If you wish to get into 100lpm teritory the Leica will do it. It is highly unlikely that you will get anywhere near it wirh asa 25 film and a hand held camera. I hope that you are planning to use the mother of all tripods.
Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)
I hope I don't come across like a smart ass, but here is what I sense:
You want a new camera. You probably (most likely) want a Leica. You DON'T want to look like a snob who bought it because of the name/cache - mainly in your own eyes. So, you want a very good reason to buy one.
Here is my thought on that, based on my perception of your dillema (which may of course, be totally wrong):
Buy the Leica you obviously want - life is too short to over-analyze things to death. One thing is for certain, many things may, arguably, be as good as a Leica RF - but you can be sure your Leica will NOT be any worse than the best of them, and perhaps better. If economy is not the object here, buy the camera that will probably just make you feel good to handle, use and even look at. Why not? Would I? Who cares - I am not you!
My Fuji GL690 has a thirty year old lens on it. The idea that a Leica lens could be sharper is to laugh. I simply do not possess equipment that can demonstrate optical defects in that glass wide open and handheld. It is sharp right down to the grain.
It is, however, a gigantic heavy beast, which is an issue, and at 8 shots a roll and with an f/3.5 lens there's a lot of shooting that it's simply inappropriate for; these dovetail well with Leica strengths in that there are a lot of very fast, very good M mount lenses, and the rangefinder is a useful tool in low light. However, you're talking about bolting it to a tripod at all times, making this strength actually irrelevant. As a result, I suggest the Fuji 645. They are reasonably compact, get a reasonable number of shots to a roll of 120, and with three times the film area will crush a Leica effortlessly for quality. The major downsides--they are loud and the zoom is somewhat limited (and slow)--is actually a nonissue for you because of the tripod.
I owned a Fuji GL690 and it was a heavy beast so I know what you mean, but honestly I dont think my 4x5 super graphic is that much heavier.
I had the fuji 65mm F5.6 lens and a 100mm lens and they were both decent, but honestly I have other MF and LF lenses that I think are just as sharp.
I should have asked my question differrently. Can a leica with the best lens and something like copex or gigabit film equal a fuji 645 with the same film.
I guess what I am saying is, Are Leica lenses sharp enough to make the format shift nil.
Let's say a good MF lens can give 80 lpmm. Since a 645 film window is 1.5 times as long as a 35mm window, the 35mm lens (Leica or whatever) would have to give 1.5 * 80 lpmm to give the same resolution on a same-size print. That's 120 lpmm.
Assuming ideal condtions and the same film type in both cameras, I think 80 lpmm in MF is far more realistic than 120 lpmm - even in a Leica.
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I don't think there's a generic answer to that question. If you're taking film grain (which appears to be the point of copex, etc.) and enlarging conditions out of the equation, it depends on which Leica lens and which MF lens you're talking about. As df mentions, the newest Leica glass is amazing (I don't dare go near a 75 Summicron or a 90 apo).
Originally Posted by Troy Ammons
I offered to shoot samples with 25 year old glass, and that's obviously superceded to some degree, but maybe you should ask for test rolls on the film you want to use from APUG members with the latest Leica glass in the f.l. you want and with the MF glass you want. I'm sure a couple of folks here would be happy to oblige.
Another factor that plays into the discussion, perhaps under the heading of "shooting conditions", is the aperture at which the exposure is made. If one is attempting to achieve maximum detail resolution, the "optimum" aperture for the lens in question (f8, f11 ?) will always be used, and shutter speed adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately, other factors, such as wind, often get in the way of producing maximally-sharp images.
One of the things that differentiates Leica lenses is that most are good to excellent wide open, and just get better as you stop down toward the optimal aperture. As a result, it is often possible to "get a shot" with a (hand-held) Leica M that would not be possible with some other camera/lens. Often, however, shooting wide open also pushes the resulting image into the realm where other image aesthetics may be more important than pure resolution. This is the realm in which the (legendary?) 75mm f/1.4 Summilux and the 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux excel, even though the pure resolution of either lens is not at its maximum.
Within the context of this discussion, however, I'm still not sure that the qualities of the lens will over-shadow the size of the negative.
[COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]
Rio Rancho, NM
And this is the rub... the tiniest mistakes will show up big-time in 35mm, where in larger formats you can get away with a little slop. I guess you need to ask yourself how you like to work. Would it be more fun to shoot MF handheld than 35mm on a tripod?
Everything is a tradeoff.
Originally Posted by df cardwell
Well I guess its half dozen one or the other.
I actually prefer LF, but sometimes its just too much hassle, so enter 35mm and MF rangefinders. Small light convenient, roll film etc.
For MF I do like the idea of the Fuji GA645ZI as almost a P+S MF camera, but for the utmost resolution from MF I would say the Mamiya 7 would probably come out on top, although I had a couple of Pentax 67 lenses that were just as sharp. I am sure that modern Rollei and Hassy lenses are just as sharp or slightly better than the Mamiya 7, and probably close to Leica lenses in resolving power.
Here is an interesting comparison for what its worth. I was surprised to see how good the Leica high rez scan shot compared to the Plaubel 670.
I am sure a high res scan of the MF negative would of been significantly better as well.
Originally Posted by Troy Ammons