Sell MF and thinking about a new Leica

[michael_j._kravit1]

I have been a Medium and Large Format photographer for many years. I

am getting seriously tired of lugging around tons of gear. Most of

my work is B/W. I am represented by a few galleries and print to

roughlt 16x20 maximum.

 

My question is;

 

Will a Leica 35mm allow me to obtain a similar tonal range as a

large negative and allow for 16x20 prints without the image breaking

down too badly. I am asking because I have heard many good things

about the Leica glass.

 

I guess many photographers switch from 35mm to larger formats. As we

get older, I have a theory that we regress to smaller lighter

formats.

 

Thoughts and observations please?

 

Mike

[vic_.]

Mike, Have you used a Mamiya 7II? It's not as heavy as some other Medium Format gear, and can be handheld to 1/15 second.

 

If you're used to Medium Format quality, you will be disappointed with Leica prints at the 16x20 size. The Mamiya lenses blow away Leica. There simply is no comparison. Leica might be the best 35mm, good for low light and wide open work (the Asph lenses have great corner to corner sharpness at all apertures), great tonal range, but if you're used to Medium Format, you won't be satisfied. Just my $0.02.

[__jon__]

>The Mamiya lenses blow away Leica.

 

No they don't. The extra film size does.

[steve g]

Check out the 'Texas Leica', Fuji MF Rangefinders.<br>

Keep the big negatives, lose the weight.

[Spearhead]

The Mamiya lenses are fine. The big difference is in the size you can print. You can print much larger from a 6x7 image. If you know how to print, or have a master printer, the 16x20 from the 6x7 images will be completely different. My experience has been that prints look significantly different between formats, rarely between different brands of cameras in the same format.

[al_kaplan1]

By and large the Leica glass blows away the competition. Unfortunately nothing gets around the bugaboo of negative size. If Leica made glass for 6x7 or 6x9 negatives it might well be worth the expense. As it is, a 35mm neg can't hold a candle to the bigger negative as far as grain and tonal range.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Heck; go for a "New York" Leica; a 620 Kodak Medalist! :)

[patricks]

or a simple Mamiya 6 might fit the bill. A mint used one w/ the std lens costs less than a used leica 35mm lens...

 

leicas are great, but the cannot hold a candle against good MF gear for mono landscapes.

[Troll]

Shoot fine grain film (Efke 25, TMax100, PanF) and 16x20 is a piece of cake from 35mm. It doesn't have to be Leica; Canon "L" lenses, and SMCP Pentax will do the job just as well. But it's sure a lot easier from a great big old 4x5 negative.

[clayh]

Hey Mike:

 

I need to send my in-progress portfolio to Florida so you and Jeff can check it out. I've

been doing a series using a Leica and leica glass (Mostly the 35/2 ASPH and the 50/1

Noctilux), scanning, digi-negging and printing the results in palladium and gumover. They

definitely don't look like large format, but they have a pretty cool unique look and hold

together all the way up to 11x17 or so. And I've been doing this all with Tri-X and Delta

400, and all handheld. I'll bet if you use FP-4 or Delta 100 and a tripod, you'll get some

pretty fine results.

 

Clay

[jeff h.]

I am happier with the black & white enlargements from negatives taken on an old Yashica TLR than those taken on a Leica (old LTM "Standard E" with finder, M6 or R-"SL", all with their respective 50mm Summicrons). Obviously, the Leica glass is optically superior, but the larger negative yields superior results. If I were in your place, I'd get a Pentax 67 or something similar, like the other people here have suggested.

[el_fang]

EOS 1Ds or Kodak DCS SLR/n.

[sam_portera]

I use 4x5 and 6x6 and 35mm. As far as image quality the 4x5 is untouchable but the 35mm has its place too. I think you will miss the image quality you get with your 4x5 and Mf but if you want to be lighter Leica will serve you well. Get a Rollei TLR to compliment your Leica, that way you can have MF when you want it and still lighten your load. I freqeuntly carry my Rolleicord V with my M6 and use both. I like the option of the square format. I think they complimet each other very well.

 

I have a Nikon system gathering dust because I have taken to Leica so well. I only keep the Nikon because I think the Digital M will be too costly for me.

[clyde_rogers]

Current Leica M lenses (I can't speak for R lenses) are sharp enough to enlarge to 16x20

with amazing results. Grain is pretty pronounced at that size, however. I expect you'd be

pleased with the sharpness of your results, but disturbed that smooth tonality and tiny

details get obscured by film grain.

