Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica

[flavio81]

I guess that I should add that I have loaded Adox CMS 20 into my M6, attached my Zeiss Planar 50 (which I consider an exceptional lens), threaded my viewfinder magnifier into place and shot some very nice photographs off the tripod using a cable release. After developing in the recommended developer I had some excellent negatives with very fine grain. I have enlarged a couple of those negatives to 16x20 and been very impressed with the results.

I have also loaded plain vanilla TMax 100 into my Pentax 645Nii and, using the FA 645 150mm lens, shot some more very nice photographs off of a tripod using a cable release and mirror lockup. After developing in plain old D76 1+1 for 9 1/2 minutes I was very happy with the negatives. I have enlarged them to 16x20 on my poor little Beseler and been blown away by the prints. I have no idea how the acutance of each lens or each film even compares, or how much grain was in each enlargement. What I can tell you from my experience is that the visible sharpness, the depth and the tonality of the medium format TMax negative was miles better than the equivalent image enlarged from the CMS 20 negative. And that really isn't even going big yet. And 6x4.5 really isn't very big on the large format scale either.

+1

There is no subsitute for negative square inches!!

Some people say that 35mm lenses have higher resolution than MF lenses, and that this equalizes the quality of larger formats, but this is a myth. Actual testing shows that quality MF lenses have similar resolution to 35mm lenses (to put an example figure, 80 line pairs /mm on Tmax 100). Thus, with a bigger negative, better results. Also, the bigger negative means most detail will sit on the part of the system's MTF curve that is near to 100% and thus sharpness will be higher.

Last week I got back from the lab a picture made with my Zeiss Nettar 517/16, a 1950s folder camera with a 3-element, single coated lens. You would think the results came from an ultra-high quality 35mm camera and very high resolution film...

I'd say 35mm is for portability and practicalness, giving image quality that is pretty good for most purposes. If you are really concerned about image quality, then look elsewhere and into medium format or large format.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Up to 7x10 inches with top optics, film and technique... not a huge difference between 135 and 6x9cm... though there are subtle differences in small prints too. As enlargement increases the difference become increasingly apparent.

EDIT per the post directly below: By "top film", I'm referring to ultra-fine grain such as Pan-F or T-max 100. Tri-X and other courser grained film changes the game such that differences can be seen in even smaller prints.

 

[frank]

I see distinct differences in 5x7 inch prints, with 400 speed film which is what I usually use.

 

[ToddB]

I would to get a hold of a nice Leica M3. Just need a pile of cash to drop in my lap.

Todd

 

[miha]

+1



Some people say that 35mm lenses have higher resolution than MF lenses, and that this equalizes the quality of larger formats, but this is a myth.

It's not a myth, but you are correct, there is no substitute for square centimetres

 

[georg16nik]

...Some people say that 35mm lenses have higher resolution than MF lenses...

Yes, and the same is true with MF and LF lenses, to more u go up, the more optical limits apply.
MF lenses are generally falling apart a bit above 100 lp/mm, just as much as generic B&W or color film can hold, currently.

With some RF lenses for 35mm you can easily hit 300lp/mm on film and with good enlarger and skills, you can have it on paper without much loss.

I am talking about pocketable, top-of-the-line 35mm RF camera system like a Leica or Zeiss and lens performance @ ƒ4 to ƒ5,6.

MF and LF are pocketable only if you are an elephant and then cost per shot goes up.
Given the common sizes most MF/LF shooters print, its a zero sum game.

Some MF/LF shooters bash 35mm and Leica, mostly because by default they are lousy printers.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yes, and the same is true with MF and LF lenses, to more u go up, the more optical limits apply.
MF lenses are generally falling apart a bit above 100 lp/mm, just as much as generic B&W or color film can hold, currently.

With some RF lenses for 35mm you can easily hit 300lp/mm on film and with good enlarger and skills, you can have it on paper without much loss.

I am talking about pocketable, top-of-the-line 35mm RF camera system like a Leica or Zeiss and lens performance @ ƒ4 to ƒ5,6.

MF and LF are pocketable only if you are an elephant and then cost per shot goes up.
Given the common sizes most MF/LF shooters print, its a zero sum game.

Some MF/LF shooters bash 35mm and Leica, mostly because by default they are lousy printers.

