
a reasonable assumption; I'd like to hear how our learned on-line gurus
would go about to rebut this article ;-)!

Tom D.