Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,496   Posts: 1,543,050   Online: 1030
      
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 83
  1. #41
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    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.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    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.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    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

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,093
    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
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arlington, Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    467
    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
    Last edited by Robert Budding; 08-03-2008 at 03:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Yemen Baby!
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    250
    Images
    1
    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
    See my adventures in Yemen here:
    www.isaharr.com

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    55
    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.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer View Post
    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
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    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.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin