earleygallery Posted December 31, 2007 Share #21 Posted December 31, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) This thread reminds me why I haven't sold my MF gear even though I haven't used it for ages (new years resolution USE IT!). I have a Bronica ETRS and a couple of TLR's and Zeiss folders. With colour especially the tones from the Bronica are lovely. I used to shoot weddings with it and its paid for itself although the shutter in the standard lens started playing up so I bought a new lens (cheaper than repair). Not used it yet though......! A few years ago I was seriously considering selling all my gear and moving to 6X6 (I like the square format and learnt from doing the weddings with 645 that its much easier to use 6X6 - you can leave the camera on a tripod and don't need to tilt it for portrait format shots, and using a WLF allows you to maintain eye contact with your subject). But with 3 extra shots per roll the 645 made economical sense, especially for a working camera. So I considered a Bronica SQA/B or Hasselblad or one of the new release Rollieflexes. I recall an article in AP where they compared an image taken with a Nikon and standard lens and a Seagull TLR (the Chinese Rollei copy) and the Seagull was sharper with its basic lens. However, digital had just started to boom and I waited, thinking that would be the way for me to go.... in the meantime I started using my Leica's more and more, and realise that I just wouldn't get many of the same photos if I were using a 6X6 camera. Think of some of the iconic Leica/35mm images - that shot of Che Guevara, Capa's images of Omaha beach, they simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for the 35mm rangefinder. If ultimate quality if what you need then yes, medium or better still large format is the way to go (or MF digital of course). As has been said if you use 645 then took a shot with a 10X8 camera you'd probably have the same contrast in quality. Enjoy you Hasselblad, but you will certainly return to the convenience and discretion of your Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here 35mm compared to roll film (or: Leica vs Hasselblad). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Michael Hiles Posted December 31, 2007 Share #22 Posted December 31, 2007 Seems to me that there is no universal camera. If I want to follow in the footsteps of Ansel Adams or the Westons, I will buy a 4x5 or 8x10 camera. And I wont do the things that make 35mm useful and unique. If I want to do things that 35mm is best at, I will sacrifice something but gain much else. My Subaru Outback gets me out of Quebec's snows in a way that a Ferrari never will. But the Subaru doesn't win grand prix Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted January 1, 2008 Share #23 Posted January 1, 2008 It's just the way of photography and what you're doing. You can make pictures with a Leica M under circumstances (low available light) which you will never able to do with a M.F. camera. I just did a same test with the M7 and a M.F. TLR but with the last one I could not get blurr free pictures under 1/30S and with the Leica 1/8-1/12S. Both fixed lenses but indeed M.F. often 3,5 while for the Leica 2,0 or 1,4 is not a problem at all. Especially on B&W you can go to much higher resolution films to compensate partial the loss of information in the small negative. e.g. Rollei ATP-V1.1 Technical Pan film in combination with a low contrast document developer. >800 ln/mm but therefore over the max. resolution of all known optics available on the market. http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Rollei%20ATP_englisch_mail.pdf What is it (NOT a micro film): http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/ATP-V1.pdf But the same results you could get from the discontinued Kodak T.P. film in the past. However all kind of slow speed films and especially the micro films are limited to use under high contrast light conditions. But if you prefer to be a landscape photographer you should swap your camera for a 4x5" or even bigger (8x10") format with a big tripod and ask a somebody to carry the rest of the necessary equipment. If you have all the time and you can handle the inconvienience it's the best solution for this kind of photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted January 1, 2008 Share #24 Posted January 1, 2008 That's bonkers money. IMHO. Anything in four figures is just daft. Congratulations! One born every minute. Not at all - you're out of touch, Andy. That's a good price for an Xpan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted January 1, 2008 Share #25 Posted January 1, 2008 Each one to his format and each format to its purpose. I travel therefore Leica. The rest is ....the rest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtownby Posted January 2, 2008 Share #26 Posted January 2, 2008 I think the true difference is the photo you end up with. Take a look at Salgado's new book, "Africa" and notice the difference with his 35mm shots versus those he took with the Pentax 645. (I'm making the assumption that the aspect ratios indicate the film used.) All are beautifully shot, but it is obvious that he got shots with the Leica that he would not have been able to get carrying and maneuvering the MF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted January 2, 2008 Share #27 Posted January 2, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not at all - you're out of touch, Andy. That's a good price for an Xpan. I just got one with a 45mm lens, used by a real photographer not a collector but perfectly working and in mechanically very good condition, with 6 months shop warranty, for 850 euro. It seems that UK prices are, even not considering the euro / pound difference, quite high: I might sell mine in the UK for the price of two, buy another and I will end up with having one for free: not bad! