Re: [Leica] 35mm versus 120

[Mickey Rosenthal <michelr@inter.net.il>]

I think this discussion is not to the point, because according to my opinion
any good 120 system must outperform the Leica with respect to image quality.
For example: my 53 year old twin lens Rolleiflex with f3.5 Xenar and certainly
my newer Rolleiflex with Planar f3.5 give me sharper pictures then the Leica M4
with summicron f50mm. It is visible even on rather small prints.
The 120 pictures have more 'smoothness' too.
Mickey Rosenthal

Austin Franklin wrote:

> > > > Tests show that the emulsion/filmplane  in a Hasselblad
> > > > is far from flat and even
> > >
> > > What tests would you be referencing?  I have never seen this
> > > 'problem'. Perhaps, I am just not astute enough, and you could help me
> > > identify it.  I have 20,000+ negatives, and I am sure if it were such
> > > a problem, I would easily be able to identify it on some of them with
> > > some help.
>
> > Oh Austin, before you continue your angry rant, take a look at:
>
> You consider asking for his reference, claiming I have never seen it, then
> asking for some help identifying it, a rant?  To quote another list member,
> "don't be ridiculous".  It was hardly angry, and certainly not a rant.
>  Please.
>
> > At least you'll know what is being spoken about.
>
> Thanks, I understand the issue, and the overall issue is separate from
> Irwin's comments.  I know Robert's site well, in fact, I am referenced a
> number of times on it.
>
> The original post specifically mentioned Hasselblad.  There is ONE vague
> comment in your reference, referencing Hasselblad, that 'some people'
> (unqualified) 'wait' for the film to settle after winding the film.  The
> conclusion is pure speculation, since there is no reference to anyone
> actually measuring the effect of 'waiting', and mechanically, I find the
> assertion unwarranted.
>
> All I was asking for were facts, and clarification.  I don't like to deal
> in speculation and the ethereal when claims like this are made.