Bullshit
Context is helpful to establish a meaningful answer. Photography is a system, changing one component has little influence on the outcome.
Perhaps this is just Rob's way of gently reminding us of the need for etiquette, even on the internet. :rolleyes:Is that really necessary?
Why not just I disagree?
Carl the photodo site needs a lot of work. The lens finding capability is poor and so are other aspects of its site navigation.
If you want Zeiss or Leitz lens resolution information, IMO, it is more effective to visit the Zeiss and Leitz websites.
I don't know a straighter answer than my previous one, but since you emphasize landscape, I will just add that polarizers, while they can be used, are a little tricky on RFs and graduated filters are just left to guesswork and are a pain on RFs.
So back to my original question. Will I see a difference with a rangefinder on a tripod when shooting expansive landscapes.
For landscape work, I use an 8x10 view camera;Difficult to quantify I know but how much difference in image resolution and sharpness would you expect to see when moving from a high quality 35mm slr system to a high quality rangefinder system. I'm thinking specifically of comparing contax/zeiss to zeiss ikon/zeiss image quality. Perhaps in terms of how much extra enlargement you could get out of the rangefinder before noticeable degradation of image quality compared to the slr.
I fully realise there are many other factors to consider about the differences and use of the two systems and what they are best at doing, but for this specific question assume expansive landscape images and cameras on tripods.
Will the rangefinder give noticeably better quality images at say 12 times enlargement.
Ok as I'm not going to get a straight answer I will say that I am looking for a camera system which will equal or better my contax system. But it must have some attributes which I require. Specifically it must me quiet and very portable. I'm specifically not looking for a medium format or larger format camera.
then you would expect them to also think that 35mm is as good as medium format, but they don't.
Do you know anyone who has a top class RF set-up to try it out? That might be your only way to find out for yourself.
It never ceases to amaze me that even though you say specifically that you don't want medium format or bigger, that some people just can't help theselves and tell you medium format is better. The really funny thing is that large format is way better than medium format, if you are good enough to extract what it's capable of (many aren't), and yet those same people try and tell you that medium format is as good as large format. Of course if they are going to adopt that mentality, then you would expect them to also think that 35mm is as good as medium format, but they don't.
I'd submit that even that may not give you the definitively conclusive information you're asking for. Perhaps you could arrange to shoot a couple of rolls of film using your methods, development, printing technique, enlarger, etc, but with the Leica RF glass. You don't say if you know this photographer personally, if you might be in a position to use his/her Leica RFs for a bit, or if you'll be looking at an exhibit, or at prints with the photographer present. Let us know what you find, or if parameters other than sharpness come into play in the comparison and any personal preference you find.I do know of someone who uses a Leica for landscape work and I may well go and see some of his work this week.
I see Tom has used his 65mm Elmar on both Leica and Contax bodies and gotten similar results. Wonder why? I can't imagine why he would expect anything else
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?