Please compare the very best 135 format image you can find printed to 100x150cm, compare it to the very best image from a 6x9cm film negative printed to the same size and report back to this thread.

 

[flavio81]

Yes, and the same is true with MF and LF lenses, to more u go up, the more optical limits apply.
MF lenses are generally falling apart a bit above 100 lp/mm, just as much as generic B&W or color film can hold, currently.

With some RF lenses for 35mm you can easily hit 300lp/mm on film and with good enlarger and skills, you can have it on paper without much loss.

How can you get 300lp/mm on film, using 100 ISO film?! Even TMX or Neopan Acros...

As for the resolution, back on the days where the Robert Monaghan Medium Format forum was online, they did tests with 35mm and medium format lenses (and using film) and found that most good MF lenses had as high a resolution as their 35mm equivalent. Thus my claim that it is a myth.

Both 35mm and MF lenses can reliably put 80 lp/mm on film. But the >4x area you get with a MF negative means you would need a 35mm lens and film that are to be able to put 160 lp/mm under the same conditions (same contrast ratio, same film). That's why in the end "there is no subsitute for negative area".

Even on a 8x10" enlargement, done by a very good printer and, say, FP4 film, the 35mm print will look nice and tack sharp, but a print made from a 6x7 negative will look three-dimensional, lifelike.

MF and LF are pocketable only if you are an elephant and then cost per shot goes up.

A medium format folder camera fits in your pocket. And, if it has been correctly aligned by a technician, it will give results that will beat most 35mm cameras. Been there, done that.

(...) Some MF/LF shooters bash 35mm and Leica, mostly because by default they are lousy printers.

If you think that a Leica camera with a Leitz lens will give you significantly higher quality results than a top-of-the-line Canon or Nikon camera with a top-of-the-line lens of the same focal length, then you are deluding yourself. I wonder if you are aware that Leica SLRs from about 1975 onwards were actually modified Minoltas... Or that some Leitz lenses for the Leica R system were actually made and/or designed by Minolta*

In any case, if you really want to purchase cameras and lenses from the highest quality 35mm manufacturer, it is was not Leitz but Zeiss-Ikon -- the Contarex SLR cameras and their lenses. Erwin Puts, Leica specialist, will agree. Camera technicians that have worked on both systems would agree as well.

But still, it is puzzling to see how some 35mm shooters obsess themselves with lens quality, while in Medium Format even a simple 4-element, 3-group lens can give tack sharp results that will be superior to what you can get with 35mm gear.

I went to Medium Format and never looked back.
That said, my Nikon F3 is here by my side and will be used today. 35mm has many advantages, but image quality is not really one of them.

 

[georg16nik]

I've done that long time ago.

Please compare the very best 135 format image you can find printed to 100x150cm, compare it to the very best image from a 6x9cm film negative printed to the same size and report back to this thread.

Adox CMS20

How can you get 300lp/mm on film, using 100 ISO film?! Even TMX or Neopan Acros...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I've done that long time ago.



Adox CMS20

I repeat and (with your example): Compare the very best 135 format Adox CMS 20 image you can find to the very best 6x9cm Adox CMS 20 image you can find. Can you post life-size crops of 40x60 inch prints?

 

[Pioneer]

I have used Adox CMS 20 II film, and I have seen the resolution tests for that film. At best, under test conditions, it puts 240 lp/mm on film. But that resolution like most document films, was intended for very graphic, high contrast, photography, like black print on white paper. By using the correct developer it is possible to get more photographic results with more pleasing grey tones. But it is far more effective the higher the contrast in the scene.

As far as I am aware, this is the only 35mm film available that can get close to 6x4.5 medium format results, and then only in very specific situations, with absolutely flawless technique when exposing and when developing. Most people using that film are not able to even get close to the resolution the film is capable of. Likewise your lenses. You may own a lens capable of placing up to 300 mm/lp on an emulsion, but to actually achieve that level of resolution is almost impossible under normal field conditions.

So, while theoretically possible, or possible under strictly controlled lab conditions, it is not something I want to try. If you are capable of doing this on a regular basis, more power to you. For myself, and for the majority of photographers, 35mm will not replace medium format anytime soon.

 

[georg16nik]

You mean to scan crops of life size print? With what?

6x9 Adox CMS 20 is not that impressive, since you are already hitting the diffraction limit of the lens. I am using CMS20 since it was made available in that format a few years ago.

