35mm compared to roll film (or: Leica vs Hasselblad)

[leicapages]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a longstanding Leica M and R user I recently added a Hasselblad H1 with its Fuji-made 80/2.8 and 50-110/3.5-4.5 lenses (all film-based). The H1 is a 6x4.5 camera (not 6x6 like the classic Hasselblad V series).

A good month ago I took both my Leica M7 + latest Summilux-M 50/1.4 ASPH and the Hasselblad H1 + its zoom on a outdoor trip, both loaded with identical film (Fuji Reala 100 either in 35mm or roll film format depending on the camera) in order to be able to make comparisons.

Printing was done at a pro lab on A4 format (20x30cm).

Great was my surprise to see such a difference between the prints made with the two camera systems. Again, the film and the circumstances were identical, so the difference is entirely due to the camera systems. All were good, but the Hasselblad images were simply speaking of another league. It was almost disappointing when comparing the images taken with the Leica to those taken with the Hasselblad. The Hasselblad images were more brilliant, sharper, and gave more detail and clarity. The overall impression was "whaow, these are great images".

Now, I do know that the obvious explanation is the different size of the negative (24x36mm vs 60x45mm) and such comparison is maybe not "honest", but I had never thought that the visual difference on A4 prints would be this visible. Somehow, it made me almost feel sorry for my Leica stuff... Wonder if other people had similar impressions.

Pascal

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[luigi bertolotti]

An old story... "MF strikes again"... the reason for I never throw away my old Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9; you cannot escape ... from 18x24 on, the prints ARE different... some friends of mine have fallen in the "big neg illness"... ended with folding Linhofs... ok the 4,5x6 vs. 35mm... but 6x9 is DOUBLE AREA... and if one starts to worry about film planity... why not to use 9x12 plane film... ?

Years ago I found (not bought, but tempted a lot) a fine Fuij 690 with 3 lenses (65-100-180) ... smart RF camera, a sort of "big M"... and the Mamiya 7 I think is also an excellent tool if one get tied in the MF fascination.

[zeitz]

Imagine how much better 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film cameras would be than MF. It comes down to picture style and convenience.

[tobey bilek]

I have settled on two, Leica and 4x5. The 4x5 is outstanding if you can put up with the inconvenience.

[Mark Antony]

Yes

I see in my Pentax 67 images a tonal range and sharpness that is visible even on a 8x10 but...

The Pentax is a beast, doesn't sit in my shoulder bag or pocket.

Also some of my favourite emulsions are not available or easy to get locally in 120.

 

MF and LF are always going to get 'ultimate quality' compared to 35mm even if you shoot 20ISO neg film, but for me quality is not always the ultimate goal and sometimes 35 mil fits the bill

Mark

[Rolo]

One can see the difference in a 6x4" print. There's no need to go bigger because the gap expands and the difference becomes more obvious.

 

For me, it comes down to maximum apertures and compact size and lens choice. A Fuji 6x9 is quite portable although not pocketable, but the lens is fixed and the max aperture is limited.

 

Now you have both, you have the best of both worlds at twice the investment. Your dilemma may be that you find yourself using one far more than the other. I'm in that position and have today sold my XPAN and have listed my second M camera to make way for an M8, or CFV back.

 

We have far too many choices. :D

 

Rolo

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pascal

 

I am surprised that you were surprised by this difference.

 

"A good big one will always beat a good little one" as the Chairman of my old camera club used to say.

 

A big negative or slide is more forgiving of the lens, so even cheaper large format lenses will produce better images than decent lenses on smaller formats.

 

I was sorry not to be in a position to bid for Rolo's X-Pan, but one day I know I will make the move to a larger format than 35mm (or 1/1.33x 35mm...)

[Rolo]

 

I was sorry not to be in a position to bid for Rolo's X-Pan, but one day I know I will make the move to a larger format than 35mm (or 1/1.33x 35mm...)

 

Andy,

 

You could have had a bargain off me, but cash is King ! It went for £1,126.

 

Fabulous M3 is on the block now.

 

A good big 'un will always beat a small 'un, unless it's faster, can get inside and punch below the belt.

 

I did a lens comparison many years ago between a Rolleiflex and a Nikon 135mm from the same tripod position. The 135mm obviously shot a smaller area, so I used the same film area from the Rolleiflex version of the Paterson Test Chart as the 135mm. The Rollleiflex walloped the Nikon's resolution by a mile. Not by a long distance, but so far in front it seemed ridiculous.

