Hi,

I have a medium format 6x6 Yashica EM which takes great pictures. I usually have my prints in 4R size, and they all look great. However, the cost of the film and printing is getting too high for me to ignore. So I started looking around for a Leica Minilux, Minilux Zoon and C1. (I just want sharp pictures).

I was wondering whether the print quality of a Leica 4R sized print is indistinguishable in sharpness from a 4R print taken by a 6x6. This is assuming that the prints are viewed at normal arm's length, and the lab conditions are good. Has anyone compared two such prints before?

Thanks for any feed back.

Chor Eng

-- Chor Eng (ctan@pop.jaring.my), May 30, 2001

Answers

I have, although only in super B (super A3). I have taken the same protrait under controlled conditions using the same film, Ilford 100 bw in my makeshift garage studio. Both cameras on tripods. The Hassy with a Zeiss 80mm and the Leica with a 90 'cron pre-asph. Lighting was the same and so were apertures and speed: f8 at 1/50. The subject was of course the same. I had the films processed by the same pro lab and I scanned the negs in a Minolta Scan Multi. The resulting scans were processed through PS6. There was no comparison, the 6x6 Hassy print was superior in almost every aspect and required very little manipulation in PS while the Leica print, no matter what I tried could not come up to that level. I'll admit that the format probably accounted for the differences and perhaps a bit the focal length, as opposed to the lens quality, although I harbor some doubts and have my preference.

On the other hand, I am loath to lug the Hasselblad anywhere and am unable to hand hold it well enough for my taste. It is used exclusively on a tripod. I am almost never without a Leica wherever I go.

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), May 30, 2001.

Much as I hate to admit it considering I shoot 90% in 35mm format with the Leica, I can see (aside from the obvious square vs rectangle) an obvious difference in shots taken with the Hasselblad even in small proofs (5x5 and 4x6). There is more information per square mm, and it shows.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 30, 2001.

For viewing in an album, I'd take a well exposed sharp 5X7 print from my Leica over a tiny square proof from 6X6 anyday. If you are not going to 8X10 or larger, I prefer 35mm over 6X6 and I prefer 5X7 prints at time of developing so you can see the subject matter a lot better than with a 4X6. You may want to check out the new Contax T3 as well--fantastic image quality, great features, very small package.

-- Andrew schank (aschank@flash.net), May 30, 2001.

The test is unfair because two different enlargement factors for a given negative area are being compared. Of course a print made with less enlargement will appear to contain more and better information. Make the same test between a Hassy 6x6 and a large format 4"x5" and the effect will be the same, i.e. the 4x5 will appear higher in quality.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 30, 2001.

Tony:

You said: Make the same test between a Hassy 6x6 and a large format 4"x5" and the effect will be the same, i.e. the 4x5 will appear higher in quality.

And a contact from my 8 x 10 will look better than the 4 x 5. Still, I am not sure that I accept your argument. While there may be exceptions, the jump from a Blad to a 4 x 5 [in my experience] is a jump from mobility to non-mobility. I can backpack a Blad [I have backpacked an 8 x 10 two times; it isn't something that I would suggest].

Therefore, the comparison between 6 x 6 and 35 mm is more valid than the comparison between 6 x 6 and 4 x 5. Otherwise, I agree.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 30, 2001.

I have been through this a great deal because I love shooting medium format color negative, (both 645 and 66)and it much harder to get reasonably priced,nice sized quality 120 color prints than it is from 35mm. I have even tried a half dozen different mail order places trying to get quality affordable 120 D&P, and am still not happy with what I've tried so far.

If the final output is going to be an album sized print, 35mm wins hands down considering cost and convenience. 5&7's from quality 35mm equipment just jump right off the page and are perfect size for album viewing.

No one is trying to say that a 35mm is going to compare with medium or large format, especially when enlarged beyond 5X.

-- Andrew schank (aschank@flash.net), May 30, 2001.

Andrew:

Yes, we have kept albums for 35 y. They document our experiences and who we are. We also make copies for a couple of close family members. We make 8 x 10's and butt mount them on photoboard. They then slip between two wooden covers that I make [with a representative photo mounted on the cover]. The covers are secured by a chain looped between 4 holes in the corners. That way people can open it up and pass around the photo's. They seem to like the format and I sure do.

Our album pictures vary from 35 mm to 8 x 10 format. I can see a difference; but that is not what this is about. I have some great photo's taken with Leica or Nikon which I couldn't get with larger format, just because I just don't take that stuff with me everywhere. Each has its place. I am not going to give any of it up.

