[Leica] 24 x 36mm ?

[robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier)]

Far be it from me to tamper with the laws of optics!   (Other laws, perhaps, 
but not the laws of optics!)

I'm just speaking empirically, from my own experience.  I use a Beseler 
negative carrier that has a 25x37mm opening to show the whole negative plus 
some, and negatives that I have shot with my 21mm Skopar almost fill the 
25x37mm area, while shots made with my 50mm Summicron leave a lot of clear 
negative showing.   When I had the 12mm VC lens, it filled even more of the 
carrier opening.

I have always been fascinated by the difference in size of Rollei and 
Hasselblad images.  Rollei makes a full 56x56mm image while Hasselblad only 
can come up with 54x54mm, which is a fairly significant difference, in my 
humble opinion.

Robert
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "G Hopkinson" <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au>
To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:59 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] 24 x 36mm ?


> Robert, I follow what you are saying. I'll have to think about that, I 
> have a suspicion that you may be tampering with some laws of
> optics there ;-)
>
> Coming at it my post below from another direction, always 8 sprocket holes 
> per frame, consistently much smaller gap between frames
> over complete films shot with varying lenses, with the older cameras.
>
> Today's useless trivia item for film photographers.
> Now I'll shut up before someone beats me up with a bag full of broken 
> digicams.
>
> Cheers
> Hoppy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Re: [Leica] 24 x 36mm ?
>
> If you shoot with a wide-angle lens, the negative image will be slightly
> larger, and the wider the lens, the larger the image gets.   The reason 
> for
> this is that the greater angle of the light striking the film with a
> wide-angle spreads the light, and thus the image, slightly under the edges
> of the film gate.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
>>>From neg samples here, widths of:
>> 111c Width 36.84 mm     distinctly much tighter spacing
>> M3 36.78mm      gaps visibly not quite as narrow as 111c
>> M6 & M7 35.6mm
>> The difference between the three is easily visible at arm's length. I
>> might speculate that the standard has altered over the long
>> period to allow for ease of handling, for example. Certainly the oldest
>> camera is extremely precise.
>>
>> So, on these examples the range is actually more than 3.4%
>>
>> Cheers
>> Hoppy
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Lew said:<lew1716@optonline.net>
>>> I'm just off to my darkroom to confirm something that's been bothering
>>> me for a while. The standard 35mm full frame format is supposed to be
>>> 24 x 36mm or 1:1.5. This should mean that I can print full frame at
>>> 6x9", but (this is the part that's bugging me...) the images from my
>>> Leica negatives never quite fit an opening of this size on my easel.
>>> The only thing I can think of to explain this is that the Leica negs
>>> just aren't exactly 24x36mm.
>>> OCD acknowledged, other comments ...?<<<<<<<
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>