Rolleicord vs. Leica M3 - totally unscientific comparison

Richard G said:
The next experiment should make use of four cameras. Two identical Leicas and two identical Rolleicords. Have an assistant load one Leica and one Rollei with the same film, and the other two camera should be loaded with a roll of heat damaged or other film. A coded master file should be locked in a filing cabinet at a separate location with the key to which camera has which film.

You should have a $100 bet with two separate photographers about how good an image you are going to get. This adds incentive. You should go with you assistant and the four cameras to an ideal location and make the picture, knowing that possibly only one shot will work out. You should repeat the exercise six times.

This way you are likely (<0.05 chance of failure) to have two images from the two different cameras at the same location and time, even though you will have taken each shot as though it will be the only worthwhile picture on that occasion.

Then crop as Randy mentioned.
Click to expand...

Huh? I followed everything I added an underline to. After that, you lost me. In part, you seem to be describing a double-blind experiment. But heat damaged film? $100 bet? And how do you know that p<.05?
 
Yes, it's totally unscientific. :) How did there get to be 22 replies when we can't see the actual photos? Heh
 
Rob-F said:
Huh? I followed everything I added an underline to. After that, you lost me. In part, you seem to be describing a double-blind experiment. But heat damaged film? $100 bet? And how do you know that p<.05?
Click to expand...

Gee Rob, it is mainly in jest, and to point out that a lot of variables have to be controlled for, including that it is just an experiment. The maths is actually beyond my memory of permuations and combinations. Golden rule in my research: get a statistician at the design stage. Can you help?
 
This does not astonish me. A Leica or any 355 prints often looks snappier than a print from a MF simply because it lacks midtones, the contrast is often much stronger creating the appearance of sharpness and more snap. Midtones is where MF and LF shine. 35mm Photos often look more dynamic than prints from a 6x6 camera weigth of the camera + square vs rectangle is the reason.

Dominik
 
Wow; thanks for all your replies. I write from Ireland, where I posted my question just before bedtime, and breakfasted reading replies from RFFers in different time zones.

One or two points: I printed both photographs onto 10" x 8" paper, so the Rolleicord image was square. I think that that perhaps put some people off. Some also remarked on the sharpness of the Leica image, and this was in part due to the increased depth of field (the scene behind the fountain was thus slightly sharper). All I can conclude is that on that occasion, with prints of a modest size, having a Rolleicord conferred no advantage.

I won't be in a position to scan the prints until Sunday, so I'll aim for that. The pictures are not that great, but perhaps they will be of interest.

Thanks,

Seán
 
Although the test was unscientific, the motivation was partly to determine what a minimalist kit - for travelling light - might comprise: the test helped with that. I'm gradually coming to the realisation that, for me, a Leica M3 with a 50mm Rigid Summicron, a light meter, an orange filter and a few rolls of Tri-X or HP5+ are enough. Having said that, the next time I visit the Taj Mahal, I'll take the Rollei as well.

All the best,

Sean.
 
Sean Moran said:
Although the test was unscientific, the motivation was partly to determine what a minimalist kit - for travelling light - might comprise: the test helped with that. I'm gradually coming to the realisation that, for me, a Leica M3 with a 50mm Rigid Summicron, a light meter, an orange filter and a few rolls of Tri-X or HP5+ are enough. Having said that, the next time I visit the Taj Mahal, I'll take the Rollei as well.

All the best,

Sean.
Click to expand...
Dear Seán,

That's highly scientific, and as you say, you've found your answer. Personally, I'd not bother with the Rollei at the Taj: quite apart from the weight, it'll attract even more onlookers while you're changing film.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'd be interested to see the two pictures, maybe on the surface they are of the same scene, but maybe a couple of changes, like presumably angle of view could make or break it.
 
Am I the only one who noted that he took the two photos on different days?

Different days, different lighting, the Roleicord being an camera he was not as familiar with as he was with the Leica, different film, mean entirely different photos. He does not post the photos, so no one can tell anything about his test except that the post seems to be a troll as this is the TLR forum.
 
A Rolleicord is not a heavy camera, especially considering the huge advantage it has with the 6x6 format.

As far as drawing attention, the Taj should probably garner enough so one is essentially invisible no matter what camera. :)
 
digitalintrigue said:
A Rolleicord is not a heavy camera, especially considering the huge advantage it has with the 6x6 format.

As far as drawing attention, the Taj should probably garner enough so one is essentially invisible no matter what camera. :)
Click to expand...

Not unless things have changed a lot in India. Have you ever been there?

Cheers,

R.
 
My point: pick the camera you prefer to shoot; onlookers are irrelevant. It is not of any concern which would gather more attention...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top