 

Having done black and white for years using 35mm (Leica and others), 6x7, 4x5 and 5x7,

my current answer for landscape is the Mamiya 7II. I carry the camera, three lenses (43,

80, 150), several filters, and a dozen rolls of film in a Lowe Photo Runner fanny pack. Add

a carbon tripod and light ballhead, and I have a very light (just under 12 pounds),

compact, adequately versatile package. In my book, this package provides maximum

photo quality for minimum size and weight.

 

I haven't tested this, but maybe someone here has---it is possible that if you're happy

with a grainier film (tri-x in HC110?) in 6x4.5, you might be satisfied with the finest-

grained 35mm film (TMax 100 in Xtol or Tech Pan) at comparable sizes.

 

Good luck on your quest.

[jeff_s]

Oh, buy an MP or M7 and get it out of your system already ;-)

 

Here in the real world, sometimes a small, handy camera is exactly what we need to get excited about going out there and taking pictures again; maybe even different kinds of pictures. If your MF gear is an SLR, oh heck yeah is a Leica M going to change the way you shoot.

 

If you shoot a lot of candids, in fact, an M-camera may in many ways match larger format gear: I have a very fine Fuji 6x9, and if I left it on a tripod, it'd easily blow away anything I could do in 35mm. But when I'm moving fast and don't have time to really steady the camera, my shots are a little soft due to camera shake, and I lose a lot of the advantage over 35mm.

 

In general, the smaller the negative, the more challenging it is for me to get fine, microcontrasty detail in the prints, but if you're already an old hand in the darkroom, you'll figure it out quickly enough: Maybe try dilute, high-acutance developers, don't fear the grain, and see where it all leads you.

 

FWIW, I've owned a Mamiya 6, several Hasselblads, a Rollei TLR, a couple of Rollei SLRs, and a bunch of Fuji rangefinder cameras. Of the lot, the Fujis have been the best real-world, daily-use MF cameras for me, but even so, the Leica M and R cameras are generally my most-used. They've been good enough to get me into juried shows two year's running, and I've got my fingers crossed for this year as well.

[anthony_woolf]

There is one way to get medium format results from a Leica M.

 

Start with the very best of today's Leica lenses: e.g. 50 f2, 90 ASPH. Then, load your M with Tech Pan set at 50 asa. Of course shoot on a tripod or with a very high shutter speed and a steady hand. Develop in Photographer's Formulary TD-3 following instructions for method "B". Print without substantial cropping using a fine enlarging lens on one contrast grade less of paper. The reward: 16x20" grainless images, superb tonal range, flawless sharpness.

 

Note that Tech Pan in Technidol set at 25 is hit-or-miss, often too contrasty for nice results. The above formula behaves like normal film -- e.g. T-Max -- except for slighter lighter skin. Also, limited cropping means you can't get a square format -- save your mf gear for that.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

I usually shoot slides, which tend to be sharper than print film. In any case, I blow up my pictures to 24" x 36" (or larger) all the time and I've never had a problem with grain (or anything else for that matter). Just use film speeds of 100 ASA (or less) and you'll be better than fine with a Leica at 16" x 20"!

[christian hilmersen www.]

Take a look at photo.do. They have an article that shows that 35mm is indeed sharper than LF or MF if everything is the same (DOF etc). But, you do need a film that can handle the resolution - and I think only Ilford Delta 100 and T-Max 100 can do this.

 

And, as you know sharpeness isn't everything. Tonality increases with negative size.

 

In my home darkroom I can make print up to 40x30cm, and I have stopped using my MF camera, because I do not think the difference is big enough to justify using it....and the pictures I take with my Hexar are nicer than what I do with my MF (Mamiya).

 

And, yes I can see a difference between the pictures I take with a Canon FD (i.e. not L lenses) and the Hexar.

 

If you shoot Tri-X you need the extra film size, and if you scan film....

 

I am now selling all my equipment except a Linhof and the Hexar. In large format I have complete freedom of camera movement, and with the hexar I have complete freedom of movement - agility.

[nzdavid]

Mike, I'm not an expert on this, but I suggest you check out a book about

achieving maximum image quality, by British author Roger Hicks - can't remember its title,

offhand, sorry. He talks at some length on the distance at which most people view

pictures, and asks at what distance is ultimate sharpness perceptible? It's a scientific,

precise analysis based on visual acuity in resolving line pairs per millimeter.

 

Leica lenses all have superb resolving power, and the Leica system itself is a delight to

use.

 

With B&W (which I don't do any more) my old favourite used to be Ilford Pan F, shot at ISO

32 and developed in Ilford Perceptol for maximum sharpness. Different developers,

dilutions and development times, as well as toning agents, will of course also make a big

difference to tonal quality.