Price hasn't meant that much because I have been developing and printing my own. Still it is expensive.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 30, 2001.

There was a joke about this, where someone was going to compare 35mm, 6X7, 4X5 and 8X10 cameras. They decided to do a series of images of a horse in the field. Well, you guessed it, by the time they got the the large format camera set up and ready to shoot, the field was horseless as he already galloped away. I sure wish the 20 X 30 print I just made form a 35mm image of Mount Shasta (with incredable cloud formations) was shot on at least 645, as the detail at that size from 35mm is somewhat lacking.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 30, 2001.

Enlarge to 4R size, your eyes will not see any difference between 35mm and MF, because human naked eyes just don't have that kind of resolution.

However, if you use a loupe to check the 4R from a 35mm and from a MF, the one from MF will have more detail.

Don't even think that you can see all the details in 4R print from a 35mm camera. Take out a 20x loupe, and examine a 4R print you will be surprized at how much detail you cannot see, and only reveal under higher magnification, the one from MF has even more details.

If you are shown two 4Rs, and was told which from MF, which from 35mm, you will certainly say that the 4R from MF looks better, because you KNOW it is better, and thus pretend that your eyes are as good as a loupe.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 30, 2001.

What does 4R mean. Also, the difference between 35mm and Medium Format is not just about Details/Resolving power. It is also about shades latitude and tone subtlety.

-- Eric Laurence (Edgar1976@hotmail.com), May 30, 2001.

I bought a M6 ttl 3 months ago. It gives the sharpest pics I have ever seen for a 35mm. Beats my nikon flat. Colour is better too.

Ever curious I recently bought a 6x6 Seagull which costs 13 times less than the Leica. I couldn't believe the quality of the prints from this cheap Seagull. The colours were saturated and the pics were pin sharp. I am now a true believer that negative size matters if you really want great pics.

The Seagull is not well made, has a fixed slow lens, its totally manual, has no light meter but at the end of the day the pics from it beats the leica flat !!! Make sure you send to a good lab. When I developed my first roll from a 1 hr lab, it came back looking like garbage ! Nearly caused me to throw the camera away.

When I took my second roll I sent to the best lab possible which actually charged less !!!!! The pics came back looking so beautiful that I couldn't sleep that nite !! Medium format is a different class from 35 mm, a big jump in quality. MF equipment is not so compact but if print quality matters to you, you will gladly lug it.

Ever so curious I am starting to assemble equipment for large format 4 x 5. From what I read, the quality jump from MF to LF isn't so spectacular. LF will be slow and you must be the kind to enjoy the slow creative process to like it. Haven't taken one LF shot yet....

-- Yip (koklok@krdl.org.sg), May 30, 2001.

Eric, due to the limitation of unaided eye, you WILL not see difference in subtelty of tone etc.

Unless, you have can judge exposure as exactly as meter, and you don't need TTL.

35mm, MF is not distinguishable under 8x10" size, you need 12x16 and up to see real difference.

And at 8x10" a cheap Takuma 35mm lens, is as good as Summicron Pop was absolutely correct.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 31, 2001.

As up to 6x8", my Minox IIIs/B;C/LX/TLX produce prints as good as my Summicron 50, Macro-Elmarit 60.

at 8x10". Leica slightly better, at 16x20" Leica lens is much better.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 31, 2001.

I anyone has absolute eyes, why need enlargement ? Contact 35mm sheet would be sufficient.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 31, 2001.

Somebody asked me what size is 4R. It's 4"x6".

Another question: What if you have two 5R-size (5"x7") prints from a 6x6 and a Leica?

Which is going to be sharper?

-- Chor Eng (ctan@pop.jaring.my), May 31, 2001.

With prints that small, don't bother with medium format, unless you just like using your MF system. The smaller size and ease of use of 35 makes it better for small prints. Also, depth-of-field issues are easier to deal with in 35. That said, I really enjoy my Yashica D TLR.

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), May 31, 2001.

Using Delta Pro 100 and XTOL, my Leica negs hold their own up to around 11 x 14. Above that, the Hassie, at least with certain lenses (38mm Biogon; 60mm Distagon; 100mm Planar) takes over.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 01, 2001.

Martin Tai,

If you cannot do the difference between Medium format and 35mm in print smaller than 8X10...This is incredible, I dont know how to finish my sentence.

