That is all well and fine, but the actual grain of the film used, if not a very fine type will show up in big enlargements and the quality will start to deteriorate in proportion. That is something cannot be avoided and will determine the end quality. You could always use a fine grain developer but that will almost certainly result smoother all over tones but the reduction in edge definition will star being becoming obvious much sooner. It is all swings and roundabouts irrespective of what lens/camera combination you use. In this case the larger the format the more quality there will be in a resulting print.
Shouldn't a medium format folder give the same IQ as an SLR?
-
A
- Thread starter gone
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Praktica KW 35mm with Zeiss Jena M42 Lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale 7 inch Speedotron Black Line Flash Unit Reflectors
- Started by spoolman
-
For Sale FS: Durst Pictochrom CL Enlarger
- Started by slashower
Forum statistics
That is all well and fine, but the actual grain of the film used, if not a very fine type will show up in big enlargements and the quality will start to deteriorate in proportion. That is something cannot be avoided and will determine the end quality. You could always use a fine grain developer but that will almost certainly result smoother all over tones but the reduction in edge definition will star being becoming obvious much sooner. It is all swings and roundabouts irrespective of what lens/camera combination you use. In this case the larger the format the more quality there will be in a resulting print.
Time for me to look for awkward focal lengths since I have most of the usual suspects.
Highly agree about a camera lover able to design a better camera. Yoshihisa Maitani, Oscar Barnack and (even though I sense little love for Bronica here) Zenzaburō Yoshino made a great job on designing great cameras.
I dont think camera form would matter much. Photons don't have a clue about what a SLR or Folder is. Remember that the camera is just a black box. What matter is the glass used.
Well I guess that rigidity and alightment would matter (vibrations, focus accuracy,etc.), but given cameras of the same quality, my mind is it shouldn't matter much if it is a folder or slr. Those traits arent inherent to camera style but build quality; at least thats my experice and thoughts. Example, a kiev 6c is not a Hasselblad and both are slr (even though I enjoy my Kiev 6c ).
The “it’s just a black/lightight box” trope/kliché is probably as old as photography.
I recently saw it in Emerson’s Naturalistic Photography from 1899.
It’s as over simplistic and as misleading as saying that a human is just a leather sack for anaerobic bacteria, or that a car is just a box to hold the engine and passengers.
True, kinda, but also completely missing the point and not contributing any basic understanding.
I recently saw it in Emerson’s Naturalistic Photography from 1899.
It’s as over simplistic and as misleading as saying that a human is just a leather sack for anaerobic bacteria, or that a car is just a box to hold the engine and passengers.
True, kinda, but also completely missing the point and not contributing any basic understanding.
+1,000,000 I am so tired of hearing that crap. It is from the same people who shove "A poor workman always blames his tools." down our throats.
I'm not making arguments about brand names. Simply, the structure that holds the lens parallel to the film and that couples the lens to the focusing system is beefier, less flexible, and has fewer wear points in a fixed lens camera (TLR, SLR, rangefinder), than in a folding camera. Especially in older, more compact folding cameras (like a Kodak or Ikonta) versus, I suppose, one of the newer folding cameras like a Fuji that are rather larger (I haven't used those).
I'm not saying folders are bad. They're just a tradeoff, and the answer to the question about whether an MF folder should achieve the same image quality is probably "It might, but you may have to test things like the focus accuracy carefully first."
Clearly, it's possible to make well-focused photos with a folding camera, especially if you count a Speed Graphic or any 4x5 field camera. On the other hand, the Speed Graphic is engineered for solidity, not compactness, and you can check the focus on the ground glass.
I've got a lot of pretty sharp, accurately focused negatives from a plethora of folding cameras, scale focus, rangefinder, and ground glass, formats from 35 mm to 4x5.
I would think about variations in ease and accuracy of focus, lens quality, and film flatness. Some cameras and lenses are better than others in those areas.
By the way, I looked it up and out of 2,403,789 posts only one post contained the aphorism "A poor workman always blames his tools", so its not like anyone is shoving it down anyone's throat. In this thread, for example, all the guys with the poor tools seem pretty happy with them. The only one bellyaching is the guy with the Hasselblads. In a big font no less.
Last edited:
That's probably because of some arithmetic involving satisfaction levels and money spent. Or so it seems...
Apology if it came out the wrong way. It is also my thoughts that a camera is way more complex than that. Folders are different than SLR in many ways, and SLR will provide a lot of improvements for helping getting a sharper image and better shooting experience, which may or may not add to t he final image. For critical or very special shooting sessions, I would pick an SLR over other cameras, because they provide better aids and reduce errors.