 

My conclusion was that a Rolleiflex could be used in preference to a 35mm Nikon by cropping up to the equivalent of a 180mm lens. That is a great deal of flexibility and saves a lot of lens changes. I'd like to do that test today with my new Leica lenses. That'd be an unwanted education if a £500 TLR camera could beat a whole Leica system.

 

Rolo

[andybarton]

Andy,

 

You could have had a bargain off me, but cash is King ! It went for £1,126.

 

That's bonkers money. IMHO. Anything in four figures is just daft.

 

Congratulations! One born every minute.

[Rolo]

That's bonkers money. IMHO. Anything in four figures is just daft.

 

Congratulations! One born every minute.

 

That's harsh IMO. Being fair Andy, if I remember correctly, you didn't seem to understand the going rate for them at the Xmas party.

 

Bidders pay what they think it's worth and I started it at £750, so there was a lot of interest and they weren't all "daft". I was pleased at the final price.

 

Rolo

[aesop]

As a longstanding Leica M and R user I recently added a Hasselblad H1 with its Fuji-made 80/2.8 and 50-110/3.5-4.5 lenses (all film-based). The H1 is a 6x4.5 camera (not 6x6 like the classic Hasselblad V series).

A good month ago I took both my Leica M7 + latest Summilux-M 50/1.4 ASPH and the Hasselblad H1 + its zoom on a outdoor trip, both loaded with identical film (Fuji Reala 100 either in 35mm or roll film format depending on the camera) in order to be able to make comparisons.

Printing was done at a pro lab on A4 format (20x30cm).

Great was my surprise to see such a difference between the prints made with the two camera systems. Again, the film and the circumstances were identical, so the difference is entirely due to the camera systems. All were good, but the Hasselblad images were simply speaking of another league. It was almost disappointing when comparing the images taken with the Leica to those taken with the Hasselblad. The Hasselblad images were more brilliant, sharper, and gave more detail and clarity. The overall impression was "whaow, these are great images".

Now, I do know that the obvious explanation is the different size of the negative (24x36mm vs 60x45mm) and such comparison is maybe not "honest", but I had never thought that the visual difference on A4 prints would be this visible. Somehow, it made me almost feel sorry for my Leica stuff... Wonder if other people had similar impressions.

Pascal

 

 

Pascal,

 

There is no need to almost feel sorry for your Leica stuff - just remember that, when used appropriately, it represents the very pinnacle of rangefinder (and arguably lens) design for the 135 format.

 

The camera is merely a tool, and no system is perfect. But let us be clear on one thing - all photographic equipment design involves some degree of trade-off. For the purpose of this discourse, it is critical to remember that analogous trade-offs should apply to format selection.

 

As Tobey implicitly points out, selecting one film format over another should ideally result from your "film format criteria heirarchy". In other words, what film format criteria really matter to you and in what order? Is it overall negative quality, convenience of use, cost, etc.? . Obviously, this would vary from one individual to another, but ideally, your chosen format should be optimised towards your strict shooting requirements/habits.

 

I have never shot in a studio nor in a situation where I have absolute control over lighting - I shoot using available light, usually in low-light situations. Added to this, I often find myself shooting where I am not authorised. It is extremely demanding (on equipment & photographer) and, as you may have inferred from my input so far, flash photography is simply not an option. This is my idea of fun.

 

It is clear from the above that large format would not work for me, despite its overwhelming "big neg" advantage. Medium format also has its attraction, but for me, it fails in the "convenience" test. To be more precise, it fails in my "stealth" test .

 

For these reasons, I opted for the 135 format. It certainly does not yield the highest quality negative when compared to larger formats, but try sneaking (and using) a MF or LF camera/lens combo into a situation where you really should not be taking photographs. Within the 135 format, for my peculiarities, the Leica M wins hands down.

 

Some day, I would love to have the luxury of time and lighting. And believe me, when I do, I will opt for the biggest available, cost-efficient negative format that I can lay my hands on .

 

 

Sota.

[waileong]

Without the tripod and static subjects, the MF's advantage is much lesser-- you can't shoot at f1 or f1.4, you can't shoot at 1/8 or 1/15, you can't focus as fast, etc....

[giordano]

Without the tripod and static subjects, the MF's advantage is much lesser-- you can't shoot at f1 or f1.4, you can't shoot at 1/8 or 1/15, you can't focus as fast, etc....

