leica vs mf 645/67-print comparison

cannot compare 35mm to MF

there is simply to big a difference in size of negatives. I saw on photo.net where someone had used the highest possible resolution of 35mm and compared it to MF and proved it couldn't match up. Leicas/ Contax G's are wonderful, and can print great to large sizes, but compare to MF (even old MF) they cannot.

thanks Andrew,

I believe that is the correct and final answer.....35 mm lenses even the finest, will not surpass mf lense performance when you view the end result on paper. You can not compete with the added film realestate....

So if it is ultimate enlargement we are after, and we are not necessarily in the heat of the battle,and we are shooting street scenes, one can not do better than MF or the old graflex with modern glass and pop some 4 x 5.....homage to Wee Gee and the rest.

Any crown graphic street shooters out there?

Dave in Vegas

"Any crown graphic street shooters out there?"

No, but I've tried with a Technika III 5x7": Too heavy, so I tried with a Voigtländer Bergheil 9x12cm: Just perfect! Only problem is the single-film film holders, and he face that I only have four of them...

I just printed a friends negs from his Mamiya 7 and was blow away by the sharpness of the lenses on 10x8 prints, however the smaller bit of film (compared to 5x4) was blindingly obvious on even an 11x4 in comparison. Most would agree that the Mamiya 7 is about as sharp as you get on MF, but it sill cannot make up for the smaller neg compared to 5x4, no matter what it's resolution. Surely the same point holds true. Still, I want a Mamiya 7 now.