rf vs slr image quality?

OK Thanks all. I kind of get the picture, Those that have zm lenses rate them highly but so do leitz owners and a few others. Consensus seems to be that there may be a slight advantage for resolution on shorter RF lenses but not much in it when compared to top slr lenses.
Maybe I should just get an RTSII or III with mirror lockup and be done with it.

I have read this thread with interest because I am on the same sort of path. Let me be clear up front, I do most of my work already with a MF system and I putting an 8x10 system together at the moment. The simple lack of quality of the 35m compared to larger formats, had me ready to sell my 35mm systems. As an alternate, I have decided to use my 35mm equipment to shoot very fine grained, slow speed films, Rollei Pan 25, Agfapan 25, Efke 25, Adox CMS 20, etc. I am looking for the maximum resolution possible from a strip of emulsion. I shoot mostly landscapes, architectural, and street scenes with my 35mm kit.

The path to extreme resolution is indeed a slippery and treacherous one! Lenses that I have been using for years are coming up short after being put under the scrutiny of these films. So I am tragically looking for the 'ultimate' wide to normal lens for 35mm format.

rob champagne said:

OK Thanks all. I kind of get the picture, Those that have zm lenses rate them highly but so do leitz owners and a few others. Consensus seems to be that there may be a slight advantage for resolution on shorter RF lenses but not much in it when compared to top slr lenses.
Maybe I should just get an RTSII or III with mirror lockup and be done with it.

Click to expand...

Good summary, Rob!

Exactly. For tripod use with mirror lockup - SLRs will provide you equivalent results with certain secondary benefits. RFs are in their element for handheld use. They are specialized tools that excel at a particular kind of shooting but aren't so adaptable for others.

I guess I would use a Contax RTSIII. Film flatness is important with stops wider than 5.6.

The real benefit of RFs optics is that they are SMALL lenses. A ZM biogon 25 is tiny compared to the ZF equivalent and performs as well or possibly better if you believe some, including the odd poster who has both.

If you want to hike all over the place, shoot at slow shutter speeds etc, which can be handy for landscape work too, then a RF will give you superb optics and small size etc. You can even hike with a little tripod over your shoulder (or not at all) and the kit in belt pouches. I cannot comment comparatively, but my ZM wides, 50 planar and 90 Elmarit M are not bettered by anything I own in 35mm, but not better than my 135 f2L either. The consensus seems to be that at the wide end, RF lenses have an edge due to more flexibility in design due to the absence of a mirror. If it is really noticeable with other factors, who knows? I dont. I only know that the ZM images are tack sharp and really made me feel that I was getting everything out of the tiny 35mm format. no doubt about it, the Mamiya 7 makes mincemeat out of the ZM 35mm shots, but that is not your question, but the posters who suggest the 120 route do have a point: unless there is a reason you must stick with 35mm, a Mamiya 7, esp for mono, where grads etc are not required), offers a HUGE step up in quality than renders the RF vs. SLR argument irrelevant. But, personally, If I was to choose a landscape kit from 35mm, I would go RF every single time. Smaller, lighter, easily as good, smaller filter sizes, also great for street work, optically wonderful. BUT, I dont do macro work, portraits etc. one point I would make is that ZM lenses offer staggering edge performance and when enlarging 35mm to the extremes, this is noticeable. An earlier point was well made though, which is that when stopping down to f16 etc, most lenses perform bloody well, even cheap ones (except for cheap nasty zooms).

rob champagne said:

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.
ANSWER: NONE

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.
ANSWER: NO DIFFERENCE.

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,
ANSWER: YOU ARE MOST CORRECT WITH THIS STATEMENT.

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.

Click to expand...

ANSWER: NO, PROVIDED THE CAMERAS ARE EQUALLY ADJUSTED AND THE LENSES ARE PROPERLY QUALITY CONTROLLED AND ADJUSTED FROM THE FACTORY. You shold see NO DIFFERENCE in images of "expansive landscape" images exposed from rangefinder cameras or SLR cameras on tripods at 12 times enlargement.
All the best,
Sam H.

