[Leica] New Newsletter

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@ision.nl>]

In the past two months, while silent on the Lug (for obvious reasons), I 
have produced a newsletter for a small group of people, who have a keen 
interest in the optics, mechanics, engineering, secrets and use of  
mechanical precision engineered 35mm camera systems. With these  
afficionados I discussed topics like: a indepth test of the new Hexanon 
2/35 lens, the philosophical and ergonomical differences between the M6 
and the Hexar RF, the essence of the SLR and RF viewing systems, the 
engineering arguments behind the Hexar/Leica incompatibility, the 
artistic differences between Provia100, Kchrome 64, the issue of film 
flatness, the concept of depth of focus, and so on. Find below an 
excerpt from the latest newsletter.
If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, send me an email with 
your address and topics you may wish to have discussed in the future. It 
is free, no $18 fee for this service.


###
Having established in previous newsletters that there is more to 
Konica/Leica lens compatibility than the simple measurement of the 
distance from flange to pressure plate, I did some further research, now 
testing in real life with 100 ISO slide film all leica lenses from 24 to 
135mm on a calibrated M6 and a factory provided Hexar, which had the 
distance from pressure plate to flange of 27.95mm, thus identical to 
Leica but differing from the Konica specs.
As you recall, the Lug was very quick to some simple checks, which in my 
view were done not to find the truth, but to 'prove' that nothing is 
wrong. This view has been canonized in Nemeng's FAQ.
My results are different. I used a tripod, a high resolution test chart 
and a measured distance of 4 meters. All Leica lenses on Leica body were 
focused manually several times and the average setting on the distance 
ring calculated. All lenses were within 3% of the factual distance and 
the slides showed accurate focus under the microscope at the 40X 
enlargement. The Leica lenses on the Konica body showed on average a 
misalignent of close to 10% and that consistently over all lenses.
I did a special study of the 75mm lens, but not at the allegedly 
critical setting of 1 meter (which is not that critical if you study the 
shape of the curve). The 3 meter setting is more critical. I first set 
the Leica body and the 75mm on the tripod etc. Made a series of pictures 
and then I kept this distance setting carefully when using the lens on 
the Hexar. Results (microscope) showed a loss of micro contrast, a drop 
in edge sharpness and a loss of the very fine detail, including closely 
spaced lines. Then I refocused the 75mm using the Hear RF system. 
Results were truly bad: slides were unsharp and only the gross outlines 
of the test patterns could be detected. I also used the 75mm/hexar at 1 
meter distance. Results were much more acceptable, but not really good, 
but not knowing the other results could mislead you in assuming  that 
the focus was within range.

I did this test three times on several days, using several films and 
creating every time a new setting and so tried to eliminate any specific 
bias. Of course this test is not conclusive, but it does indicate that 
the Lug has been too quick to bury the subject. But as Bob Dylan used to 
sing: sleep well, Mr President.

The monster test of the BW films is underway.
I had some old rolls of Panatomic-X (20 years old), the film that 
introduced high resolution acutance photography to 35mm users. I also 
used the Maco UP25, 64 and 100, which are all versions of the classical 
Adox high actance series of KB films. And an ortho 25, APX25, APX100 and 
previous tests included PanF, TM100 and D100.
To keep it manageable I used one developer (the famous CG512) and tried 
to develop to the same CI value. You need to do this as otherwise the 
steeper curve of the APX25 may lead you think this film is sharper than 
as example a D100, while in fact both are as sharp (seen as recording 
the same information from the object) but the 25 has higher contrast so 
the pictures have more punch, which could be sen as more sharpness.
All pictures were enlarged 14x. which in my view is the minimum to 
differentiate  meaningfully between films.
The shots were of a model in an old desolated factory, giving ample fine 
details, tonal scale and   resolution possibilities.
The Pan-X showed outstanding sharpness and acutance, but its grain 
pattern was a bit rough but very tight. It resembled the grain pattern 
of the APX100, which is a bit finer, and indeed the two films are close. 
Finest details however were suppressed by the grain pattern. The tonal 
scale   showed quite subtle grey values, again till the threshold of the 
granularity noise. The whole atmosphere is an image of very pleasing 
tonality, gritty sharpness and details painted with broad strokes.
The UP100 (Adox KB21) has surprisingly fine grain, but on inspection the 
grain is clumpier but the edge sharpness is low so the fineness is 
bought at the expense of definition. Overall quality is still 
commendable and while not up to todays standards, in its day it 
certainly was a winner.   The Pan-X and KB21 images indicate the 
progress realized in 20 years of emulsion technology.  In itself of 
amazing quality, these films lag in all significant areas when compared 
to todays super stars. But the differences are on the other hand more 
evolutionary that revolution.
The APX100 gives images that suit the reportage style of location 
photography very well. These images have a fine realistic imprint: some 
what gritty, but with a smooth tonality and sufficient fine detail to 
make the scene interesting.
The APX25 has a higher inherent contrast and so small details are 
recorded somewhat more forcefully. Grain is absent, which adds a creamy 
tonality to the scene, but on close inspection the recording 
capabilities are just a small edge compared to the APX100 or PanX. The 
finer grain  does record the faintest shades of grey values, which adds 
to the 3D impression of the scene.
The UP25 (KB14) is very close to the APX25. Grain is slightly more 
pronounced, but much less so than PAnX or APX100. The tonal scale is 
identical to the APX25. The intriguing characteristic of this older thin 
layered, thick silvered emulsion is the edgy grain clumps, which, being 
very fine, also roughen up the image structure. It makes the picture 
very lively and especially for model photography and architectural 
photography adds an effect that can be described as  underscoring the 
main story.
Compared to the PanF as example the KB14 is definitely less smooth and 
its finer details lack the stark micro contrast of the PanF, but all 
said, this film is a worthy emulsion, that deserves a try. On a normal 
viewing distance, the main subjects literally jump from the picture.
The Ortho25 is a trouvaille: I had some films and asked myself: why not? 
In the same setting, the  prints proved excellent. The skin of the model 
came out very realistic and I did not notice any  strange grey values. f 
course there was no red in he scene, so all  other gray values are more 
or less 'natural".  Sharpness is excellent and grain very fine. The film 
has a clear base and so  looks very contrasty, even if the values are 
close to normal. Not a film for every topic, but I am inclined to use it 
more often and when using some filters can even add some additional 
tonal scale.
Definitely a film to try and use for portraits, glamour etc. Take care 
of red of course. But more versatile than mostly thought of.

As a preliminary conclusion I have to say that the UP25 and Ortho 25 are 
very potent films with a  potential for intriguing results that need to 
be explored. They are not as good as current  top performers, but the 
distance from a TP as example is less than often imagined. So it is as 
easy to note that there is hardly any progress in BW emulsions in the 
last decades or to state that we have advanced a big stride to deliver 
superior results.

If you habitually use enlargements below 10X, the difference are even 
smaller.

The lesson: try more film than you use now: it will add to your toolkit 
and visual awareness.

Next:
the PanF, D100, TM100, D400 (new).


Erwin