rf vs slr image quality?

[RobC]

Context is helpful to establish a meaningful answer. Photography is a system, changing one component has little influence on the outcome.

Bullshit

 

[micek]

Bullshit

Is that really necessary?
Why not just I disagree?

 

[Lee L]

Is that really necessary?
Why not just I disagree?

Perhaps this is just Rob's way of gently reminding us of the need for etiquette, even on the internet. :rolleyes:

Lee

 

[RobC]

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've already been through that process and the MTF's suggest that ZEISS ZM glass is way better than Leitz glass for resolution. But MTF's are only half the story and interpreting them really requires expert knowledge which I don't have.

 

[nsouto]

hmmmm, I've been using reasonable quality rf and slr systems for quite a while and still can't make up my mind which is better!

Don't think it's possible to answer it in a simple way. You said: expansive landscape images with tripods. Yeah, I know: convention says a slr with a wide angle on a tripod works best.

And yet this (click on thumbs to see larger): http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/S-for-sand-93569062 and this: Dead Link Removed were taken handheld, late afternoon, with a mild tele - 90mm - on a ZM rangefinder, while this: Dead Link Removed was a "cheap" Ultron 28/1.8 on the same body, same hands.

Not perfect, but good enough for me. Go figure?

I guess if I had to chose between my beloved Nikon gear or the ZM and its glass, I'd probably go with the Nikon: been using it for decades, while the ZM is only with me since 2006.
But one thing I do know: when it comes to low shutter speed handheld, the ZM is miles ahead: I simply can't hold slrs anywhere as steady.

At what point then ultimate lens quality becomes the deciding factor is something I haven't yet established. Although of course: I'm having a heck of a lot of fun finding out!

 

[RobC]

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. Therefore it's going to be 35mm and either an slr (which I don't think I will get anything better than my contax system in terms of lens quality) or a range finder. So if its a range finder, then for the expense of going that route, am I going to see an improvement in image quality for short to 85mm lenses?
I know there will be other benefits for people photography in low light and bokeh, but will there be benefits when I'm using it for landscape photography? That might make the difference between me staying with my contax system or not? There is plenty of fast glass available for the contax for low light photography ( some of which I already have ). So back to my original question. Will I see a difference with a rangefinder on a tripod when shooting expansive landscapes.

 

[Anupam Basu]

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.

 

[Robert Budding]

You might consider a different Contax. I have a Contax IIa in the classifieds (completely restored). The wides, in particular, are some of the finest lenses ever made. And the 85mm f/2 Zeiss Jena Sonnar is astonishigly sharp with very nice bokeh. Quiet, too. No mirror, just a click with the shutter. Not as quiet as my Mamiya 7, but it's pretty darn quiet.

Lot of comments on lens designs. SLR lens design does constrain designers because of the need to clear the mirror. RF lens designers have fewer constraints.

 

[RobC]

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.

I do nearly all B+W and avoid filters if possible. Maybe an occasional yellow or orange. Never even tried a polariser with B+W, let alone a grad.

 

[tim elder]

So back to my original question. Will I see a difference with a rangefinder on a tripod when shooting expansive landscapes.

No, especially if you are using a camera with mirror take-up and a tripod.

Tim

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

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.

For landscape work, I use an 8x10 view camera;
Also 6cm x 7cm and 6cm x 9cm (both RF and view cameras); with equivalent quality lenses I don't see a difference in image quality between RF and View.

I have a collection of 35mm Kyocera/Contax cameras and lenses. I also have M series Leica rangefinder cameras and Leitz lenses and a Zeiss ZM rangefinder plus several M mount Zeiss lenses. My favorite 35mm landscape image (a 20" x 30" color print) was one printed from a slide I made on Fuji Velvia 50 with my Single Stroke Leica M3, plus my Visoflex mounted 65mm Leitz Canada Elmar.

The camera was on a tripod with the Visoflex Mirror in the Up Position. I have made pictures of equivalent quality with the same 65mm Leitz Canada Elmar mounted on a Contax SLR with the mirror locked up.

 

[Robert Budding]

Lots of info on rangefinder cameras here:

http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm

 

[sanking]

So you want an answer?

But why not a question first? Why not MF?

A Mamiya 7II outfit with body and three or four lenses does not weigh much more or take up a lot more space than a Leica M camera with the same number of lenses. And will probably cost less as well.

Yet, in terms of image quality there is no comparison. A Mamiya 7II outfit will blow your Contax system out of the water in any print size over about 5X7.

So, why so tied to 35mm if you really want more image quality?

Sandy King

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.

 

[RobC]

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.

 

[Besk]

I don't think that you will see a much of a difference if at all if you persist in sticking to 35mm. It wouldn't be worth the effort if it were me.

---

It is tiring to pursue ultimate sharpness and limit the format size at the same time. As for me, to simply my life, it is 4X5 or 5X7 (enlarged if necessary) for landscapes, architectual stuff, and historical documentation where detail is important and 35mm for everything else.