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspeltz Posted January 3, 2008 Share #28 Posted January 3, 2008 Bigger is always better, unless you don't use a tripod! I use a Hasselblad, always on a tripod, and the pictures are wonderful. I use a Leica, never on a tripod, and the pictures are also wonderful, but mostly because it is handheld and fast, light, and I get pictures I would never get with the Hasselblad. I also use a 4x5 and 8x10. Each camera has its strengths. When nothing is moving and a tripod is possible, go for the big one. When everything is moving, you are on the street, etc, nothing beats the little camera. Nothing new. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted January 5, 2008 Share #29 Posted January 5, 2008 I just got one with a 45mm lens, used by a real photographer not a collector but perfectly working and in mechanically very good condition, with 6 months shop warranty, for 850 euro. It seems that UK prices are, even not considering the euro / pound difference, quite high: I might sell mine in the UK for the price of two, buy another and I will end up with having one for free: not bad! Interesting. Was that the series 1 by chance, because it usually goes at about half the cost of a series 2. But if you got a series 2 at that price then you did well; I've seen them around £1400 in several (realistic) places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapages Posted January 8, 2008 Author Share #30 Posted January 8, 2008 Thanks to all that reacted to my first posting on this issue. The intention was not to start another 35mm vs MF war but rather to share my first impressions with the MF format compared to 35mm. Obviously the larger negative format is the main reason for "better" pictures. It is also true that the choice of photographic equipment depends in the first place of usability for a given purpose. Typical MF equipment tends to be bigger/heavier than 35mm equipment (like a Leica M set). One would be able to take a 35mm set on more occasions than an MF set. However, if one compares not to the Leica M but rather to Leica R or other similarly "big" 35mm sets, the difference with MF blurs. Also, between different MF equiments there are differences. I must say that, after using a Hasselblad H1 set for about six months now, this is a very easy set to work with. I would dare to say that it is no more burdening to take a H1 with its 50-110 mm lens (and certainly with the 80mm lens) than it is to take a typical Leica R set, both in terms of size and weight. So the differences can sometimes be quite limited. The added advantage of the MF is the ability to switch film backs at any moment. When comparing to a typical Leica M set, however, things obviously look a little different :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapp Posted January 10, 2008 Share #31 Posted January 10, 2008 On film size matters. The magnification of the Hasselblad negative is less and even the lower quality of a medium format lens is compensated by the magnification factor. Working digital things look different. Pixel resolution counts and the better image quality per area of 35mm cameras may blow away the Hasselblad system especially M wide angles. Even better is a medium format system analog/digital with lenses optimized for digital use like Rodenstock and Schneider Apo-line. Hasselblad is not the guarantee for best image quality per image area, but it feels OK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapages Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share #32 Posted January 10, 2008 While I am not using neither digital Leica nor digital Hasselblad, I have read comments by users of both systems elsewhere and the bottom line of all this is quite clearly that also in digital size does matter (in this case not of the negative but of the sensor). No one was disputing that the Hasselblad H3D-39 or H3D-II 39 blow any digital Leica out of the water (as well as any 35mm DSLR for that matter). Of course, we are talking about very expensive systems here beyond the reach of most hobby photographers. But to suggest that the digital Leica M would be a challenge to a digital Hasselblad seems far-fetched. There may be other advantages to the M8, such as its compact size, that matter more. But quality-wise, if ultimate picture quality is the goal, than there are clearly better choices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 10, 2008 Share #33 Posted January 10, 2008 Working digital things look different. Pixel resolution counts and the better image quality per area of 35mm cameras may blow away the Hasselblad system especially M wide angles. I've seen many statements that a 35mm equivalent digital camera will approach, or match, the quality available from a Hasselblad film camera, but this is the first time I've read that says it may "blow it away". I'd be very interested to see a comparison between the best an M8 could produce versus the best a Hass could produce in terms of IQ alone. Well exposed Velvia 50, or slow B&W film can be magical in the right hands. Whilst the Leica wides are good, are they really in the same ball park as the SWC Biogon? Don't misunderstand, I'm ready to be impressed by your evidence. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
