Michael Geschlecht Posted October 24, 2017 Share #1041  Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I used Portra 160 with this camera, but then I got the negatives scanned, which further blurs the pixel equation. There are two major aspects to image quality. One of these is the objective absolute perfection of pixel definition etc and the other is the subjective look of a photograph. My article comparing the I Model A with the M10 will show some photos of the same subject matter by both cameras. Opinions will vary as to which is better. What will be clear, however, is that Leicas were capable of producing very nice photos from the very beginning, particularly with the little gem that was the 50mm Elmar lens. This, as much as anything else, was responsible for creating the Leica legend.  William  Hello William,  Please note that I corrected my earlier Post from 25 to 16+ megapixels.  It is good that you are doing this.  Hopefully this will also include comparisons at F 5.6, F8 & F11 done on a sturdy tripod.  Or, rather, since this is a Leica A: I should restructure my request to the 1/3 stop slower markings of: F6.3, F 9 & F12.5, also done on a sturdy tripod.  Please don't forget that since the beginning of the Leitz/Leica cameras: Some people have used the cameras to replace a Kardan B on a Studex.  Best Regards,  Michael Edited October 24, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Hi Michael Geschlecht, Take a look here LTM users, its time to stand up and be counted!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
willeica Posted October 24, 2017 Share #1042  Posted October 24, 2017 Hello William,  Please note that I corrected my earlier Post from 25 to 16+ megapixels.  It is good that you are doing this.  Hopefully this will also include comparisons at F 5.6, F8 & F11 done on a sturdy tripod.  Or, rather, since this is a Leica A: I should restructure my request to the 1/3 stop slower markings of: F6.3, F 9 & F12.5, also done on a sturdy tripod.  Please don't forget that since the beginning of the Leitz/Leica cameras: Some people have used the cameras to replace a Kardan B on a Studex.  Best Regards,  Michael  No scientific stuff or even pseudo scientific stuff on tripods or at different apertures. Neither is there any pixel peeping, which is against my 'religious principles'. I find pixel peeping intensely annoying, in fact. If God had intended us to pixel peep he would have given us microscopes for eyes. I remember years ago a friend of mine was a 'hold out' against stereo because God had not given us ears ten feet apart. My article just shows 3 subjects photographed with the two cameras. In many ways there is no real or valid comparison between the two cameras. I just wanted to show that a I Model A from 1926 can, when used properly, produce images which are just as attractive as those from a 2017 M10. The article should be published soon.  William 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 24, 2017 Share #1043  Posted October 24, 2017 Kodak brought out a new colour negative film in I think 2003, whose name escapes me. They claimed that the 100 ISO version could resolve to 200 lp/mm but were met with some scepticism. I assume that the modern Ektar 100 is better than this, so really might be able to get close to 200 lp/mm. I don't know what the resolution of the film used to make microdots (beloved of Russian spies) but it must have been very high, if they could each hold a full page of data in a dot of 1 to 1.5mm diameter. Invented I believe by Professor Walter Zapp (born in Latvia but lived in Estonia), after he invented the Minox 8 x 11mm camera. The microdot kit that German spies were issued with in WW2, was called a Zapp Outfit. Amazing man, as he also developed one of the first usable and practical electron microscopes, when working at AEG during the war years.  Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted October 24, 2017 Share #1044 Â Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Hello Wilson, Â That might have been Kodak's SO456. Â Altho SO456 pre-dates 2003. Â Best Regards, Â Michael Edited October 24, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 24, 2017 Share #1045  Posted October 24, 2017 Michael,  Is not SO456 a 35mm movie camera film? The reason I remember the Kodak film coming out, was that I was a guest on the Zeiss stand at Focus on Imaging in 2003 as one of their beta testers. Kodak told us they had used a Zeiss Contax 50mm/f1.7 Planar lens, with a vacuum ceramic pressure plate Contax RTS3 camera to achieve the 200 lp/mm, when they came to talk to us during the reasonably quiet press (not public) day.  Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted October 24, 2017 Share #1046 Â Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Hello Wilson, Â I think that SO456 might be processable in standard still film chemicals. Â Just did some checking. Â It is an ISO 16 slide film. Â Best Regards, Â Michael Edited October 24, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. No Posted October 25, 2017 Share #1047  Posted October 25, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I Model A No 1783 from 1926  Leica I Model A 4 digits SN 1926-.jpg  I will be doing an article soon with pictures taken with this 91 year old camera.  William  Nice Camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 25, 2017 Share #1048  Posted October 25, 2017 Its funny you should ask that, Wilson. I have done a comparison between the output from this from camera from 1926 and that of an M10 from 2017. The article should go online in the next few days and I will post a link here. The output from both is very comparable, even allowing for film scans done at a local camera shop etc.  