While I know that medium format will beat the 'livin' daylights' out of 35mm any day of the week, I started this search since I am trying to replace my medium format kit with 35mm due weight and space constraints of travelling by bicycle. So my goal is the find the lens/film/developer that allows me to make the best possible 20x24 prints from the 35mm format. I know this is asking alot...

p3200TMZ said:

So my goal is the find the lens/film/developer that allows me to make the best possible 20x24 prints from the 35mm format. I know this is asking alot...

Click to expand...

Sounds like fun. How about a contax g2 kit, Rollei ATP and acu....

p3200TMZ said:

While I know that medium format will beat the 'livin' daylights' out of 35mm any day of the week, I started this search since I am trying to replace my medium format kit with 35mm due weight and space constraints of travelling by bicycle. So my goal is the find the lens/film/developer that allows me to make the best possible 20x24 prints from the 35mm format. I know this is asking alot...

Click to expand...

Notwithstanding all that has been said, I would suggest you shoot some Ilford Pan F in a Leica equipped with a Summicron. The optimum aperture should be around f4 to 5.6, but a larger aperture would also be OK, since if you are actually making 20x24" prints, extreme edge definition will not matter since you will be cropping the ends of the pictures off! Depending on your personal technique and preferences, you might find that rating the film at EI 32 and developing in ID-11 diluted 1+1 for 45 seconds or so less than the Ilford recommendation is a good idea.

No matter what film and equipment you ultimately use, you should find that the above suggestion constitutes a benchmark which takes you at least 95% of the way towards your goal. Any further improvements will be minor and extremely costly!

Thanks, my film of choice is Efke KB25 EI 32 in Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes. I know that Rollei Pan 25 is slightly sharper, but I like the tones and character that the Efke emulsion gives me.

As for a lens, the new Voigtländer Ultron 28mm f2.0 has been a real eye-opener in what high-quality lenses can deliver. I do have a Contax G2 with a 35/2 that a friend loaned me, I really wanted try the 45/2, but he won't part with it even for a few days. I have also considered a Summicron 35 Asph, but I have to rework the budget before I can make that acquisition.

The next lens that I am going to try is the Voigtländer Collapsible Heliar 50mm f3.5 that came in the anniversary kit with the Bessa T. This lens is supposed to be among the very best ever tested by various 'authorities'. I should have one in my hands within a fortnight, so we shall see.

While printing at 20x24 will allow me to crop off the corners, which could be considered cheating and make the task abit easier, but I would really like to find a kit that would let me print 20x30.

p3200TMZ said:

I would really like to find a kit that would let me print 20x30.

Click to expand...

Mamiya 6/6MF/7/7ii, or perhaps one of the earlier Mamiya folders, or a Fuji GW/GSW690 or 670 or 680.... all of these are reasonably compact.

I understand that the Efke is great when it is great, but some spurious batch issues have scared me off it. Perhaps I should give it a try again. I do shoot various efkes for LF.

p3200TMZ said:

While printing at 20x24 will allow me to crop off the corners, which could be considered cheating and make the task abit easier, but I would really like to find a kit that would let me print 20x30.

Click to expand...

Before you spend a fortune on camera gear, make sure (if you haven't already) that you have the best enlarging lens possible, that everything (neg stage, lens plane, paper plane) is parallel and that the printing paper is held really flat (if necessary with a vacuum frame). Above all I would check vibration by placing a glass of water on the printing easel. Watch this closely as you carry out all the operations necessary to make a print! If necessary, place your enlarger on a big concrete slab and move well away from railroad tracks, airports and expressways. Don't even think about making 20x30 prints if you have a wooden floor!

I agree with what Nemo just said, and to take it a step further, you really might consider contact printing to get to that size. If you drum scan a 35mm neg to produce an enlarged neg, then you can completely eliminate the issues introduced by your enlarging lens and your enlarger (if they aren't optimal). Most important, for me, is that I like to print to matte fiber, which isn't exactly flat for starters, and I don't have a large vac easel nor the kinds of enlarging lenses that can go to such large enlargements without giving up edge sharpness. But when contact printing, you can just throw a cheap piece of glass over the enlarged neg and the paper and... voila. Super-flat, and the highest resolution enlarged print possible. Bear in mind that the paper you're printing to has no fantastic resolution anyway, and you're not going to lose any appreciable information in the contact printing stage, so the only degrdation of the image is in the scanning phase, and that can be just about as perfect as you are willing to pay for.

