Very impressive, I wonder if there were retests to back this data up by a separate party.
I think its always better to have very high resolution, even if it is more than the film can handle because it can sure help if not shooting on axis or recording the image at edges of the frame.
Thank you darkosaric , these leica bashers have lot to learn.
Umut, I've used my fair share of Leica equipment, and I'm not a Leica basher, but while they are beautiful machines to work with, and some of the rangefinder lenses are excellent, it is actually the opposite of what you say. It's the Leica militants who have a lot to learn - not about Leica glass, but about the photographic process. The unfortunate truth is that optical bench data never make it to the photographic print. Even the smallest imperfections in focus, emulsion thickness, film flatness, vibration, all but obliterrate the l/mm advantages you cite. Let's also remember only one infinitely thin plane in any actual subject is actually even in perfect focus. And all this is just at the taking stage. Then come all the optical imperfections introduced in the enlarging process.
Who cares how sharp a lens gets, when the pictorial resolution of the film is so much lower? The only films that got close to that were based on microfilm, like Techpan and Gigabit. Carl Zeiss used the Gigabit film to prove the resolution (over 400lp/mm) of one of their lenses.
Kodak publications show that TMax 100 has 63 lines/mm, TMax 400 has 50 lines/mm, TMax 3200 has 40 lines/mm. I'm guessing that Tri-X has something like 44 lines/mm (not listed, but the granularity is higher than TMax 400, and nearly like TMax 3200).
Then the camera is not used on a tripod. Hello, if you want maximum sharpness in your photos, it's time for a tripod!
The photographer creates the photograph, not the equipment.
To me it's much more important what kind of picture the lens draws. Does it LOOK nice in a print or not? What else do you need?
Same goes for your film. Does it LOOK nice in a print or not? What else do you need?
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
- Aristotle
Speaking from experience with Contax G lenses on Neopan 400 in Rodinal: even though the resolving power of the film is the limiting factor, the sharpness and 'micro-contrast' of the lenses still shine through, somehow. Use poorer lenses with the same film, same everything, and yes, you will see a difference in print. Don't ask me why, please .
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Lets not forget that cameras and lenses don't take pictures, people do.
In September last year I printed a negative my dad had taken in 1963 with one of the Miranda Orion cameras. http://www.mirandacamera.com/_modelid/modelid.htm Not exactly the last word in resolution, but the print looked nice. Adox film processed in whatever the lab was using.
I made 11x14" prints from this negative, and I didn't lack anything compared to the pictures I make today with modern film and a Leica lens.
This scan is from an Ilford MG Art 300 print where the texture of the paper shows up very irritatingly, and for that I apologize.
I don't think this picture would have been any better had he used a Leica high resolution lens and some whizzbango mega-resolution film.
This is just my opinion.
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
- Aristotle
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by darkosaric
.