We've talked about this whole thing several times on APUG, there are a few people on here who are aware about whats possible from 35 Adox CMS20, Henning, Film-Niko and Uwe are some of them.
A year or so ago, Henning posted a high-scan from CMS20 processed as slide, You can search and find it if you wanna see a scan.
IMHO, scan won't do justice to any film, especially films like CMS20, Copex rapid, ATP or the late Tech Pan.

About 15 years ago at Photokina, Zeiss had a few large prints from 35mm Agfa and Kodak ISO25 films, shot with Planar.

I repeat and (with your example): Compare the very best 135 format Adox CMS 20 image you can find to the very best 6x9cm Adox CMS 20 image you can find. Can you post life-size crops of 40x60 inch prints?

Flavio, I am not a stranger to MF folders, got and regularly use Voigtlander Bessas, RF, I and II. All of them 6x9.
All of them are bigger than my Leica I with Russar MR-2 + viewfinder.

SLR's are out of the question, for me.

....

Even on a 8x10" enlargement, done by a very good printer and, say, FP4 film, the 35mm print will look nice and tack sharp, but a print made from a 6x7 negative will look three-dimensional, lifelike.



A medium format folder camera fits in your pocket. And, if it has been correctly aligned by a technician, it will give results that will beat most 35mm cameras. Been there, done that.



If you think that a Leica camera with a Leitz lens will give you significantly higher quality results than a top-of-the-line Canon or Nikon camera with a top-of-the-line lens of the same focal length, then you are deluding yourself. I wonder if you are aware that Leica SLRs from about 1975 onwards were actually modified Minoltas... Or that some Leitz lenses for the Leica R system were actually made and/or designed by Minolta*

In any case, if you really want to purchase cameras and lenses from the highest quality 35mm manufacturer, it is was not Leitz but Zeiss-Ikon -- the Contarex SLR cameras and their lenses. Erwin Puts, Leica specialist, will agree. Camera technicians that have worked on both systems would agree as well....

 

[georg16nik]

I have used Adox CMS 20 II film, and I have seen the resolution tests for that film. At best, under test conditions, it puts 240 lp/mm on film. But that resolution like most document films, was intended for very graphic, high contrast, photography, like black print on white paper. By using the correct developer it is possible to get more photographic results with more pleasing grey tones. But it is far more effective the higher the contrast in the scene...

You can bleach the latent image before dev. That gives you continuous tones that most people wont get on conventional film.

 

[pdeeh]

that's interesting (latent image bleaching I mean). Got any references where I can read up on it?

 

[georg16nik]

that's interesting (latent image bleaching I mean). Got any references where I can read up on it?

Sure, online on APUG, here (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
and more in depth: http://www.davidkachel.com/assets/cont_pt3.htm

First time I've heard about it was decades ago, from an old friend who worked for ORWO.

 

[Hatchetman]

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.

 

[cliveh]

You can bleach the latent image before dev. That gives you continuous tones that most people wont get on conventional film.

How can you control that?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

You mean to scan crops of life size print? With what?

I mean, print both images to 40x60 inches and scan a small section of the prints at 4000 DPI 1:1 (raw with no processing) and compare them here in this thread.

 

[georg16nik]

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.

Thanks, these were some scans I had back then in 2010.
If you don't wanna pay $28, You can bleach the latent image and then use Rodinal 1:50, as you are cooking normal film

 

[Pioneer]

The following information may be of use here. I may have to give this process a bit of a try.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/LatentImageBleach/latentimagebleach.html

 

[georg16nik]

How can you control that?

I posted some links above.

Frankly I sometimes bleach paper as well, when I print negs for friends who cranked them during dev.

 

[Pioneer]

I still think this is a bit like trying to ride my 80cc scooter down the freeway/autobahn, but I am certainly willing to learn.

 

[flavio81]

Adox CMS20

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?

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

Sounds very interesting. Thanks Georg.

 

[Pioneer]

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.

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.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. This discussion takes me back to the early '70s when Leicanuts who shot H&W Control film (Agfa Copex, I think) at ASA 80 and processed it in H&W Control developer (oxidized within 30 seconds after the ampule was opened) asserted that they could get results comparable to those obtained from 4x5. Interesting thing was that they got the wonderful results shooting hand-held, usually with a 50/3.5 Elmar. I've always wondered about that.