Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: 35mm versus 120
From: Thomas Kachadurian <tom@kachadurian.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:38:44 -0500

I hate to weigh in on this discussion armed with nothing but my own 
personal experience, but here goes.

There is an issue of how sharpness is rendered that comes into play 
in the comparison. Lately I have been using a Sylvestri with a 47mm 
XL super angulon and film in a linhof 6x9 back, and my leica Ms. At a 
full magazine spread there is no question that the 6x9 trans yields a 
better looking image all the way around, Better color saturation, 
smoother tones, great detail. It's a 425% enlargement vs. a 1400% 
enlargement. kind of a slam dunk.

But, when I have drum scans made and output them to 20x30 prints from 
the lightjet 5000, the leica lenses appear to have crisper details, 
like there is better separation when the lens reaches it's resolution 
limit. The 6x9 trans from the 47XL SA get progressively, and evenly 
softer, but without any snap.

Erwin can probably explain this, and I'm sure is has something to do 
with lens design. It seems as if the Leica lenses are designed 
expecting the limits of the format, and creating a perception of 
sharpness just where the film can't hold it anymore. The 47XL SA will 
resolve to any limit of the film stock, with no point where the lens 
stops trying to resolve at very fine levels.

Tom
Thomas Kachadurian
- -------------------
www.kachadurian.com