svante Posted January 11, 2008 Share #34 Posted January 11, 2008 Shooting the same film in 135 and 120 is one thing, but what would you rather shoot; wide open 50mm Summilux ASPH f1.4 with best ISO100 film or, wide open 80mm Planar f2.8 with best ISO400 film? I wouldn't say the answer is self evident. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapp Posted January 11, 2008 Share #35 Posted January 11, 2008 Make the test, it is incredible what differences can be seen with different digital backs on MF systems and especially with wide angle lenses even compared to 35mm format sensors. Most people use Hasselblad for portraits where the lenses are well corrected even for digital use, but wide angle is yet another story. If you ever have the chance check it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapp Posted January 11, 2008 Share #36 Posted January 11, 2008 I Whilst the Leica wides are good, are they really in the same ball park as the SWC Biogon? Rolo Try the Schneider Apo-Digitar 35 mm and realize that the Biogon is not meant for digital use. And stop nailing me on "the blowing away" part. Any Leica wide angle lens has less distortion than the 35 mm lens on the Hasselblad 645 system. Per image area any wide angle Leica lens produces better results than the 645 Hasselblad lenses. It is difficult to blow away a fourfold pixel advantage, but in the wide angle arena the Leica lenses can surpass Hasselblad (and that is a blow), depending on your quality criteria - bottom line: There is no reason to consider Hasselblad or any other brand camera to be superior to any other system, based on experience with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted January 11, 2008 Share #37 Posted January 11, 2008 I'd be very interested to see a comparison between the best an M8 could produce versus the best a Hass could produce in terms of IQ alone. Rolo I own both. Posting 100% crops in jpeg is not my scene. I look at finished prints, not screens. Even at 16x20 the M8 IMHO equals my 'blad in film in "pure" numbers IQ, just about, but the film, well, looks like film and has that medium format "look". Put my P20 (16mp) back on and we have digital v digital and you will be unsurprised to hear the 'blad pulls away again. Not just in pure IQ but again in that intangible way you can see between 35mm and 21/4 even in a 6x4 in print from film. BUT, and be aware those looking at a CFV back or Phase, just as with the M8 where lenses suddenly had back/front focus when they looked fine before on film and photographers found they couldn't focus, the 'blad needs the best lenses in the bag 40mm 100mm 180mm and boy can you see mirror slap below 1/125th. Lets play test your technique. They are of course apples and oranges or whatever. I wouldn't take the 'blad out doing a Bresson/Winogrand although I did get a great candid gondolier in Venice by sitting the 'blad on my knee and shooting at 45degrees. Nor would I take the Leica on a garden/landscape shoot and put it on the Gitzo. Pure IQ 'blad beats Leica both in film and in digital but pure is fantasy land go 39mp backs or 10 x 8 film if you want IQ. I see lots of Bresson with IQ in the basement but boy the shot speaks to me. The comparison is like Bresson v Adams, who was the "best" photographer ? BTW it is SO liberating putting the digital back on the "blad not counting the film/processing costs each time you press the shutter (and you thought 35mm film costs were high) and changing backs/rolls every 12 pick up a S/H or refurbished phase back all that gear gets a new lease of life only the film backs gather dust now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 11, 2008 Share #38 Posted January 11, 2008 Try the Schneider Apo-Digitar 35 mm and realize that the Biogon is not meant for digital use. Zapp, I don't have access to that lens, but I do own a Leica 35mm Lux ASPH and a 24mm Elmarit. The lens/film combination of either lens does not approach the SWC Biogon plus film combination. I have enough personal experience of these to be skeptical of any claims that they are close on a film v film comparison - a big gap in favour of the Hasselblad and for good reasons. I've also spent an afternoon with a Hasselblad CFV back with the 150mm Zeiss lens and I was left with the impression that it's streets ahead of anything else I've seen from a 35mm equivalent, Canon 1Ds or M8. This week I've completed some direct comparisons with same subject, same lighting between the M8 & Canon 1D & MP with film. For my purpose, the results were quite informative and will definitely influence my way forward. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted January 11, 2008 Share #39 Posted January 11, 2008 BTW it is SO liberating putting the digital back on the "blad not counting the film/processing costs each time you press the shutter (and you thought 35mm film costs were high) and changing backs/rolls every 12 pick up a S/H or refurbished phase back all that gear gets a new lease of life only the film backs gather dust now. Poor form to F up your own post but forgot to say with the 'blad I usually carry a film back some shots just need that look. An interesting poll would be how many M8 users carry two bodies ? The second with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted January 11, 2008 Share #40 Posted January 11, 2008 Zapp,I've also spent an afternoon with a Hasselblad CFV back with the 150mm Zeiss lens and I was left with the impression that it's streets ahead of anything else I've seen from a 35mm equivalent, Canon 1Ds or M8. Rolo So true, but the consensus is 40FLE,100,180 and the new 40IF if poss. Where all the Zeiss looked great on film that digital, even with the crop, shows the differences. But to cross link to another thread that D3 shoots at 10fps or whatever, another quality tool for another different job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.