 

[Leon]

then you would expect them to also think that 35mm is as good as medium format, but they don't.

cos it isnt.

Rob - I suspect you;re not going to get the answer you're after because there never is a definitive answer when you're talking about the differences between such things. It's all horses for courses. You could look at lens reviews, but what do they really mean when it comes to the final outcome - the kind of differences between CZ slr lenses and leitz RF glass really makes very little difference when it comes to the final print. I suppose it comes down to user experience - I guess you are not entirely happy with what you do have - or at least are looking to see if there might be an improvement elsewhere. 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.

From personal experience, I'd say that nothing beats an slr for tripod work in the landscape (if you're ruling out LF field cameras) - whether miniature or medium format despite the extra bulk and size of lenses. But this is my subjective choice. I like to actually see what the camera is seeing, i like the benefit of DOF preview. I love my RFs for grab type shots, and when I'm wandering and observing but I'd never use one for landscape work.

 

[RobC]

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.

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 would add that I have a medium format system and I have a 4x5 system but that wasn't what I asked about.

 

[sanking]

I made the suggestion because even though you started the thread you don't own it at this point, and the answers that people give are potentially useful to other readers. And the fact of the matter is that if a person is already working with good Zeiss glass in 35mm the only way he/she will see a significant improvement in image quality is to jump up in format.

If you have al lot of money to spend you could probably improve quality a bit with a Leica MP and aspheric Leitz glass. But it would be much less expensive to invest in a Fuji MF rangefinder.

You make your own choice. Others can do as they like. I subscribe to what has already been stated, "horses for courses" and don't give a flap about format ideology.

Sandy King

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.

 

[Lee L]

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'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.

Lee

 

[John Koehrer]

Rob,
Your question is straight forward, I think. The Parameters also(35mm no MF)
The suggestions to go large just muddy the waters & waste space.
Contax vs Leica/Zeiss. You 're NEVER going to see the difference in the results. So the question becomes RF or SLR? You already use the SLR so do you feel as though you're missing something?
Try shooting with your friends Leica it's just different, and in some peoples minds better or worse.
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

 

[Robert Budding]

rob - I can accept that you want a 35mm system. I've found that, for low light work, 35mm is at least as good as MF because you can often use slower film due to the faster lenses and greater DOF.

Anyway, I've shot good 35mm SLRs (Nikon, Contax) and 35mm rangefinders (Contax). For wides, I prefer the my 1950's Zeiss lenses on my Contax. The 35mm Biogon is bitingly sharp. I've never, unfortunately, owned the 21mm Biogon. I also prefer the 85mm f/2 Zeiss Jena to any other 85mm lens that I've used for 35mm. A few pics here:

http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Q1yX

 

[isaacc7]

For landscape work, go with the Contax SLR. You won't see any "sharpness" difference, but you may have more precise framing. If you're already starting with good lenses, and you're shooting in the middle to higher fstops, you aren't going to see any difference.

Isaac

 

[takef586]

Well. for shooting on a tripod, the quality difference will basically show up only up to 50mm FL. In fact, although I do use a 75 and 90mm RF lens on occasion, I prefer shooting longer lenses on a SLR for the more accurate framing and focusing. In the area between 12mm and 50mm you are likely to find better lenses, with more resolution and less distortion in the RF world than in the SLR's. I use extensively both the ZM and ZF line of lenses, and there is an obvious advantage for the RF designs. As for the body, an M7 is ok, but if you use tripods and stop down the lenses somewhat, any decent body will work great - I would particularly recommend the Bessa R4A or R4M, as the VF covers frames down to 21mm. There are also other options, slightly more expensive, and for me the best is the current Zeiss Ikon, simply for the great viewfinder it has. If you want the best possible kit for tripod shooting, without mortgaging your house, I'd go for 2 bodies (R4A+Zeiss Ikon or R3A) with the C Biogon 21/4.5, C Biogon 35/2.8 and Planar 50/2, for something longer you can use the Contax system with the 85/1.4 Planar and 100/2.8 M Planar. or a Nikon with the 85/1.4 Planar or better still with the 100/2 M Planar - probably the sharpest SLR lens I've ever owned. Try Delta 100 or Fomapan 200 (shot at 125) in FX39.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

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

John, I didn't expect to see much - if any difference - but My Contax RTS III does have a Real Time Vacuum Back and ceramic pressure plate.

For 35mm landscapes, I usually use a 21mm Zeiss Biogon on my 35mm rangefinder cameras. On my Contax SLRs I use my 21mm Zeiss Distagon. My RF and SLR results are comparable.

With my 35mm Contax G2, I use my 21mm f/2.8 Biogon. Operationally, I find that I have a preference for my Zeiss 35mm ZM Rangefinder with the 21mm f/2.8 Biogon T* ZM lens. I like the low noise and the manual RF focusing of the ZM. Image quality is excellent with both of these cameras and lenses.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

My 35mm Landscapes are primarily Archaeological Record Photographs. In that application, the time and date stamps I get from the data back on my Contax G2 come in handy.