[david k.]

Mike, I use 35mm Leica and 4x5, and as many here have said, you will not replace 4x5 image quality with Leica equipment. However you can do very different types of work with Leica, especially M series equipment for hand held work.

 

I think there will always be a place for 4x5 work, to my mind medium format is just a compromise, it doesn't do what either 4x5 or 35mm M series type work as well.

 

My advice would be to add the Leica M to the 4x5, you will have the best of both worlds.

[paul_rybolt]

As both a Leica and medium format user I would suggest trying to find a used

Plaubel makina 67 or 670. They've been out of production for a long time but

show up used fairly often. They are the closest thing I've found to a leica in

ease of use and quality. I primarily shoot black and white in the makinas and

find that the non-interchangeable, slightly wide (80mm) Nikon lens is very

good. the meter is also easy to use and accurate. The rangefinder is bright

and clear and after you get used to focussing on a knob on top of the camera

it works very smoothly. They also fold pretty flat so they are easy to travel with.

My ideal travel kit is 2-M6's with 15/25 VC lenses, a 50mm black summicron

and a Makina 67.

[dzeanah]

I used to think that if I was going to be shooting it, I might as well be shooting it using proper technique. And if I was going to be bolting a camera to a tripod anyway, it might as well be a camera with a big piece of film in it.<p>

 

It made sense, but I found that I wasn't shooting as much, because everything required so much <i>effort</i>. <p>

 

I think the advantage of a 35mm rangefinder is that it can be used well handheld, and it's small enough to take everywhere. True, in lots of situations you'll get a photo and wish that you'd used a larger piece of film -- but in my case I'm finding that without a lightweight system I won't get the shot at all.<p>

 

Six pounds for my G2 kit; it was comparable with the Leica kit I used to use. 12 lbs for a Mamiya 7 kit (including 3 lenses and a lightweight tripod) sounds wonderful if you're the landscape type.<p>

 

As far as image quality is concerned, that's going to be a subjective judgement. Think back to the last HCB print you saw. How large was it? How was the sharpness and tonal range of the image? Where it was lacking, did you find that it detracted from the image, or did the image work well anyway? Believe it or not I once had a 30x40 image printed from a 35mm neg (by <a href="http://www.ivey.com">these guys</a> -- I'm a dunce in the darkroom in comparison, and couldn't make the image work well at 16x20. Of course I was poor at the time, and making do with some shoddy equipment...) that had a wonderfil tonal range and grain that didn't distract from the image at all. It <i>is</i> possible.

[aricmayer]

Mike,

 

It sounds like you are ready for a change.

 

Others have well covered the technical concerns with your considered switch. Comparing

the Leica to larger format images is bit like comparing apples and oranges. With the larger

gear you get grainless blowups and richer tonality for carefully and ponderously composed

images.

 

With the Leica you get something else. It's more like buying a top of the line

convertable sports car to replace your limousine. The camera is light, easy to use,

spontaneous, of incredible quality and will open up a whole new realm of possibilities for

you creatively. Those possibilities may be more important to you right now than grain and

tonality. What about the zen of stepping into a stream of people coming dow a street with

a discreet camera that barely makes a noise and shooting as your instinct takes you? Or

any other spontaneous event that you may instinctively react to? You will never get that on

film the same way with a larger format.

 

Certainly plenty of great photographers have made black and white blow ups with Leica's

beyond the 16 X 20 goal that you have.

 

Perhaps a new way of seeing may be what you are looking for, in which case, the Leica

may be the answer, negative size be damned.

 

best,

 

Aric

[bob haight]

Remeember its the film, not the glass , which is the problem. As you enlarge more and more, the grainier it gets and loses tone and sharpness. At 16 x 20, 35mm film is really stretched beyond its top quality no matter what lenses are used. 4 x 5 is really where you need to be at 16 x 20 for gallery work although MF 6x7 or 6x9 is almost as good save the possible LF prospectives via movemments.

[michael_j._kravit1]

A great plethora of opinions and suggestions. I really want to thank everyone for their well thought out responses.

 

Actually, to hit the nail on the head, I am ready for a new vision. I will most definitely keep my LF 4x5 (Ebony) as I love that camera and it has a soul all it's own. It is my Rollei 6008AF system that I am tired of lugging around. I also have a small Hassy 905 SWC that is great for some things, but I want something that allows different focal length lenses.

 

I think going to 35mm for spontenaity will be most appropriate. I don't want an SLR and the bulk. I want a new way opf working to develop a new vision.

 

Thanks all

Mike