William  Does the comparison take into account the Bayer filter over the sensor and the effect of 'mosaicing', which inevitably reduces the sensor's resolution from the advertised megapixel count?  Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted October 25, 2017 Share #1049  Posted October 25, 2017 Does the comparison take into account the Bayer filter over the sensor and the effect of 'mosaicing', which inevitably reduces the sensor's resolution from the advertised megapixel count?  Pete.  No Pete. Megapixels don't get a look in, I'm glad to say. I am sure that Oskar Barnack and HCB would not approve of pixel peeping, particularly the latter who did not even approve of cropping. Although, I believe that HCB would have loved using a smartphone to capture the 'Decisive Moment' with near perfect invisibility as nearly everyone has one now.  William 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 25, 2017 Share #1050  Posted October 25, 2017 Does the comparison take into account the Bayer filter over the sensor and the effect of 'mosaicing', which inevitably reduces the sensor's resolution from the advertised megapixel count?  Pete.  I suspect not. Just a basic question; how many pixels would you need to cover the equivalent of a line pair, 2, 4 or 8?  Wilson 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 25, 2017 Share #1051  Posted October 25, 2017 I suspect not. Just a basic question; how many pixels would you need to cover the equivalent of a line pair, 2, 4 or 8?  Wilson  Which rather depends on pixel size and pitch.  Many years ago while I was still shooting with a Pentax 67 medium format film camera I did the calculations based on Fuji Velvia 50, which had the smallest grain specification of any film at the time (about 1 micron I think).  I came to the conclusion that I'd need at least roughly 50 megapixels to equal the resolution I had with MF film, and that didn't take into account mosaicing or other losses in resolution.  At that stage the top of the range digital cameras could offer 3 or 4 megapixels so it was an easy choice to stay with film for high quality landscape pictures.  Pete. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_schertel Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1052  Posted November 20, 2017 This III has a new home: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  yours sincerely Thomas 5 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  yours sincerely Thomas ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/13639-ltm-users-its-time-to-stand-up-and-be-counted/?do=findComment&comment=3399549'>More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1053 Â Posted November 20, 2017 Which rather depends on pixel size and pitch. Â Many years ago while I was still shooting with a Pentax 67 medium format film camera I did the calculations based on Fuji Velvia 50, which had the smallest grain specification of any film at the time (about 1 micron I think). Â I came to the conclusion that I'd need at least roughly 50 megapixels to equal the resolution I had with MF film, and that didn't take into account mosaicing or other losses in resolution. Â At that stage the top of the range digital cameras could offer 3 or 4 megapixels so it was an easy choice to stay with film for high quality landscape pictures. Â Pete. Â Hello Everybody, Â Back when the S1 was introduced & this question was asked, the answer was: For the image to equal Kodachrome in quality it would require 25 megapixels 16 bits deep. Â Best Regards, Â Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1054  Posted November 20, 2017 Hello Everybody,  Back when the S1 was introduced & this question was asked, the answer was: For the image to equal Kodachrome in quality it would require 25 megapixels 16 bits deep.  Best Regards,  Michael  Presumably that was for 36 x 24 mm sized exposures rather than 60 x 70 mm?  Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1055  Posted November 20, 2017 Hello Pete,  The S1 is a square format for still (Non-moving subject) Photography.  It could be ordered in 3 levels of pixels: 5140 X 5140 or 4000 X 40000 or 2750 X 2750  These were for long exposures of non-moving objects.  Some people sometimes think of Tri-X as a film associated with Leicas. That is accurate.  Another film with an early & continuing association with Leicas, since that film's invention, is Kodachrome, because: With a small & easy to carry table tripod with a large ball head & cable release: Even the early Kodachrome gave the Leica user a Kardan B on a Studex.  By the way, 5140 X 5140 pixels means Kodachrome quality. 25,000,000 pixels+  Not too bad for late 20th Century technology.  Best Regards,  Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1056  Posted November 20, 2017 Yes, Michael, the Leica S1 scanning camera was well ahead of its time in my opinion but I was referring to: "For the image to equal Kodachrome in quality it would require 25 megapixels 16 bits deep." and whether the Kodachrome was in question was 135 format or 6x7 cm (medium) format?  Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. No Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1057 Â Posted November 20, 2017 Leica I and Elmar by nattens, auf Flickr 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. No Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1058 Â Posted November 20, 2017 Leica I abd Leica III with Leica Mug by nattens, auf Flickr 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_schertel Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1059  Posted November 20, 2017 congratulations, Olaf. Did you find a lens for your I? I think, you have seached for it very Long.  yours sincerely Thomas 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. No Posted November 20, 2017 Share #1060 Â Posted November 20, 2017 Yes I Did - thanks to Jerzy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now