Something that many people don't consider is how accurately the camera will focus.
That plays a huge role in the final result, as even the worlds sharpest lens won't be that sharp if even slightly out of focus.

All cameras are definitely not created equal in that aspect.
A rangefinder can have an advantage over an SLR in many poor lighting situations.

All SLRs are not at all equal in their focussing ability either; the brightness, quality and type of focussing screens not being the only important parameter. The entire design of the mirrorbox and prism can make a huge example.
For example, an optimized mirror-p-screen combination such as the Leicaflex SL (the best of many cameras I've used for focusing telephoto lenses) is worlds apart from, say, using manual focus on an AF camera.

If you are shooting mainly landscapes or keeping the lens on hyperfocal, then the ability to focus very accurately may not be very important.
Otherwise, think carefully about what your typical use will be.

I shoot 5x7 and 35mm together. My camera of choice for 35mm is a Leica M6 with various Leica and Voigtlander "M" mount lenses. My M6 was purchased very well used. It always works, metering is spot on (I use it to meter for my 5x7 shots) and the shutter is so vibration free I have never got a shot that was blurred by camera shake. I shoot 5x7 b/w and 35mm slides of each shot I make. I toss the camera in a gym bag along with 5x7 holders and a few lenses for the 5x7 and the old Leica never complains.

rob champagne said:

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.

Click to expand...

Umm, what difference would the body make at all in that case?? Quality is quality, the system used for focusing at that point doesn't mean dick.

Hell enlargment size has nothing to do with even the lens or the camera body, but the film itself. You need to take some classes on logical thinking before you learn anything more about anything else.

The fact I have to share the world with people with this little amount of reasoning ability worries me greatly.

rob champagne said:

Lets not presume we know the reason for the question. Just because I ask about one particular aspect of a camera/lens system doesn't mean thats all I'm interested in about the system. It just meanss thats what I would like to know about at this time.

Click to expand...

Well, what you are failing to get, is that there is no simple answer to this question. Its a technical question, and unless you are willing and able to comprehend all the aspects of the answers, then you will not be able to understand the answers.

I would venture, you know so little, you don't even realize how complex of a question you are asking. One word of advice. "The Best" is bullshit. There is no such thing as "The Best."

p3200TMZ said:

While I know that medium format will beat the 'livin' daylights' out of 35mm any day of the week, I started this search since I am trying to replace my medium format kit with 35mm due weight and space constraints of travelling by bicycle. So my goal is the find the lens/film/developer that allows me to make the best possible 20x24 prints from the 35mm format. I know this is asking alot...

Click to expand...

Why not get a smaller medium format camera? I shoot medium format from my bike. Hell, I don't even own a car, so anything I shoot is done from my bicycle. This includes a Graphlex Crown Graphic!

I don't think 20x24 from 135 will ever be all that great, never as good as even the lowliest of medium format rigs. Even with the best glass in the world, the film is going to let you down at some point. I don't think even PanF on the best glass on the planet would look real spetacular at that size, not compared to a 6x7 or 6x9 negative.

Rol_Lei Nut said:

Something that many people don't consider is how accurately the camera will focus.
That plays a huge role in the final result, as even the worlds sharpest lens won't be that sharp if even slightly out of focus.

Click to expand...

So there is no such thing as depth of field or hyper focal I guess.

I think depth of field is usually calculated to have 8x10 prints of acceptable quality (leica uses larger iirc). If you make bigger enlargements (or you have different opinion about "acceptable"), you can't rely on them.

Myunderstand is that the depH of field scales on cameras are intended for 4x5 prints. This should work well as an indication of what may be kept sharp. Having say an 8x10 print will make the extremes of field depth quite different in appearances from a 4x6 and a from a 20x24 this difference will be even more exerbated. Also involved will be the distance from which the print is viewed. A 20x24 print that can not be approached from closer than 10 feet may look most satisfactory. From 8 inches the impression it makes may be very different.