 

It depends which MF camera you choose. A good MF rangefinder focuses as fast as an M, and the extra mass and bigger body tend to make long hand-held exposures less problematic (remember that the final image will receive much less enlargement). Here's my favourite:

 

 

And a TLR braced with its neck strap is excellent for long exposures.

[andybarton]

That's harsh IMO. Being fair Andy, if I remember correctly, you didn't seem to understand the going rate for them at the Xmas party.

 

Bidders pay what they think it's worth and I started it at £750, so there was a lot of interest and they weren't all "daft". I was pleased at the final price.

 

Rolo

 

This is true (and a lesson to not post after midnight ). However, I thought that the "going rate" was less than a grand for the v1 model. Maybe things have picked up since they stopped making them?

[efreddi]

Actually your comparison is not exactly precise, to be perfect you shall use the same film on both camera, in order to snip out any added effect of the separate process and printing... But let's forget such things, it's not the point.

As already written by others, the film size makes a lot of difference. In my view the Leica M is the top in the 135mm world, the MF is another wolrd - different application and different languages. Just to say one - with my M6 I can take photos in the evening at 1/8 second without any problem, my 500C/M instead needs a tripod to give the best also with a lot of light.

 

 

Elia

[waileong]

I disagree, but perhaps it depends on how big and strong your muscles are.

 

There's a point beyond which weight ceases to be a stabilising factor in the hand and actually causes more shake as the muscles have to work harder to hold it still. It has to do with both weight and center of gravity, I suppose.

 

MF lens is bigger than 35 mm which means the circumference is larger. All things being equal, that means more to turn and thus it must be slower.

 

It depends which MF camera you choose. A good MF rangefinder focuses as fast as an M, and the extra mass and bigger body tend to make long hand-held exposures less problematic (remember that the final image will receive much less enlargement). Here's my favourite:

 

 

And a TLR braced with its neck strap is excellent for long exposures.

[ron110n]

1/8th of a sec... isn't a TLR a fixed lens range finder... since 1928 =) Feel is on a Franke & Heidecke and you'll say nothing but sweet at sub 1/60 sec.

 

Now here's the disadvantage of an MF SLR.

 

The lens is so expensive, because the shutter is in the lens and not in the body.

 

Shutter speed... how fast is in the lens and again not in the body. You may buy a lens that can snap at 1/500 sec and the other is 1/1000 of a sec... at a price.

 

Bayonet filter... no problem. you can get an adaptor. But buying a filter... that's a problem, a wide angle MF can cost $500 USD each because of it's size. For my 80mm which is the only lens I have. =)

I use a Bay VI to 72mm adaptor. This way I can share all the heliopans to my Nikon F and PanaLeica L1.

 

Amazingly that big yet buffered mirror. It is twice more stable than my F3 and F5.

 

f2.8? no problem... ISO3200 is peice of cake especially for color blind people and mad bathroom scientist like myself. =)

 

 

-Ron

[Joop van Heijgen]

Without the tripod and static subjects, the MF's advantage is much lesser-- you can't shoot at f1 or f1.4, you can't shoot at 1/8 or 1/15, you can't focus as fast, etc....

 

also for slide film you have an advantage with the 35 mm format...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jlancasterd]

Bidders pay what they think it's worth and I started it at £750, so there was a lot of interest and they weren't all "daft". I was pleased at the final price.

Rolo

 

I agree - I got £600 for my Digilux-2 a couple of months ago. This may seem high, but it had the new sensor and was bundled with various accessories, including the rare close-up lens.

 

An item is worth what someone will pay for it - the law of the market place.

[giordano]

I disagree, but perhaps it depends on how big and strong your muscles are.

 

There's a point beyond which weight ceases to be a stabilising factor in the hand and actually causes more shake as the muscles have to work harder to hold it still. It has to do with both weight and center of gravity, I suppose.

 

MF lens is bigger than 35 mm which means the circumference is larger. All things being equal, that means more to turn and thus it must be slower.

 

Weight isn't so much of a problem if the camera is well-balanced and there's a good anatomical grip. Big helical focusing mounts are indeed a pain; I prefer rack focusing.

 

On the Koni Omega, your left hand holds the anatomical grip and works the shutter release. The curved knob at bottom left of your picture rests on the heel of your right hand while the thumb and first two fingers work the focusing wheel above it. After the exposure, use the remaining to fingers to pull out the curved knob, slam it back with the heel of your hand, and everything's ready for the next shot. Not as fast as a Leicavit, but pretty good for 6x7.