>Smaller format lenses do not "always" beat out their larger bretheren. The
>lenses of the Mamiya 7 rangefinder do extremely well. According to
>"www.photodo.com" MTF test results, the 80mm Mamiya lens (roughly equivalent
>to a 39mm 35 lens) equals most highly regarded 35mmF2.0 and F2.8 lenses in
>optical quality over the entire 67 frame! I can attest that the 80mm is
>extremely sharp since I own it! In fact, those test results suggest that the
>Mamiya 7 lenses (43, 50, 65, 80, 150) now define state of the art for medium
>format!
>
>Alex
I want to add my view:
The 35mm vs. MF myth
The first camera I used was a FTb, which my father bought 1976. 1984 I
bought my first own SLR, the OM-2n. My brother (who owned (still owns) a
XD-7, very nice camera) asked me, if it is a 35mm camera (in Germany they
are called "small picture cameras"). I was shocked, after investing so much
money, the only thing I got was a "small picture camera" ? My brother
showed me his photo books by John Hedgecoe (I love these books, especially
the older ones), where I found the differences between the different camera
systems (in one book the 35mm system is demonstrated with an OM-1).
Concerning the MF systems, John Hedgecoe wrote, that the photographer can
be sure to buy a highest quality system regardless which brand is chosen (I
think he didn't know Kiev :-)) From that day forth, it was no question for
me, that a larger slide format is more desirable than the small picture. It
lasted till 1994, when I bought a MF camera, the Kiev 60. I took pictures
first with the original standard lens, and in spite of the fact, that it is
much worser than the Xenotar MF, which I was able to buy for a good price
in 1998, I was not dissapointed. What I want to intend is, in my opinion
it's nonsense to think, that the decent 35mm lenses are so much better than
MF lenses, that the advantage is destroyed. The opposite is the case. With
medium format slides, you need not to search for the very best lens, even a
simple Kiev standard lens produces pictures which are great as a projection
or under a three times loupe on a light box (I don't want to say, that it
is impossible, that very best 35mm lenses store as much information as this
Kiev standard lens, though I have my doubts about this). If you look at
slides on a light box with good loupes of three times, four times and five
times magnification (regardless which format the slides are), you will see,
that the three times loupe presents the most brilliant picture. This is
inherent in the magnification of the loupe and no very best 35mm lens slide
under a five times loupe will show such a brilliance. So in my opinion the
stories about the inferiour MF optics are a self-deception to assure
oneself to use 35mm (the most photographers on this list are amateurs and
therefore should also love such nice MF slides). A further point is, that
in my opinion the 35mm format leads to that photographing style which keeps
the content to a minimum. Sometimes people say, pictures taken with wide
angle lenses tend to be talkative, for me this has also to do with the
small format of the 35mm film. Lately, I used a 200 ISO slide film in 35mm
and I was astonished, how grainy they are till to date, for me absolutely
useless, but in MF, you maybe could use 200 ISO, I think.
There was a little bit OM content in this message!
Matthias
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|