Leica vs. Medium Format

[howard_b]

I've been shopping for Leica M6 TTL, but I've been pleasantly

distracted by Medium Format.

 

Plus for Leica: best available image quality for 35mm; bad news is

that it's still 35mm.

 

Which tempts me toward Hasselblad, a simple system with a 80/2.8 on a

501CM. But for the same price, the Contax 645 offers more, with an

80/2.0 lens (does the extra stop matter?). And the Mamiya 645 ProTL

offers similar quality, no AF (I don't need it), lighter weight (a

pound lighter than the Hasselblad, so it weighs as much as the

Leica), plus a very comprehensive system for growth. I don't care

whether I go 6x6 or 645, but I do want excellent image quality.

 

Input welcome!

[michael_briggs2]

What kind of photography do you intend to do? What are your tradeoffs between weight, negative size, hand holdability, cost, etc.? The cameras you are considering seem pretty diverse in their characteristics. If you are used to 35 mm, have you thought about

whether you will like the 6x6 square format? It would be wise to focus in on your photographic goals, then choose your tools.

 

A Hasselblad is rather different in hand holdability compared to a Leica rangefinder. If hand holdability is important, you might want to look at a MF rangefinder, such as the Mamiya 6 or 7, or the new Bronica RF 645.

[howard_b]

Fair enough.

 

Mostly, I shoot travel. I've always hand-held SLR, only occassionally used a tripod. But I'm not happy with the image quality, hence the desire to spend additional money on optics.

 

I like 35mm's convenience and availability, but I love the Hasselblad's big open viewfinder and its feeling of control over both composition and focusing. Both of these are not so good for Leica.

 

And I'm back-and-forth on the Hasselblad vs. Contax (smaller, lighter, with AF, too) and Mamiya (good compromise?)

[michael_kravit]

If you are seriously considering making the switch to medium format you may want to take the time to rent each camera and see how you like them. For many, the 645 negative does not offer a significant gain from 35mm. I have a number of friends shooting 6x7 and 6x9 just for that reason.

 

I shoot a Hasselblad and find the Zeiss lenses to be wonderfully sharp with excellent contrast and color rendition. I have often thought about the Contax 645 due to it's autofocus attributes, but every time I think about selling the 'blad, I get sentimental, slap myself on the cheek and come back to reality.

 

Seriously, take your time, use each format and then make a decision. A MF system may require a cash outlay of $10-20,000, so you don't want to do it more than once.

 

Good Luck

Mike

[scott f.]

If you shoot travel, handheld and no tripod, then the choice is a no-brainer: Leica system. I have a Hasselblad 500cm w/80mm f2.8, and with its big mirror, rarely does it ever get used off a sturdy tripod with mirror lock-up anymore. In fact, I only use it for images I know will be enlarged to greater than 8x10, such as group portraits, or for images like landscape or architecture that I will submit for publication. Otherwise, the convenience of 35mm outweighs the image quality advantages of medium format. <p>And to throw another wrench into your decision making cogworks, have you considered the Mamiya 7 II 6x7 rangefinder? Phillip Greenspun recently reviewed one <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/medium-format/mamiya-7">here</a>. About the camera, Phillip claims, "The Mamiya 7 is a great camera. If you need higher image quality than 35mm, some flexibility as to lens choice, and portability, the Mamiya 7 is a faithful companion. "

[bill_dewberry]

Go for the pentax 645, manual focus. Great value, excellent camera & lenses, TTL flash available, better image result than leica due to larger negative size. Acts & feels like a 35mm, produces MF images.

[jeff_graeber]

You stated that you shoot mostly landscapes. Are you concerned with interchangeable backs and a removeable prism? if not try the mamiya 645e. it has a rapid wind grip that makes it about the same size as a nikon F5 and it has auto metering capabilities. it's also pretty light especially if you are using the 80mm and/or 55mm mostly.

[michael_m3]

Howard: As a Leica and Hassy user, I'm with Scott F, consider the Mamiya 7. Superb optics, huge 67 film plane and reasonably light, compact and hand-holdable.

 

My Leica is used for travel, primarily shooting b&w. This includes scenic landscapes and street shooting. Optics are superb and you can't beat the size and weight. I am however confused by your complaints regarding veiwfinder and composition, one of the strengths of RF's and Leica M's in particular.

 

My 2000FCW and several lenses are not overly travel friendly. However, for its intended purpose, short travel, portraits, architecture, etc. the system simply cannot be beat. It is NOT hand-holdable if you desire sharp results.

 

The Mamiya 7 is a nice compromise between MF SLR and Leica M, certainly capable of producing superb results with proper usage.

 

Good luck.

