My rangefinder cameras are taking over

[olleorama]

I've gone full circuit. From slrs to rangefinder back to slrs. I win!

(TBH I use both, but right now the slrs win most of the time)

 

[BradleyK]

Like several others on this thread I, too, began my photographic journey using 35mm (Nikon F2AS) cameras. Given the broad array of subject matter of interest (landscapes, sports, architecture and fine art), the 35mm slr format, and the extensive system Nikon offered, suited my needs. Later, as I became more seriously interested in black and white landscape work, I began shooting (PanF) with a Hasselblad 500c/m, later building an extensive system for that purpose.
About five years ago, I had the opportunity to borrow and put through the paces a friend's M4P and several little Leica lenses. Having schlepped either a Domke journalist's bag or, on longer excursions, a backpack full of bodies and lenses around, the Leica was something of a revelation. Imagine, being able to carry a camera, film and two lenses around in my jacket pocket! A year or so later, I picked up my first Leica (an M6 with a 50mm Summicron). A few months down the road I picked up a 35mm Summilux ASPH and a (90mm Summicron). This year past, on a whim (the individual needed $$), I picked up a second M6 body (a "spare?") and, later a 50mm Summilux ASPH. While the Blad continues to see wide use (PanF plus, E100G, and E100VS are my films of choice for my landscape work), and the Nikons come out when the situation calls for longer, or more special-purpose glass, my M6, generally equipped with the Summilux, and loaded with either HP5 or Tri-x, has become my constant companion. Quiet and unobtrusive, easy and intuitive to use, I often think back over the course of some 30 years' shooting and wonder how, if this marvelous camera had been part of my "arsenal" earlier, my choice of subject matter would have changed, and how my archive would look...

:munch:

 

[philosomatographer]

As far as optical performance, resolution, definition.. Leica (or any decent) RF lenses outperform medium format lenses and lets not even mention larger formats.

Sigh... more false blanket statements. Several medium and large format lenses perform as good as, or outperform, Leica 35mm rangefinder lenses, and for sure your Russar 20mm, in absolute terms. Of course, the whole point is that this is not generally necessary, with the larger film area. Also, for the kinds of photography I do most, an adjustable view camera works best - horses for courses... but the propagation of the myth that large format lenses somehow perform poorer than other lenses really bugs me. This has been demonstrated time and again to not be the case. And all good lenses become limited by diffraction pretty soon.

 

[georg16nik]

Sigh... more false blanket statements. Several medium and large format lenses perform as good as, or outperform, Leica 35mm rangefinder lenses, and for sure your Russar 20mm, in absolute terms....

philosomatographer, You need to wet print 35mm negatives for a few years with, at least Leitz Focomat V35 in order to "get it".
Years ago, Zeiss did very detailed scientific resoultion tests with different films and their Zeiss lenses. The results were published on their website in the camera lens news 17, 19, 20, 24 and 30.
250 lp/mm at f5,6 and 400 lp/mm at f4., Dr. H. Nasse, chief optical designer at Zeiss, has confirmed this on many occasions and in combination with the high res. films that I mentioned earlier such numbers are scientific facts.
Lens resolution is not the strongest side of the larger formats.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I think main reason for people who doesnt understand the reason of quality of Leica , is glass light spectrum transmittance ability of these lenses. I downloaded all the Leica patents , found the glass name with abbe and ref index and look to their spectrum ranges.
Leica glass especially Fluoride ones out performs the Canon BK7 Borax glass , 4 times wider range.
If we apply a analogy , if your oppenents playing ground 4 times larger at American Football , you can reach your target more easier.
Leica invests hundred times more expensive glasses and to make a better lens than canon is not harder but easier. Thats why , you will nver be able to buy better lens and cheaper price with Leica.

 

[georg16nik]

The fact that after Summitar and Summicron there is nothing even slightly better is quite significant.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Apo Macro Elmarit 100 mm and other Elmarit teles are excellent also.

 

[segedi]

My SLRs narrowly outnumber my rangefinders, bit the rangefinders get more use. Smaller, lighter and more portable than their mirrored cousins.

But I know I've missed some shots that an AF SLR would have nabbed. Just need to improve my RF technique.

As for lens resolution, it really doesn't matter if a medium format back or large format film holder doesn't keep the film flat...

 

[philosomatographer]

philosomatographer, You need to wet print 35mm negatives for a few years with, at least Leitz Focomat V35 in order to "get it".
Years ago, Zeiss did very detailed scientific resoultion tests with different films and their Zeiss lenses. The results were published on their website in the camera lens news 17, 19, 20, 24 and 30.
250 lp/mm at f5,6 and 400 lp/mm at f4., Dr. H. Nasse, chief optical designer at Zeiss, has confirmed this on many occasions and in combination with the high res. films that I mentioned earlier such numbers are scientific facts.
Lens resolution is not the strongest side of the larger formats.

