Re: [Leica] Was Medium format (now pit-bull arena)

["SonC (Sonny Carter)" <cartersn@nsula.edu>]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:19 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Was Medium format camera (now pit-bull
arena)


> > >>>> > B. The larger format meant less likelihood of
blurring the picture at slow shutter speeds from camera
movement.
> > >
> > >>> I don't understand how that follows?
> >
> > Yeah, it's one of those things you have to experience to
understand.
>
> That physically and logically makes no sense.  Please
explain how larger film size has anything to do with
blurring.

OK,  this is an empirical knowledge thing that I can't
easily explain without being picked apart on the fine
points, but, I'll try.  To get the final same size negative
image (of a football player, say) and DOF at a particular
f-stop on 35mm, I'd have to use a moderate tele (probably a
90mm,) compared to the Rollei's 80mm.

Therefore, I'd have to be more careful in the exciting
moment to squeeze the release, to avoid camera movement with
the 35mm tele, else the end of the lens swings in an arc,
possibly causing blur.   (Not to mention [because it is not
a format issue] that with the camera against my chest, when
I push the button, the camera can't be deflected like an RF
at eye level can.)

Of course, since I'm shooting with the Rollei and my bigole
Honeywell Strobe at 1/250th, and you're using your RF at
1/50th, I'm in a better position to eliminate camera
movement as a factor in blurring the shot.

Remember, we're in 1963, we have to pull a print right after
the ball game, dry it (no resin coat paper, remember?) and
get it to the bus station so it can be on the regional
Sports page the next morning.

And, if this doesn't jazz you, talk to some of the guys who
usta shoot Speeds in  WWII, and let them tell you about
their handheld shots at low shutter speeds on 4x5.


> > > > C. You have higher strobe sync speeds,
> > >
> > >>>> That is true, but by virtue of the leaf
shutter...which
> > has its downsides
> > >>>> too.
> >
> > I don't see a downside to faster sync speeds
>
> Not from the faster sync speeds, but leaf shutters in
general.  At higher
> shutter speeds, and wide apertures, their speeds are not
accurate.  With a
> strobe, that will not matter, but in available light use,
that can be a
> significant issue.

We were ONLY talking about faster sync speeds, not available
light, not accurate shutters, not any other "significant
issues."