[colm boran]

Like you, I used to shoot hand-held 35mm and was never very happy with the image quality. I researched everything for about a year, deciding between a high-end 35mm camera system or MF. I bought a Hasselblad 500 C/M with a 150mm (I bought it primarily for portraits). I took my first roll to a local shop for processing and held my breath. Unfortunately, the results were worse than my typical 35mm images. It wasn't the quality of the camera, but I found hand-holding a Hasselblad with a waist-level finder gave me soft images. You can't really steady the camera very well to your mid-section. If you try to push the viewfinder against your head to help steady it, it is also awkward. Perhaps with a prism finder it's easier. Certainly many wedding photographers use Hassy's hand-held in this way. However, the other poster above is absolutely right: in my experience, you will want to mount a MF SLR on a tripod to achieve significantly better results. In fact, using a tripod for your existing 35mm gear might make a bigger difference than you think. Not just in camera-shake, but it may force you to slow down and think more about what you're shooting. In most environments, it's very hard to tell the difference in prints (up to 8x10") from negatives taken on my Canon EOS Elan with 28-105 zoom vs. my 500 C/M with a 150 CF. B&W is another story. MF beats the hell out of 35mm in that category. Chromes are also much easier to examine in MF.

[kl_prager1]

First of all, comparing the Leica M6TTL with any of the MF cameras you mentioned is comparing 'apples and oranges'. On the other hand, the Mamiya 7 (already mentioned) has far more similarities to the M6, so you may want to also consider this camera, especially since you prefer to work without a tripod. Also, I think the recommendation (already made) that you rent before you buy is a very good one.

 

I own a Leica M6TTL, Pentax 645n and Hassleblad 501CM. I like the Hasselblad because of the remarkable image quality that is achievable with this camera, its simplicity and timeless design. I like the Pentax 645n because its quicker and easier to use than the Hassleblad, but still produces a nice sized negative. And, I love the M6TTL because its small, light and unobtrusive enough to take anywhere, yet still gives me the best quality achievable with 35mm. Frankly, at this point I wish I had the money I spent on the Hasselblad and Pentax, so I could afford more Leica equipment.

 

There's no denying that the image quality from MF is absolutely wonderful! And, any of the cameras you mentioned (as well as the ones mentioned in the responses) will make beautiful images. However, they'll all influence your style in a dramatically different manner. This is as important to consider as absolute image quality is and perhaps even more so. What I'm finding is that the M6 suits my personal style best, even though my other cameras produce bigger negatives with greater resolving power. But then again, my style may not be yours, so this is what you'll need to ultimately determine for yourself. Good luck!

[victor_randin]

It would be better to have own both cameras: Leica & Hasselblad. I am happy with them.

Colour Xmas!

[msitaraman]

Medium format image quality will beat 35mm image quality hands down, even in an 8x10 print if processed and printed exactingly.

 

Personally, I can spot the difference instantly even at the 5x5 print size.

 

That is, as long as the decreased depth of field does not cause you to sacrifice image quality by using shutter speeds unsuitable for hand held use.

 

It all depends on the type of photography you plan to do. A Mamiya 7 is close to a Leica for daylight/outdoor photography (street and landscape) in functionality, and beats it hollow for image quality.

 

But all MF is a poor choice for handheld available light work, with the possible exception of TLRs.

 

But maybe you plan to do a different type of photography when you get the medium format camera, in which case the comparision with Leica is not valid.

[georges_lepetit]

Dear Howard,

 

I have been a leica user for years and although convinced that I had in hands the best possible 35mm quality after having used canon, nikon and contax, I did not feel totally satisfied by my enlargements (mostly 18x24 cm). I used the Tech Pan a lot but still, something was missing. I turned to MF to get this enlargement quality and unfortunately had no other choice than selling my leica equipment.

 

I first bought the Mamiya 7II for the reasons mentionned above but B&W negs and enlargements didn't meet my expectations: leica and Tech Pan were doing better!

For colour and slides it's ok but if your eyes have been used to the creamy grey tones and nuances of the leica in B&W, you may be disappointed.

So I turned to hasselblad 501 CM and 80/2.8 CB and I have a lot of pleasure with the image quality but... I deeply regret my leica and think about buying a second-hand M6 because there are so many opportunities where a hassy is just not appropriate and you would need a small camera with built-in lightmeter, ready-to-use in your pocket...

In fact both equipments fulfil different requirements and both in their respective area will give the maximum quality at least for B&W.

[mark_mitchell4]

When you say you shoot mostly travel, travel what? Landscapes, grab shots, senics? Much depends on whether you want to tote along a tripod, or have everything you need in one small bag. Film real estate goes a long way & I consistantly get better results with my 501cm, but it's on a tripod & I'm enlarging up to 20x24. For 35mm, I went with Contax due to the Zeiss lenses (and Canon due to 'L' lenses), but generally speaking, up to 8x10, the differences are barely perceptible. Define your shooting style and you may find your answer, or carry both formats, which will have it's advantages.