Pardon my ignorance, but I have been wet printing B&W negatives from 35mm (Leica, Olympus, Nikon), Medium Format (Mamiya, Linhof panoramic), and Large Format (using T*ED Nikkor and APO Schneider lenses) for a couple of years. The notion that a Leica rangefinder could even approach the quality of medium or large format is utterly ridiculous - if you even try to push this point any further, you will reveal yourself to be nothing more than a Leica Fanboy. Yes, the 50mm on my Leica is, from a technical perspective, probably the best lens I have, but only just. It's not a Leica lens, but it does outperform any Leica lens (and being a 50mm f/3.5, it should). The OM Zuiko 250mm f/2.0 - which I use a lot - is probably as good "on film" - even at f/2.0. It's a near perfect lens.

However, the 5% that these lenses are superiour to my best medium- and large format lenses, can in no shape or form make up for the vastly larger film area. It's just ridiculous to even try, so let's not go there. The high resolution numbers you quote from Zeiss (yes, I am well aware of these tests - it was with the ZM Biogon 25mm f/2.8) are at an impossibly low contrast ration, and simply not suitable for general photography. On the other hand, I can push ISO 400mm film in my large format camera, and produce a print with superiour contrast and acutance to any print from any 35mm setup, especially if one had to use a modified microfilm with crappy contrast characteristic to try and capture 200lp/mm or above. Some decent articles have been written about this.

Your brand snobbism goes to the extreme if you think that if I do not print through a Leitz Focomat enlarger, I am not "getting it". If you knew anything about this yourself, you'd know that, at any reasonable magnification, we are fully diffraction-limited. Furthermore, I actually used a Leitz Focotar enlarging lens in my (perfectly aligned) Omega D5XL enlarger, and promptly sold it when I started using the later EL-Nikkor enlarging lenses. Not only are they consistent across small, medium- and large format, but (for example) the EL-NIkkor 50mm f/2.8 (last version, designed by the designer of that unrivaled feat, the Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 - Mr. Mori) is superb. Anybody who thinks another enlarging lens, versus this lens, will produce inherently better prints, is a liar.

Lastly - some people here have the mistaken notion that medium or large format cameras cannot keep the film flat. If anybody on this planet consistently shoots at a wide open aperture, it's me. It's part of my style. This requires very precise positioning of the film plane. I have never had any issues. If you could see these prints, you'd realise that no little Leica 35mm could ever produce these, no matter what film inside or lens upfront:

Let's consider this silly, silly debate around a Leica 35mm being better than medium or large format closed, right? If you're serious about your darkroom work, 35mm just doesn't cut it. Still, I carry my Leica M3 around everywhere, it's a jewel to use.

 

[georg16nik]

Actually, there a few of us who pushed 135 format to the max, MaximusM3, Thomas Bertilsson, Henning Serger, Film-Niko and many others..
As Massimo wrote it many times, with Leica the limit is the film.
There was a thread by Thomas Bertilsson (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
post #6 have an interesting read Dead Link Removed

Also, we participated in a thread about Highest resolving power BW film, chemistry, paper (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Since You have't printed with Leitz Focomat V35, there is no way to know what I am talking about.
There are other good enlargers and lenses as well. Omega, Nikon are not one of them, thou.

As far as rangefinders, Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer are the best of the best.
Its pretty much started from those companies, as Voigtländer is the first camera manufacturer in the world.
After WWII, everyone else stepped onto those companies experience and patents.
You are probably to Young and/or unexperienced to know what I am talking about.
No pun intended.

 

[Brian Legge]

If the limiting factor is film... isn't that still a limit? I don't think anyone is debating that there are 35mm lenses with higher resolving power than medium/large format lenses. Its the print that matters in the end.

Assuming we're enlarging 35mm/120/4x5/etc sufficiently large, the resolving power of the 35mm doesn't matter at some point compared to the film size difference. The medium/large format lenses don't need as high a resolution unless you assume the same magnification ratio as with 35mm.

 

[georg16nik]

If the limiting factor is film... isn't that still a limit?...

With Agfa Copex-Rapid or Adox CMS 20, developed in their dedicated developer the limit is seriously lifted.
They are keep improving the situation.
Awesome resolution and gradation.
If You dare trying it.

 

[philosomatographer]

Actually, there a few of us who pushed 135 format to the max, MaximusM3, Thomas Bertilsson, Henning Serger, Film-Niko and many others..
As Massimo wrote it many times, with Leica the limit is the film.
There was a thread by Thomas Bertilsson (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
post #6 have an interesting read Dead Link Removed

Also, we participated in a thread about Highest resolving power BW film, chemistry, paper (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Since You have't printed with Leitz Focomat V35, there is no way to know what I am talking about.
There are other good enlargers and lenses as well. Omega, Nikon are not one of them, thou.

As far as rangefinders, Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer are the best of the best.
Its pretty much started from those companies, as Voigtländer is the first camera manufacturer in the world.
After WWII, everyone else stepped onto those companies experience and patents.
You are probably to Young and/or unexperienced to know what I am talking about.
No pun intended.

That's great for you, it really is. But I don't appreciate your abrasive and insulting tone.