Seriously,

-- Eric Laurence (Edgar1976@hotmail.com), June 01, 2001.

Chor Eng,

I can see the difference even in 3x5 prints, because the MF produces smoother skin tones, by far. Not with Reala though. The difference are glaringly obvious at 8x10.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 01, 2001.

Eric, . A top rated 35mm caemra, such as Summicron 50 or Carl Zeiss T* Planar 50, has a top resolution in excess of 95 line pair per mm A naked eye, ABSOLUTELY cannot see eight line pair per mm Enlarge to 12 x that is 12x16", there shall be about 8 line pair per mm, beyond the resolution of naked eyes. Enlarge to 8", there will be 12 lpmm, far beyond what eyes can resolve PERIOD. Any one honestly can see the dots in a glossy Leica brochure ? they are printed with 8 line-pair mm Any can see the dots in Leica brochure, they probably can see the difference between a 8x10" from MF vs 35mm. That will be in incredible, or cheating.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 01, 2001.

Mani, yee, you can see difference even in contact prints

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 01, 2001.

Chor, if you want 4R or 5x7, a Canon Elph or Minox TLX will be totally sufficent. I have great number of 8x10" from my Minox cameras, enlarged from negative only 8mm x 11mm in size, and they holds VERY WELL vs my 8x10" prints from Leica/Zeiss lenses. At 8x10" from Minox, there are still details which I cannot see with my naked eyes, only with a loup.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 01, 2001.

About Quality of 4x6" prints

Guys, where do you get you 4x6" prints ? from your own darkroom, from pro lab or from 1 hr lab ? There are great quality difference between 4R prints from different labs. Don't assume all 4R prints are the same, from 10 differert labs around my area, only 1 lab produces top quality prints. All you have to do is take out a 20x loupe, examine your negative vs the print, to see any details missed in the prints. From high quality labs, there is no difference between 4R from 35mm vs MF From poor quality labs, the prints from MF may looks visibly better than the ones from 35mm, because the 35mm prints may well be out of focus during enlargement. Few labs do routine enlarger lens alignment. I do my own 35mm and 8x11mm enlargement, with equal care, so I can say for sure, that my 8x10" from my Minox 8mm x 11mm negative rivals that from my Leica lens If you get your 4R from any lab, and you don't even see the quality difference among 4R from different labs, don't even mention you can can see difference between 4R from 35mm vs MF.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 01, 2001.

Depending on photographer's skill, excellent enlargement up to 16x20" prints can be achieved.

When the Leica exhibit "Magic Moment" came to Toronto, I went to see, most of the original prints from Leica masters such as Alfred Eisenstadt(Eiffel Tower) Ralph Gibson etc were 16x20". Very sharp,

I was told that photographer David Crowe of Cape Girardeau even sold almost grainless 16 X 20" cibachromes prints from Minox 8mm x11mm Velvia slides for over $1000 each So, if you cannot even get good 8x10" from your Leica, blame your own technique

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 01, 2001.

Hi martin,

I've read your replies and I'm not sure if I get what you are saying. Did you said that you cannot do the difference between 8X11mm and 24X36mm negative from two 8X10 prints? Because you also mention in one of your previous post that you could'nt tell the difference between 35mm and 2 1/4 negative from an 8X10 print. For your information, I print my 35mm and 2 1/4 print myself (and always will). I'm sure that I must have gotten your posts all wrong, please correct me. I'll be expecting your reply.

Sincerely,

-- Eric Laurence (Edgar1976@hotmail.com), June 01, 2001.

Eric, My point is, YOUR EYE and My eye cannot see the difference between 8x10" from a good 35mm and a good 6x6. You need enlarge to 16x20" to see the difference

Yes, my 8x11mm Minox 8x10" enlargements haning on my wall are indistiquishable from 35mm Leica enlargments

The follwing picture is scanned from 8x10" from my Minox B

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 04, 2001.

A company gigabitfilm in germany claimed their film has ultra high resolution of 700-900 lpmm, and showned 35mm BW negative enlarge 1000x

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 04, 2001.

NICE shot, Martin! Referrng to the backlighted shot of the two girls under the architectural ceiling. Way to go!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 04, 2001.

I'm the guy who posted the original question. Thanks to you all for replying.

Now, what if I was comparing 5R (5" x 7") prints taken from both cameras (6x6 MF and Leica Summarit lens)?

