Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica

[Pioneer]

My gut agrees with you Dan, but I try very hard not to form an opinion until I have tried.

This is my problem at this point. I have always been taught that you never have more image quality than you will at the point of capture. After that everything you do just degrades what you captured in the first place. The key to a technically great print is to do no more harm than you need to. By bleaching away silver after I have captured an image, and purposely reducing the contrast, I am having a hard time understanding how this is not degrading the image.

I am going to run a little test of my own using 135 and 120, bleached and unbleached. I'll see how it turns out.

 

[Bill Burk]

I've done a comparison to satisfy myself. Both these 11x14 inch prints are pleasing to me, and are all I want from black and white.

The conclusion I have drawn for myself personally is: 35mm fine grain film achieves results that favorably compare to 4x5 fast film when enlarged for 11x14 inch prints. In this case Panatomic-X 35mm and TMAX 400 4x5. Both developed D-76 1:1

The left-hand side was taken on 4x5 with a Camera that is more expensive than a Leica, the right-hand side is 35mm using an OM with Zuiko.

http://beefalobill.com/imgs/45y35.jpg

http://beefalobill.com/imgs/45y35b.jpg

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks for posting these Bill.

 

[georg16nik]

Let me see if i understand correctly. Adox CMS20 is ISO 20 on ADOTECH for pictorial purposes. But with a modified process that includes bleaching the latent image before developing (SLIMT technique), you develop for a higher speed but still get acceptable contrast. Have i understood it OK?..

You can control contrast and speed by increase / decrease bleach and development time, ADOTECH is not necessary if you bleach. The good old Rodinal is quite capable.

In my post from yesterday, there is link to David Kachel's site http://www.davidkachel.com/assets/cont_pt3.htm scroll down towards the middle of the page and you can read more about it.

David Kachel is APUG member as well, you might wanna check clayne's APUG thread I linked to yesterday: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

..The million dollar question is... What is the max speed that you can get from Adox CMS 20 using those techniques?

The ISO speed and ISO average gradient are determined for film+process, not just the film alone.
What the international standard gives as speed value is approx.

So, lets just say that for me Adox CMS20 is more like ISO 10 to ISO 50 film.
YMMV.

Without the bleaching process I have noted better results at EI12 or even EI6. I don't know how bleaching will effect this but I am going to do some experimenting.

In my case its ~ EI10 to EI20 with the SPUR / Adotech developer and the film shot with old glass, Elmar 3,5/50, Summar, Summitar, FED 3,5/50. Most of them uncoated and known as low contrast lenses.
The highest speed I get is with a “Taylor Hobson” descendant, 1950 Summarit 1,5/50. Used without filter, the CMS20 shows its ortho charm in foliage and shadows, mount a yellow filter and I get dark gray / black skies. Summarit 1,5/50 is quite capable for UV photography.

EDIT - However, since this particular thread was about cameras that were more expensive than Leicas someone may want to start a new thread with this as a topic. We may get more participation that way.

You got a point here, thou Darko is CMS20 and Leica admirer, so he wouldn't mind.
No harm in resurrecting clayne's thread (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Nathan King]

I posted earlier in this thread and am a huge Leica fan, but even I won't try to argue that it beats medium format. The advantage is not in image quality, but image content. I can get photographs with the Leica that I would miss with larger equipment because of either speed or portability. One could do the same with another rangefinder and probably wouldn't be able to tell the prints apart, but the Leica has the best fit and finish of any camera I have tried.

 

[baachitraka]

That's true for street work. When it comes to size I prefer something like OM-1n from Olympus, LX from Pentax(not sure whether they have compact glass) and Leica(I do not own them yet).

 

[Pioneer]

That's true for street work. When it comes to size I prefer something like OM-1n from Olympus, LX from Pentax(not sure whether they have compact glass) and Leica(I do not own them yet).

The Pentax LX with the 40/2.8 Pancake lens is a very compact set up. The Pentax MX is even a tiny bit smaller but I prefer the OTF metering in the LX.

 

[Bill Burk]

The Olympus OM 40mm f/2 is a fun compact setup with an OM-1 - Now that's getting close to the cost of a Leica lens.

 

[baachitraka]

Is it true? when OM 40mm f/2 was released no body bothered and was selling much cheaper than other f/2 lenses.

 

[Bill Burk]

I remember the original release marketed it as a "Photojournalist's" lens... Meant to be inexpensive and useful for Staff, maybe even a Student lens. But I think it didn't become a popular lens as anticipated so not "many" were made.

Then somewhere along the line it was recognized for being special in some way, by then it was too late... Olympus wasn't making more.

I wanted one for backpacking, so I did get one during those high-priced times. I'd heard it was popular among filmmakers who were "buying them up".