If I were to be wishing to make a really good 20x24 print that looks razor sharp and which displays wonderfull clarity under any conditions I would be thinking a 5x7 or 8x10 camera as a minmum format size to give good choice. This does not mean that a 20x24 print can not be EFFECTIVE when made from a smaller negative. I would imagine that with certain subjects and with a particular artistic intent that it might be possible with a Minox negative. It may be that my imagination is defferent from yours. Certainly a Minox negative will not display the wonderful clarity and gradation that could come from a large negative. However, if the film had been developed in an actuance developer so that the grain was sharply defined then a nice artistic effect that would please a majority viewers might well be possible in a particular instance.

For myself I do not make , nor do I have any present intention of making, 20x24 or 16x20...I mostly make 6 1/2x9 3/4 prints. My belief is as far as the question involved in the original of rangfinder vs slr clarity is involved is that:
1). The user would make the primary difference in the ways and means the camera was employed. With 50 pounds of the most stable tripod and head and the best of slr lenses vs the best rangefinder lenses at moderate apetures...5.6 thru 8...and careful, very competent use, with a static subject thru the enlarging stage the systems would be capable of being very equal.

2) For handheld use, particularly with non-static subjects a good rangefinder camera would be hard to beat if both systems were manual focus. I do not use any auto focus cameras. I believe auto focus could help the situation as far as the slr is concerned for non static subjects.

I have both a Mamiya RZ67 and a Contax RTSIII. I USE THE CONTAX RTSIII BECAUSE IT PLEASES ME TO DO SO. I LIKE DOING IT. AM I SAYING THAT I WOULD NOT GET DIFFERENT GRADATION AND CLARITY WITH THE 6X7 VS THE 35MM? WELL, ACTUALLY IF YOU WANT TO KNOW...NO...SO WHAT?

The quality of consrtruction in a camera is very important...particularly with systems that use small format with wide apetures and short focal lenses. The depth of focus with 35mm and their lenses is very small. Perpendicularity between the optical axis of the lens and the film plane is very important. Being able to hold the film flat is very important. Fortunately while differences in durability exist, a very large portion of the film cameras in 35mm are adequately to well constructed.

This does not, to me, seem to be a subject that calls for any rancor or nastiness.

You can define your own acceptable limits for DOF by testing. If you don't like the manufacturer's definition of acceptable sharpness at the size you're printing, you can adjust it to higher or lower tolerances by offsetting the aperture you use on the DOF scale.

E.g. if you're shooting at f:8 and want tighter tolerances for acceptable sharpness, try using the DOF scale for f:5.6 or f:4 as your limits of acceptable sharpness. If you're not as picky as the manufacturer, try the DOF limits for f:11 or f:16 when shooting at f:8. Remember what suits you and just use that offset in stops with your DOF scale.

Lee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
Something that many people don't consider is how accurately the camera will focus.
That plays a huge role in the final result, as even the worlds sharpest lens won't be that sharp if even slightly out of focus.

Polybun said:

So there is no such thing as depth of field or hyper focal I guess.

Click to expand...

Yes, I use hyper focal settings all the time...

But if we are talking about sharpness (as in the most sharpness), even with a lens set on hyper focal, the plane that really is "in focus" and having the highest degree of sharpness will be only one (ignoring any lens aberrations).

Everything before and after that plane will get progressively less sharp until it become noticeable - which again depends on conditions and on what is acceptable (look up circle of confusion).

So in counting lines per millimetre and so on, there is only one plane which will yield the maximum, no matter how large the "depth of field" may be.
Small deviations from that plane will lower the sharpness considerably, even if it isn't noticeable at all enlargements.

Chris

FWIW I think that when printing 20x24 from 35mm B&W that last little bit of measurable difference between quality camera systems isn't going to amount to a hill of beans, assuming a good enlarger/enlarger lens, and the skill set to use it. The biggest factor in an equation like this is going to be developer/development, and if you prefer soft grain or sharp grain. Beyond that, I doubt anyone could tell a difference, except perhaps in the negative contrast between different kinds taking lenses when it comes to printing the negative.