[s._polke]

You have chosen 2 VERY expensive systems to put on your list. I would suggest that a) if all you care about is this fabled level of "image quality," then the Leica is not for you. Bear in mind that 35mm is 35mm. I've worked with Leica m3 cameras with modern summicon 50mm lens and also worked with SLRs -- I like the handling and viewfinder of the Leica and have found it much superior in use to any other 35mm (even Canon A2!) but if all you want is a "better negative" then forget 35mm. Choose Leica for its viewfinder and rangefinder -- if the Leica lenses are actually "better" than Canon, etc., (and I'm not sure they are) then they are not THAT much better. Leica is good but it can't defy reality -- the reality is, any 35mm negative needs to be massively enlarged to make even an 8x10 print.<p>I don't currently own any Leica cameras because I sold to buy medium format. If I could afford it, I'd buy another.<p>

If quality really is all you care about and you are on a Leica/Hasselblad budget -- buy a large format camera. 8x10 should do nicely. Then, 8x10 prints will be contact prints. Of course, after carrying around an 8x10 camera and film holders for a single afternoon, you will probably be sick of it and ditch the whole thing for a point and shoot that fits in a pocket.<p>

If you've never used medium format, I would borrow or rent a camera and see if it suits you.

[j._o.]

"Mostly, I shoot travel. I've always hand-held SLR, only occassionally used a tripod. But I'm not happy with the image quality, hence the desire to spend additional money on optics."

 

I occasionally use a Leica, and I've used Hassy and the Mamiya 6. If you just don't want to use a tripod, you'll probably get more of a boost from MF than a Leica as far as image quality. The only exception would be if you needed fast glass. Oddly, though, the good images I've made traveling are all at f/4 and smaller apertures.

 

"...a simple system with a 80/2.8 on a 501CM. But for the same price, the Contax 645 offers more, with an 80/2.0 lens (does the extra stop matter?)..."

 

Last I checked, that simple Contax system was over $1000 more than that simple Hassy system. Film handling and the fast lenses might make the Contax worthwhile for you though. I'd prefer the f/2 lens just for the brighter focussing screen myself.

[j._o.]

"Mostly, I shoot travel. I've always hand-held SLR, only occassionally used a tripod. But I'm not happy with the image quality, hence the desire to spend additional money on optics."

 

I occasionally use a Leica, and I've used Hassy and the Mamiya 6. If you just don't want to use a tripod, you'll probably get more of a boost from MF than a Leica as far as image quality. The only exception would be if you needed fast glass. Oddly, though, the good images I've made traveling are all at f/4 and smaller apertures.

 

"...a simple system with a 80/2.8 on a 501CM. But for the same price, the Contax 645 offers more, with an 80/2.0 lens (does the extra stop matter?)..."

 

Last I checked, that simple Contax system was over $1000 more than that simple Hassy system. Film handling and the fast lenses might make the Contax worthwhile for you though. I'd prefer the f/2 lens just for the brighter focussing screen myself.

[andy mcleod]

MF rangefinders(Mamiya 6,7) and tlrs (rollei, mamiya c) don't have the jumping reflex mirror to jiggle your camera when you handhold it.

 

You might want to keep that in mind.

[david_henderson]

If you're not prepared to use a tripod at least most of the time, I'd recommend against any MF SLR. I know that many will say that they handhold these cameras, but in my view that isn't really consistently possible whilst maintaining the quality of image that underpins the rationale for buying one, unless you use flash. Sure you can use fast film, but that has its price too and to me is a way of facilitating the occasional handhold rather than a general method of using the camera. You can use fast lenses at wide apertures too, but bear in mind that you'll need a longer lens to capture any particular scene with MF and that means harder handholding and narrower depth of field.

 

If you are prepared to use a tripod then the MF SLR is more flexible in many ways than the M7 rangefinder. Nothing against that camera - in fact I own one myself - but the fact that you can't frame precisely, can't see depth of field, and ND grads are difficult to impossible to use well means that there's a lot of shots you could just treat better with an SLR. Also whilst you can handhold, I wouldn't recommend doing so below 1/15 which means that with a polariser or with slow/medium film you'll need a tripod some of the time anyway.

[craig brown]

For the first time in my life, I took a job that required travel and have just recently began shooting travel photography (about four months). From my observations, travel photography offers unique situations where the camera that you are using can heavily influence the images that you are capturing, particularly with people photography.