I paid a fairly high retail price for it when I saw two in the store window at "Discount Camera" in San Francisco. I think I saw prices as high as $750 US (and I might have paid that *edit no way... I can't imagine I ever spent that) but now I see a couple on eBay asking around $550 US.

It's a nice lens I don't regret buying but wouldn't put that kind of money into it again.

 

[PKM-25]

I would beg to differ here, Sir. Owning and using both systems (and enjoying both immensely), I would suggest that, at best, only a modicum of difference distinguishes the two. To wit, based on some three decades' experience, I detect no noticeable difference between images shot on HP5+/Tri-X with either my M6s or any of my F series Nikons (perhaps I should buy a more expensive Leica model? An MA, perhaps?). Images shot on color slide film, however, are an entirely different kettle of fish; these I can tell were shot with different systems: those I remember shooting with the Leica have a color rendition that, to my eye, seems deeper and richer - more vibrant? - than images shot with thee Nikons.

For the most part, this is my experience too. I only got into Leica to shoot Kodachrome before it went away. I had 3 bodies and 4 top notch modern aspheric lenses and boy oh boy did they smoke the competition when shooting chrome. Now I have just one pretty little M3 and a 50mm 1.4 aspheric that I shoot Tmax 400 in and will shoot my stash of Provia 400X in at some point.

I don't need the M3 and the expensive 50 but after shooting thousands of rolls with Leica cameras I figure a nice one lens setup is a photographic treat among tools and it has proven to be very good marketing to have out and about.

 

[PKM-25]

Georg has some great shots in the gallery, so he may have a point. Paying $28 for developer enough to develop 6 rolls is going to kill me though.

They look pretty average to me which leads me to my next point.....in terms of image quality, let's not forget the most important part, the level of talent seen in the composed image.

I use 35mm, 120 and 4x5 and all that has ever mattered to me or the people who buy my work is how good is the damn photograph.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I use 35mm, 120 and 4x5 and all that has ever mattered to me or the people who buy my work is how good is the damn photograph.

That´s it!

 

[removed account4]

..., let's not forget the most important part, the level of talent seen in the composed image.

I use 35mm, 120 and 4x5 and all that has ever mattered to me or the people who buy my work is how good is the damn photograph.

there are plenty of bad images made with every format large and small
and every process on the table. gear that costs 10s of thousands, darkrooms that
cost as much as a house, and whatmatters most to me, isn't that the images aren't well composed or whatever
but that the person who made the images enjoyed themselves. in the end, if the user of the camera
and craft isn't selling the work who it really doesn't matter. and if the person who doesn't make good work has a name or whatever
even he ( or she ) will sell the images. its a game.


i had a thread a while back where i mentioned a guy i went to school with. he had fantastic gear most people drooled over
but he couldn't photograph his way out of a paper bag. i'm guessing he didn't care, he was having fun with his camera and making prints.

too much emphasis is put on gear anyways. plenty of people since the beginning have made images on low end, not high tier gear
and many of these images walk allover much of the work i have seen made with top notch gear.
i am guessing atget's dry plate camera was a piece of junk and his work is untouchable ...

 

[Slixtiesix]

So true too!

 

[georg16nik]

They look pretty average to me which leads me to my next point.....in terms of image quality, let's not forget the most important part, the level of talent seen in the composed image.

I use 35mm, 120 and 4x5 and all that has ever mattered to me or the people who buy my work is how good is the damn photograph.

This is me!!! Average is my style.
Got no people who buy my work, since I don't shoot for sale and have no intent to prove anything to anyone, photographically or otherwise.

I give prints as gifts to friends or enemies.

 

[PKM-25]

I just ran a bunch of 35mm and 120 film, Acros 100 and TMY2. The 35mm was either with my Xpan or a Leica M3 with a 50mm 1.4 Aspheric. The 120 was with a Hasselblad 60mm & 100mm 3.5 CF, Mamiya 6 with the 50, 75 and 150 or a 6x12 back on my 4x5.

The 35 shots are amazingly sharp, like need a microscope to see the finest of details. But the 120 just blows it away, the image comes alive like no one's business.

The overall image quality from 35mm even with one of the top 50mm lenses ever made is no match for the eye watering sharpness of medium format with killer glass. That's today's report anyway...

 

[Pioneer]

If you really want big pictures ya just gotta shoot big film.

 

[georg16nik]

I just ran a bunch of 35mm and 120 film, Acros 100 and TMY2. The 35mm was either with my Xpan or a Leica M3 with a 50mm 1.4 Aspheric. The 120 was with a Hasselblad 60mm & 100mm 3.5 CF, Mamiya 6 with the 50, 75 and 150 or a 6x12 back on my 4x5.