As Martin Tai has pointed out, details unseen by the naked eye were actually picked up by a 35mm negative. However, I'm interested in getting pin-sharp results from 5R prints. Will there be an obvious difference between the two 5R prints?

-- Chor Eng (ctan@pop.jaring.my), June 05, 2001.

Bob, thank you.

St Lawrence market is a favourite place for Torontonians to shop for fresh groceries and see food. In one of this outings, my wife, daugher and I walked down the street to BCE Place Tower.

The steel and glass Galeria inside the BCE Place was designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava, symbolizing Canadian forests . It is 90 feet tall and 380 feet long.

The only camera I had with me was a Minox B camera. The film was Kodak Technical Pan film, enlarged to 8x10" on Ilford RC paper.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 05, 2001.

Chor, Minilux shall give you sharp pin sharp 5R easily.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 05, 2001.

This is an interesting question, because I think that most of the time it is very difficult to tell the difference between an MF and a 35mm shot all things being equal at this enlargement - but all things are usually not equal so we rarely do compare exactly like from like. I am often surprised when I see a great 16x 20 and find that it was 35mm for example. In general I therefore basically agree with Martin's assessment that, at least up to 5 x 7 or even 8 x 10, it is pretty difficult to tell the difference. But, it is also true that, particularly in black and white, MF can appear to be especially satisfying compared to 35mm even in a 4R size. So in general, I would say you will not be able to tell the difference, but every now and then you will wonder whether your Yashica might not have produced prints with that "extra something".

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 05, 2001.

I think you are missing an interesting point by not discussing color slides in both formats. I started with a lot of fabulous 35mm slides using a 21mm Zeiss Biogon lens. I then moved to a 47mm Schneider Super Angulon on 6cmx9cm, which is "near as dammit" the same image (though the images aren't - which is not a veiled criticism of the S/A). Unfortunately, you can only "loupe" a 35mm slide or project it (set up screen and projector, darken room...) while you can readily appreciate a 4,5x6, 6x6 and 6x9 transparency on a decent light table or frame. This led me to open the back of my Brooks to get 6x12 (56x112mm) - a format you simply fall into - without the Loupe! 4"x5" is even better but cost and inconvenience intervene to bring you back to your senses. For me, the choice of format is a subtle balance of convenience vs possible use afterwards. I use 35mm when I have a lot of subjects to do, miles to walk or cycle, a passel of small prints to present. Possible publication adds a hand/held meter, a spirit level and a tripod to 35mm setup. High quality environnment, time to control shots, relaxed schedule, limited number of quality photos for a well-defined subject, shooting for myself or for viewing by photog friends... gets the medium format nearly all of the time. To come back to prints, modern 35mm is good enough to make 4" format not really a cut off point in my experience, 8" probably is. But you don't look at small and larger formats from the same distance unless you are a lab technician looking for nits. Do you really see that much difference from the same "encompased field of vision"? 60° say, for each of the print formats (moving back for larger formats). This is a honest question. I've often wondered but have never done a controlled experiment with the same photo at wildly different print sizes and viewing distances.

best,

bert

-- bert mcclure (fuzbat@tiscalinet.fr), June 30, 2001.

Bert:

I did a lot of this, starting in high school through college and grad school, in the 60's and 70's. I taught some photog. Then my job required me to cut back. I have started again.

I have been developing and printing my own images; either traditional or from the computer. I seldom make anything smaller than 8 x 10. But at 4R, I can see differences. These folks here have a lot more technical knowledge than I do, so I won't argue with them. The differences I see are mainly in saturation and flare [which may be the same thing] and not in resolution.

I can tell the difference between photos taken with my Nikons and my M3 at 4R. Sometimes, one is better and sometimes the other; depends on the film and the lighting. I am slowly learning which to use where. Still, I often get better pictures with the Nikons, since I carry them everywhere. This is based on content.

Same with medium format. I can clearly tell the difference between photos from my Blad and photos from my Mamiya TLRs. Here it is clearly flare. Still, some of my best photos were taken with the TLRs. Why? They are easier to use and I like them. Therefore, they were available when the opportunity presented itself.

Now, I get great prints from my 8 x 10, but not many of them. Why? it is a pain in the ass to carry and set up.

Haven't gone into Rollei but it is the same. It makes no difference how great the resolution is; I carry what I am like and that gives me the best photos. For me, in 35 mm, I like the M3 better than the M6 and the F2 better than the F5. I think that these decisions are much more important than MTF charts. Just my opinion.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), June 30, 2001.