 

I've had a Mamiya 645 Pro TL for a few years. I love taking it into the White Mountains of New Hampshire and taking lots of time to compose and meter my shots. When I was in Hong Kong, the shots that I wanted did not exist for more then a few seconds. My Mamiya would have been use less. I bought a Fuji 645zi. I got amazing results! I love this camera! I can live with it's limitations (fixed lens, small zoom range, slow lens). I choose it over a Mamiya 7II because I prefer the zoom to changing lenses (in travel photography). The fact that it cost half as much was also a plus.

 

I just got back from a trip to Germany/Austria. For that trip I brought 3 cameras in a back pack. My Fuji 645zi, my Mamiya 645 Pro with a 45mm lens, and a sony camcorder. This combination took care of 100% of my needs. I really didn't need the Mamiya, but the wide angle lens did come in handy when shooting buildings in a crowded city. I always bring a tripod but never use it. There is just never that much time to compose a shot. I shoot 400 speed film so hand holding is not a problem.

 

-- Craig Brown

[andrew_schank]

I've enjoyed all the different responses to this original question, and most of what was said goes along with my experience as well. I find MF has the potential of improved image quality over the best 35mm equipment, but often that potential is not reached due to camera handling deficiencies and the decreased depth of field per angle of view inherent to MF. My hand held Mamiya 7 shots were not noticeably sharper than my Leica M3 ones, and the same goes for those taken with my Pentax 645. Anything that isn't stationary also lends itself more to 35mm in my experience, where fast shooting is benefited by the greater depth of field and quicker camera handeling. Ever try chasing children around with a 21/4 and waste level finder! For landscapes and more formal portraits,however, it really is a differnet story, and that's where I noticed the biggest difference by using MF. Especially with wide angle lenses.

[andrew_schank]

Forgot to mention one other advantage of 35mm over MF--ease of purchasing quality film in remote areas. Also, I have found it much more difficult to get high quality color negative and print developing with 120. Except for super expensive custom labs where price per print works out to be 5 to 10 times higher than a good 35mm lab I use, I can't find anyone who does decent roll film work and many labs do not even touch it anymore. Fuji messed up half the rolls I sent them. Koday does mediocre work and takes forever. None of even the best local mini labs do roll film anymore. This may seem like a minor point, but it often has me reaching for the 35 instead of the MF cameras. People have said to mail the film to such and such place, but I get real nervous sending original roll films through the mail, especially because I use my MF cameras for the most special shots. For now I am just eating the super high developing costs from the custom labs and using the MF cameras less.

[pete_su]

It seems to me that if you are after "image quality" then using a tripod would be cheaper and easier than buying new cameras. Shooting hand held and being concerned with image quality seem to be contradictory goals except in very limited circumstances.

 

In fact, I'd be willing to bet money that shooting a Leica hand held vs. shooting, say, a Nikon or whatever hand held doesn't really gain you much. If you want to see everything you can get out of any format, shoot velvia or your favorite slow B&W film with any decent camera on a big tripod.

[don_feinberg2]

Folks, enough, enough. This has been discussed again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

 

The discussion is simply MARKETING versys PHYSICS.

 

If you want to believe that a 1.5 in**2 negative is going to give you better quality than a 5 in**2 negative, with good shooting technique and good darkroom technique, then you believe in marketing. You would also be like people on the camera-brand lists who write flames about seeing major differences between Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Leica, Contax, etc., all in 35mm. If you can see those major differences, you shouldn't post to this list; your eyes are far too good to speak with mere mortals.

 

On the other hand, if you can multiply and divide, and see how much enlargement is needed for 35mm vs. MF vs. LF; if you can see the difference in your results (**within a format!!**) when/if you use a good tripod; whether (or not!) you have excellent technique in the darkroom. If you care about these issues -- well, then, you believe in physics.

 

NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER ONE "SHOULD" USE 35MM OR MF OR LF!!!!! Each of those has its area of excellence in the field. I own and use all three, for exactly that reason.

[david_f._stein]

I agree with the last note. I have gotten wonderful negs with even

inexpensive MF cameras: the Moskva-5 (Super Ikonta copy), any decent

TLR, even 3-element 6x9 folders. There is rich detail and tonality in

the negs. The TLR and RFs lend themselves to rapid, yet quality work.

I'm not a fan of 645 or 6x7, especially the constant turning over of

the camera in 645. I consider 6x6 universal; and 6x9 great where the

size fits the expression. My ideal: I wish Mamiya had continued to

manufacture and improve the Mamiya 6 and work to get the price down-as

cameras are amortized, less capital costs and innovation should bring

us the same or more for LESS. Yes, I would also consider a Hasselblad

but working with Vintage SLRs tells me that steadiness is a big

consideration. Or I would have loved to see the new Bronica in 6x6.

Howard, go all the way and explore a 6x9 camera! Finally, I don't

believe that only SLRs can produce great portraits (the simple 6x6 TLR

has sure produced some of the world's finest!); you can take a great

portrait with ANY camera. Great discussion.