I just told you, I have printed through a Leica enlarging lens, and much prefer the nikkors. (or what - are you telling me the physical enlarger body "makes all the difference" ?) You really are welcome to go ahead and play with your 35mm, and I actually have no real interest in convincing you otherwise. By your own admission, you are not really up to shooting larger formats - and that's fine by me. Applying your own words - only once you master ("master" - not "use once a year" like you said you do) larger formats, will you have any way of knowing what I am talking about.

To the original poster, I am sorry that the argument with this abrasive, combative fanboy has derailed the intent of your thread. I am not going to debate the matter further with him in the hope that discussion on the original topic returns. My final word on your topic: My rangefinder camera(s) have also kinda taken over, but that's because my Linhof Technika is a rangefinder

 

[georg16nik]

No worries, no insult and as I said no pun intended.
Enlarger is not just the lens. There are other important parts as well. Focomat v35 is unique.
Linhof Technika is a great camera, I used to have Linhof Super Technika but somehow, along the way replaced it with the Sinar P.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I just told you, I have printed through a Leica enlarging lens, and much prefer the nikkors. (or what - are you telling me the physical enlarger body "makes all the difference" ?)

I agree that comparing 35mm and medium format is apples and oranges...

However I have used many enlarging lenses (unfortunately not the Focotar) and found that the Nikkor 50mm 2.8 was at the *lower* end of the 5-6 element design range, easily beaten by the basic Componon and Rodagon models.

In fact, the 4 element Meopta Anaret came close to the Nikkor, but that's more a great compliment for the Anaret rather than a negative for the Nikkor.
I also used the 4 element Nikkor 50mm 4.0, but that was very disappointing (maybe the doggiest Nikon product I've used).

About enlargers: I do see differences between models, obviously between condenser and diffusion designs, but also not all condensers are created equal.
I certainly find it possible that the Foctar enlarger could have a "superstar" condenser system which makes a visible difference (we are talking about an entire projection *system* here) and I've heard claims about its quality from several reliable sources as well.

 

[georg16nik]

I agree that comparing 35mm and medium format is apples and oranges...

However I have used many enlarging lenses (unfortunately not the Focotar) and found that the Nikkor 50mm 2.8 was at the *lower* end of the 5-6 element design range, easily beaten by the basic Componon and Rodagon models.

In fact, the 4 element Meopta Anaret came close to the Nikkor, but that's more a great compliment for the Anaret rather than a negative for the Nikkor.
I also used the 4 element Nikkor 50mm 4.0, but that was very disappointing (maybe the doggiest Nikon product I've used).

About enlargers: I do see differences between models, obviously between condenser and diffusion designs, but also not all condensers are created equal.
I certainly find it possible that the Foctar enlarger could have a "superstar" condenser system which makes a visible difference (we are talking about an entire projection *system* here) and I've heard claims about its quality from several reliable sources as well.

Yes, Leitz Focomat V35 uses unique projection system.
Its a well known fact that Rodagon way outperforms Nikkor.

 

[Bateleur]

OK I'll throw in a comment based on my experience as far as enlarging lens's are concerned. Having tried a number of Nikkor's 50mm 2.8 and 80mm 5.6 and Focotar of various focal lengths and versions. The Focotar is the perfect enlarging lens for 35mm format, the 40mm for instance delivers a sharpness and contrast that I appreciate. It is capable of picking out the details in the negative and producing what I consider is an honest print, for I'm not waylaid by technical lp/mm and all that, my negative is projected as is nothing more and nothing less. It a personal comment based on my experience and I'm sure may would disagree.

 

[Ken N]

Well, this discussion has moved from camera lenses to enlargers and lenses. How stable the platform is which the enlarger lens, film and easel is mounted to makes a vast difference. Unless your enlarger is attached to concrete, I doubt you are getting anywhere near the maximum out of it. Even with concrete, if you live in a city or are near a highway, you still aren't. There is far to much vibration in the ground.

But, in reality, this entire discussion of 200lpm is simply laughable. We're getting all hung up over a camera lens and body format which is typically HAND-HELD!!!! For those who anchor their cameras to concrete blocks when shooting landscapes, there is a very slight advantage, but we're really getting into fringe uses and applications. As our friend from S.A. says there is no substitute for raw film size.

Are Leica lenses better than other lenses of similar price/spec? Most of the time the answer is yes. MOST of the time, but not always. But do Leica lenses render the scenes differently? Absolutely. This is also a reason why I choose to use the system I use. It's the way the lenses draw. With Leica, a strip of negatives hanging up to dry tend to look different than those shot from other cameras. The contrasting and tonality curves are quite different.

There is life outside of resolution tests.

Back to the subject at hand. Rangefinders taking over the bag. I don't quite have that problem yet. I'm getting my primary kit (OM) built up with some serious glass and bodies. I'd get Leicas if I didn't have OM-4T and OM-3Ti bodies. Some of those Zuiko F2 lenses are also right up there with Leica glass. The only thing left is operational and I've been trying to change my shooting style to mimick that of rangefinder shooting.

Ken