That said. I would still say that Folders have inherent characteristics that would make them inferior than SLR image quality wise, which I think it was the basis on the initial OP discussion. Sure, folders require more thinking, handling and care for them to perform as expected,
They example of the Kiev 6c vs Hassy stands. On the folder side, my Ikonta still performs as intended, giving great IQ, while the Moskva V that I tested seemed frail.
By the way, I also get annoyed by the expression "Equipment doesn't matter", A better camera will always contribute the photography experience. Otherwise everyone would still be using pinholes and brownies.
Regards.
Point taken reddesert. Thats what the multiple camera formats are, a tradeoff of functionalities. Great reasoning.
Marcelo
I had a circa 1933 Certo SuperDolly folder with a Zeiss lens and the quality of the photographs was terrific. I liked it because it was pocketable but on the large size, It did not have a range finder. I have a 30"x30" print from on it on my walls. I picked it up on Photrio for $75 and I got good service from it until I passed it on to the next owner.
Well, screen viewing, scanning and Tri-X is not conductive to judging much. But it does look very good. A reasonably good 6x9 folder can give wonderful results if stopped to f11 and above. I don't think anyone has contested that. The problems come when you print large and use apertures at or below f8.
Last edited:
No need to apologise. You are just carrying on the tradition of this platitude meme, as we all are at times in different realms.
We can never get rid of all this flotsam and jetsam of the collective conscious, but we can make a tiny effort to clean up once in a while.
Would that be due to camera design or lens? To be honest never made a large print (16x20 or beyond).
Then I withdraw my question.
Both. A good lens on a rickity camera, is overall less good than a simple lens on a very true camera. That's why there so few folder manufactures went with the hype and lure of unit focus. It's simply hard to do well in a folder. Often front cell focusing is overall better in such a camera, because it's more conductive to folding and stays true even after several years use.
With the Konica Pearl and CertoSix the folding is made harder and more fragile by the insistence on unit focus.
Close up and at infinity, where it would matter a bit what type of focus you have, you are almost always stopped down. Either because you use flash, or because you are outside on a bright day and want big DoF.
Some 135 folders has a lock that prevent folding when the lens block is out. But that is hard to do with a 120 folder. And when it is implemented, it almost always results in bent struts from some idiot or impatient forgetful person forcing the camera.
Last edited:
Very few folders have "modern" lens designs -- triplets, Tessar type, an occasional Heliar (I've got a Xenon on a 35 mm folder, but that's an exception). Nearly all are front element focused, and some are pushing the limits of their lens design in terms of aperture (for instance, the f/2.8 80 mm Tessar on my Super Ikonta B). These lenses often lose quality when opened up; they have the capability more for "some picture is better than no picture" than because it's a good idea to shoot wide open all the time.
The 90 mm f/3.9 Sekor C I have for my RB67 is a better lens than any I've seen on a folder (other than something I could mount on my 4x5 Speed Graphic) -- but that doesn't mean I carry that camera all the time; I don't have a practical way to do so. Instead, I've got a bag within reach right now with three folders in it (in three different formats), and it weighs less than my RB67 with waist level finder and 90 mm lens. No, none of those have a lens that's at its best at f/5.6 (though they're all pretty good from f/8 and smaller) -- but they let me carry cameras that make big negatives, and most of the time that's better than having a far better camera at home.
Ok. Fully agree on the 135 folders. It is my experience that 135 folders are better made/more solid/rigid than 120. All my Retinas I've had over the years (even an Agfa Solinette) are more solid than the 120 folders I've had over the years.
I tend to agree.
I've shot with very expensive gear, including Hasselbads, and not so expensive gear. I'm still the same photographer. Over the summer I shot a series of images with my 60+ year old Minolta Autocord and the same image with my Rollei 6008af with 80mm Xenotar. I made prints and showed them to my photo club and nobody could really tell which shots were done with the camera that cost 10x as much money and had a "modern" multi coated lens opposed to a single coated 60 yr old Tessar style lens. I enjoy shooting with the Rollei for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day for what I do I get similar excellent results from the Minolta. I enjoy shooting the Minolta for other reasons.
I've shot with very expensive gear, including Hasselbads, and not so expensive gear. I'm still the same photographer. Over the summer I shot a series of images with my 60+ year old Minolta Autocord and the same image with my Rollei 6008af with 80mm Xenotar. I made prints and showed them to my photo club and nobody could really tell which shots were done with the camera that cost 10x as much money and had a "modern" multi coated lens opposed to a single coated 60 yr old Tessar style lens. I enjoy shooting with the Rollei for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day for what I do I get similar excellent results from the Minolta. I enjoy shooting the Minolta for other reasons.
They are simply easier to make more rigid because they have less space to span with the same materials and the maximum weight the average person is willing to carry.
As said previously a 6x6 Retina would probably be over a kilo.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |