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

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> > > >>>> > 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

Enough said, I understand where you are going with this...simply circle of
confusion issue...and I understand why you said what you said.  Note that
you still get the same physical amount of blur, it is just less significant
simply because of the larger negative.  An interesting point.

So, technically, following your point, a Hasselblad would make a better low
light camera than a Leica ;-)

> > > 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."

I was only pointing out there are downsides to leaf shutters that you may
not be aware of.  I believe it's important to look at the whole picture (no
pun intended), and the issue I mentioned may be significant depending on
what you are doing.