Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

In article . net, "Neil
Gould" wrote:

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

[...]

I was *not* suggesting that a Leica/Fuji collaboration would be for a film
camera. I tried to express that Fuji's large presence in the world of film
photographers would make it easier to market *any* photographic product
that the partnership made. Certainly, it would be an easier sell than
products from the Leica/Panasonic collaboration, because Panasonic does
not have as much of a reputation among film photographers.

Is this not a moot point because Leica is working with Kodak and Imacon
for their new R8,9 digital back?

yes, you have to think that Solms/Leica HQ has to loathe and fear Fuji due
to the relative success of its Xpan panoramic 35mm film format camera and
wide angle lenses project with Hasselblad (and it is marketed as a
separate Fuji camera elsewhere in the world IIRC?). Lots of folks and
Leica saw this as stealing market share for high end 35mm RF users from
Leica etc.

In fact, whatever happened to Leica's planned MF camera, which was
revealed in a press conference see URL ;-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...says/index.htm
quoting:
Spurred in part by Swedish camera-maker Hasselblad's recent introduction
of its XPan 35mm rangefinder/panorama camera - a move that threatens to
cost Leica customers - the German firm is beginning to look seriously at
trying to take market share away from its Swedish competitor by
introducing its own high-end entry into the hot medium-format market.
endquote:

Guess that hot MF market kinda cooled off? ;-) ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

In article , (Bob
Monaghan) wrote:

Yes!! ;-) I would be interested in the test data, esp. since there are so
many controversies over the reported lens tests on these lenses (largely,
I think, because the original Soviet lens tests were often of the lens at
wide open apertures with grainy B&W films, while more modern tests at
various apertures show how well these lenses often really perform ;-)

So you don't approve of lenses which perform best at widest aperture? Nob?
Even when they still render 250lp/mm at mid-aperture?

Film is the limiting factor for very good lenses, n'est pas?

In article , (Bob
Monaghan) wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...says/index.htm

Why don't those "NEWS" articles include a date? It's meaningless without a
date. Is it history or news? Who knows?

yes, film is pretty limiting, compared to lens aerial resolutions ;-)

the standard lens tests used/reported for kiev lenses can be seen at
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kievlens.html

for example, the vega 120mm is rated at 50 lpmm center, 30 lpmm edge;
however the Hartblei shift lenses which are rated at 50/22 lpmm wide open
are reported as 90 lpmm center and 60 lpmm edge stopped down optimally for
the 45mm mir. The much unloved mir-26 45mm wide angle rated 45/16, but
there is so much sample variation that it is hard to know what's up ;-)

but folks like Fernando Carello have done their own tests, see
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fclenstest.html

so while some of the widely reported test results are lower than you might
expect, these same lenses are probably pretty good performers stopped
down, and reworked lenses (like the hartblei) seem to do very well (at
90/60 lpmm!) ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

From: (Bob Monaghan)

Do the math on a 300 dpi vs. Leica standard print (which is 392 dpi), viz:

"300 dpi" is not the right number. 300 ppi (pixels per inch) is a common
digital input file resolution but that gets rasterized by the printer software
to a much finer pitch, typical numbers are 720x720 up to 2,880 x 1,440 dpi (dpi
is correct here, ppi is correct on the input side). While you don't actually
get 2,880 dots/inch of resolution due to ink spreading on the paper you do get
a lot more than 300 dpi.

The LightJet boys say their equivalent output rez is aroung 4,800 ppi, FWIW.
That's probably why Ketchum sez his digital prints are sharper than his
Ilfochromes.

In short, the simple math analysis makes it clear that wet prints to the
70+ year old Leica standard will be at least 70% more info

Crank up the abacus and run 'em again ... your starting point is wrong.

My analysis doesn't allow for the spreading of effective dot sizes under
many s/w and printer smoothing algorithms (and interpolation..), so this
would be a "best case" analysis for digital prints

Yeah, right ....

Bill

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

From: (Bob Monaghan)

Do the math on a 300 dpi vs. Leica standard print (which is 392 dpi), viz:

"300 dpi" is not the right number. 300 ppi (pixels per inch) is a common
digital input file resolution but that gets rasterized by the printer software
to a much finer pitch, typical numbers are 720x720 up to 2,880 x 1,440
dpi (dpi
is correct here, ppi is correct on the input side). While you don't actually
get 2,880 dots/inch of resolution due to ink spreading on the paper you do get
a lot more than 300 dpi.

I think the acronym you want is SPI - Stuff Per Inch. Splats Per Inch,
Spritzes Per Inch, (bull)**** Per Inch - none of which makes a whole lot
of difference in the end as it concerns _our_ printers. What difference
does a few steps of the step or ink engine make when the ink can't be
resolved on the paper. It's like talking about a 400lp/mm lens over 2475
recording film: downsampling occurs first intentionally in the printer
then by analog accident in _any_ event in the paper.

Just for the hell of it, would a bunch of you all print a calibrated
high-rez military target? Simplify it and make it monochrome (B&W). Let's
see what printers can really do.

Then show me the gallery that will hang it.

Fernando wrote:



BTW, Bob: I completed another round of MF lens testing. This time with
more Vega 120/2.8 MC numbers as well.


The "problem" with the vega 120 isn't the resolution (which it performs
quite well), it's the bokeh. About as ugly as I've ever seen from any short
tele lens! IMHO the 80mm arsat with a 1.4X converter is a much better
option and cheaper. The 120mm biometar outperforms either.

--

Stacey

one_of_many wrote:

FWIW, traditional Chinese have a very different concept of personal
photography than we (probably) do. For example, a Chinese citizen might
very well be deeply insulted or offended if she knew she was the object of
a candid picture.

As far as i know, that's not different from anywhere else in the world. You
will at least get "the evil eye" or even get clobbered something bad when
your "candid" subject catches you taking pictures of him / her, no matter
where.
;-)

one_of_many wrote:

Why don't those "NEWS" articles include a date? It's meaningless without a
date. Is it history or news? Who knows?

We all do.
It's neither history nor news, it's a spoof. Leica never considered anything
remotely like it.