Why is the LX better?

**grhazelton** · 04-29-2015, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by filoxophy

I love the baby WLF on the LX...I should take a shot of it side by side with the one from my 6x7, haha. But unlike the 6x7, I couldn't live with only a WLF with the smaller format of the LX. Sure is fun to use on occasion though!

My introduction to 35mm SLRs was my Father's AsahiFlex IIa, the tiny 37mm screw mount instant mirror return camera. It looked like a screw mount Leica with a waist level viewfinder grafted on. No pentaprism. Not a camera for quick shots! My Father's interests were family shots, landscapes, and flower closeups and macro shots, for which the WL finder was .... okay. If you have time for composition and focusing, not too bad. He also had the 83mm f1.9 tele, great for portraits. Even so no fun with vertical compositions! So, when I bought my LX I never considered the WL finder.

---------- Post added 04-30-15 at 12:19 AM ----------

Originally posted by builttospill

I'm not sure about this. I'm certainly not a film expert, but a different exposure time shouldn't make the colors more yellow or white, as the white balance is built into the film. My guess is this color difference is due to the developer's settings.

Someone correct me if wrong.

Check into Reciprocity Failure. The problem is that while an exposure giving the same "amount" of light whether achieved by aperture change or exposure time should give the same image density, that ain't always true! With very long or short exposures the density changes. Kodak and other film makers warned us of this.

With BW film a simple change in the ASA rating (showing my age here!) would fix things. With color film...the different color layers required different exposure changes, so compensating color filters were used .... No fun, that! Think back to color temperature meters, and CC filters, that is color compensating filters. Ecch! Fortunately these problems as I recall only occurred at very long or short exposures. This is one area where digital, with its ability to set white balance, is much better than film.

04-29-2015, 09:00 PM	#91
grhazelton Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Jonesboro, GA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,972	Originally posted by filoxophy I love the baby WLF on the LX...I should take a shot of it side by side with the one from my 6x7, haha. But unlike the 6x7, I couldn't live with only a WLF with the smaller format of the LX. Sure is fun to use on occasion though! My introduction to 35mm SLRs was my Father's AsahiFlex IIa, the tiny 37mm screw mount instant mirror return camera. It looked like a screw mount Leica with a waist level viewfinder grafted on. No pentaprism. Not a camera for quick shots! My Father's interests were family shots, landscapes, and flower closeups and macro shots, for which the WL finder was .... okay. If you have time for composition and focusing, not too bad. He also had the 83mm f1.9 tele, great for portraits. Even so no fun with vertical compositions! So, when I bought my LX I never considered the WL finder. ---------- Post added 04-30-15 at 12:19 AM ---------- Originally posted by builttospill I'm not sure about this. I'm certainly not a film expert, but a different exposure time shouldn't make the colors more yellow or white, as the white balance is built into the film. My guess is this color difference is due to the developer's settings. Someone correct me if wrong. Check into Reciprocity Failure. The problem is that while an exposure giving the same "amount" of light whether achieved by aperture change or exposure time should give the same image density, that ain't always true! With very long or short exposures the density changes. Kodak and other film makers warned us of this. With BW film a simple change in the ASA rating (showing my age here!) would fix things. With color film...the different color layers required different exposure changes, so compensating color filters were used .... No fun, that! Think back to color temperature meters, and CC filters, that is color compensating filters. Ecch! Fortunately these problems as I recall only occurred at very long or short exposures. This is one area where digital, with its ability to set white balance, is much better than film.