I made half meter prints from 35mm CMS 20, and looked with 10x Loupe - and no grain. It is absurd how fine grained this film is.
It reads Holga lens, known on APUG as old Coca-Cola bottom cutout, mounted on single use Hasselblad, also known as Hasslebrother.
thou, scan from negative is not doing CMS20 justice at all.
It was not my intention to say that you can´t make a fine print out of a 35mm negative. Of course a real master printer will get a more decent result from a 35mm neg than a beginner would yield from a 645 neg. But it´s all the limitation of the film. Most excellent lenses (and this is the level we are talking here) can yield resolutions that are beyond what most films can resolve. And this is why a doubling or tripling of the film area will inevitably lead to more resolution. Same with the Adox film Darko mentioned. It is true that when put in a 35mm camera, one can achieve stunning resolution. But put the same film into a 120 camera (and it is available as 120 as far as I know) and one can achieve even higher resolution.
I´d like to come back to my original argument here. The great benefit of a Leica is not that it could challenge larger formats (which it can´t) but that it is the most compact 35mm system camera around (together with Zeiss Ikon and Voigtlander Bessa, but these ones rarely anyone bought) and can be equipped with lenses of very high quality. All the other 35mm cameras that fit in your pocket either have plastic lenses, or if they have quality lenses (like Rollei 35) you have to get along with one focal length only. A Fuji GW690 may offer more resolution, but it does not fit into the pocket of one´s jacket.
I made half meter prints from 35mm CMS 20, and looked with 10x Loupe - and no grain. It is absurd how fine grained this film is.
It was not my intention to say that you can´t make a fine print out of a 35mm negative. Of course a real master printer will get a more decent result from a 35mm neg than a beginner would yield from a 645 neg. But it´s all the limitation of the film. Most excellent lenses (and this is the level we are talking here) can yield resolutions that are beyond what most films can resolve. And this is why a doubling or tripling of the film area will inevitably lead to more resolution. Same with the Adox film Darko mentioned. It is true that when put in a 35mm camera, one can achieve stunning resolution. But put the same film into a 120 camera (and it is available as 120 as far as I know) and one can achieve even higher resolution.
It seems I am in the wrong forum indeed. I thought APUG was a forum for film photography. I would not consider using a film camera as living in the past since you can still buy new film cameras and you can still buy fresh film.
It appears however that APUG is for people who would much rather Leica stop making new film cameras as anything new they make is obviously a rip-off and who would much rather knock down and stop any efforts to make new film as a rip-off, rebranding excercise or whatever (see the Cinestill and Ferania threads elsewhere here...).
I can understand saying that you prefer an older M3 or whatever to a new one but knocking down any new film camera made as inferior to the good old days is just tiring.
Now don't get me wrong, I own and enjoy Leica cameras. But I think this "intangible feel" thing that is unique to the Leica is taking things just a touch far IMHO. I start to wince everytime I hear this. I think this is one of those arguments that get other camera owners a bit grumpy.
I own a Minolta SRT-102 in which the film advance is as smooth as any Leica I have owned. The lenses focus very smoothly with just the right feel of weighting. The shutter is a dream to work with, it may be a touch louder than an M4, but not by much. Everything works perfectly in synch, and it also capable of some lovely photographs. And this camera was a LOT less expensive when new. And then there is the Nikon, the Pentax, and many others. There is a reason that the Japanese stole the market from underneath the Germans. They started building some very nice cameras for a lot less money than the Germans.
And I own other cameras that operate just as nice, and feel just as nice in the hand, maybe even nicer. The Leica is a very nice rangefinder, but it does not have any patent on how a camera should feel. Even in the early days there were some very, very nice cameras out there, and I am not just referring to the Contax.
Definition of best camera/lens is very easy: the one that gives you most keepers on the negative.
Definition of best camera/lens is very easy: the one that gives you most keepers on the negative.
Here it is:
http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/ADOX_Films/page25/page25.html
35mm film that can give results like bigger formats. Which lens did they used in the test?
...I continue to be amazed by leicanuts who extol Leica lenses' quality and shoot handheld.
1/250 or 1/125 is no big issue without tripod. I use them more for speeds of 1/30 and below...
One of the good statements in a thread bordering on idiotic.Definition of best camera/lens is very easy: the one that gives you most keepers on the negative.
I once had two Tiltalls, an original Marchioni and a later Leitz. I got rid of the Leitz version and kept the Marchioni - this was a big mistake because the Leitz version gave sharper negatives with more micro-contrast and superior bokeh.
> handheld
I did test 1/250 and 1/125 with my Leicas on tripod and hand held, and I see no difference. Maybe pro-tripod guys are drinking too much coffee?
So, leicanuts hands doesn't shake as much as anyone else. Make sense.
The red dot is really a black hole, absorbs monetary funds, handshake, blurriness and various age-related nuances.
Actually, this is proof of the power of faith; leicaphools having a very great deal of faith in their equipment.
...
If that's pointed at me, let me make a few things clear.It is a small minded person that concerns himself about what cameras others choose to use, and throws out insults because of it.
If that's pointed at me, let me make a few things clear.
I've owned and used Leicas; two M3s, a CL, an R3 and a IIIg. I serviced - basic CLA according to the Leica manual - one M3 and the IIIg.
I've owned, used and serviced quite a few other cameras.
Leicas are extraordinarily well made cameras, for what they cost compared to the work that goes into them they're not just a bargain but a steal.
I dislike the Leica superiority complex. Having realistic faith in a superb mechanism being durable, reliable, and capable is one thing; having delusional faith that your results must be the best because the film was exposed in a product aus Wetzlar is quite another.
"Leicaphool" is defined in the last sentence of my above post.Yes, that was directed at you. I dislike the Leica superiority snobbery as well. Read my previous posts in this thread. I equally dislike the anti-Leica snobbery, which I interpreted your "Leicaphools" comment to be. No where in this thread has anyone claimed that Leica results must be the best because the film was exposed in a product aus Wetzlar .
I agree with this: "Leicas are extraordinarily well made cameras, for what they cost compared to the work that goes into them they're not just a bargain but a steal."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?