The 35 shots are amazingly sharp, like need a microscope to see the finest of details. But the 120 just blows it away, the image comes alive like no one's business.

The overall image quality from 35mm even with one of the top 50mm lenses ever made is no match for the eye watering sharpness of medium format with killer glass. That's today's report anyway...

Acros 100, or any current film from kodak or ilford can barely reach half of what a decent prime lens for 35mm RF cameras is capable of, not just Leica, Zeiss etc.
Acros 100 is underpowered even for Industar 3,5/50 or most of the Jupiter glass.

 

[flavio81]

I just ran a bunch of 35mm and 120 film, Acros 100 and TMY2. The 35mm was either with my Xpan or a Leica M3 with a 50mm 1.4 Aspheric. The 120 was with a Hasselblad 60mm & 100mm 3.5 CF, Mamiya 6 with the 50, 75 and 150 or a 6x12 back on my 4x5.

The 35 shots are amazingly sharp, like need a microscope to see the finest of details. But the 120 just blows it away, the image comes alive like no one's business.

The overall image quality from 35mm even with one of the top 50mm lenses ever made is no match for the eye watering sharpness of medium format with killer glass. That's today's report anyway...

+1

I rarely had a problem with sharpness in 35mm, i've mostly gotten very sharp results with it. Note, sharpness, not resolution.

But i agree with PKM-25, medium format's richness of tone, clarity, and resolution, makes the picture come alive in a three-dimensional way. The difference is very clear when using typical, good film such as FP4, HP5.

** This also because, for the same level of image detail (say, 1/1000 of the frame area), the medium format system will make the detail require less lines per mm and thus this detail will fall into the part of the MTF curve (of the lens+film+enlarger system) where the system is still at 100% modulation transfer, compared to 35mm. So, more clarity (combination of resolution and detail contrast) **

Acros 100, or any current film from kodak or ilford can barely reach half of what a decent prime lens for 35mm RF cameras is capable of, not just Leica, Zeiss etc.
Acros 100 is underpowered even for Industar 3,5/50 or most of the Jupiter glass.

+1 as well

I think Georg has made a good point to open my eyes to the possibility of using 35mm with ultra high resolution film and special processing. Of course there is a big difference in resolution and grain with these films.

And I think that it is a valid alternative for people who want to have the convenience of 35mm, with the quality of medium format.

However, others would rather have the convenience of easy-to-get films and straightforward processing, shooting MF format and obtaining excellent results. Plus the convenience having bigger MF negatives which are easier to examine and less impacted by environmental damage.

In any case, Georg's posts make me want to try Adox CMS 20 with medium format... perhaps we can approach 8x10" format quality with it!!

 

[georg16nik]

About 2 years ago, Tim Parkin wrote a piece on APUG about CMS20 in Mamiya 7 (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cms20-vs.jpg

its a scan / microscope kinda party and if I am not mistaken, it was tested only with Adotech, so there is lots of room to improve on that.

.....
In any case, Georg's posts make me want to try Adox CMS 20 with medium format... perhaps we can approach 8x10" format quality with it!!

 

[removed account4]

hi georg

sorry to ask this, i mean no disrespect ...
but i never understand why it is so important to have excessive sharpness so one could
inspect the film under a microscope .. ?

photographs are supposed to be viewed from a distance, aren't they ?
i mean i don't look at dry point etchings or pointalist paintings with my nose to the image, don't do that to photograph ...
or should i?

i mean i have 16x20 prints made from 35mm negatives ( tri x processed in gaf universal )
that look fine, if you are up-close you see the film, but you don't see the image ...

 

[mweintraub]

hi georg

sorry to ask this, i mean no disrespect ...
but i never understand why it is so important to have excessive sharpness so one could
inspect the film under a microscope .. ?

photographs are supposed to be viewed from a distance, aren't they ?
i mean i don't look at dry point etchings or pointalist paintings with my nose to the image, don't do that to photograph ...
or should i?

i mean i have 16x20 prints made from 35mm negatives ( tri x processed in gaf universal )
that look fine, if you are up-close you see the film, but you don't see the image ...

I guess to prove a point.

 

[frank]

It's not just about sharpness. It's also about tonality.

For anyone who hasn't tried printing from negatives larger than 135: Do yourself a favour and give it a try.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

hi georg

sorry to ask this, i mean no disrespect ...
but i never understand why it is so important to have excessive sharpness so one could
inspect the film under a microscope .. ?

photographs are supposed to be viewed from a distance, aren't they ?
i mean i don't look at dry point etchings or pointalist paintings with my nose to the image, don't do that to photograph ...
or should i?

i mean i have 16x20 prints made from 35mm negatives ( tri x processed in gaf universal )
that look fine, if you are up-close you see the film, but you don't see the image ...

I do when the fine detail allows it.