Brian,
I don't disagree a bit with what you wrote. But the point of my
mini-diatribe, which I dashed off hurriedly during halftime of a
football game, was simply to counter the assertion that 35mm
lenses, in general, have greater resolution than MF or LF lenses.
Therefore, my aim was to make an apples-to-apples comparison,
giving no consideration to the obvious advantage of the larger
format and comparing like-size images.
In the real world, using, for example, a 6x9cm format camera, a
lens with half the resolution of a 35mm lens would, in the end,
produce a superior, more detailed print than the higher resolution
35mm lens simply because of the greater film size. When the
lenses are at least equal, as you prove, MF wins hands-down. LF
is a whole 'nother ball game.
I don't think we're disagreeing about anything. We're just
looking at it from different perspectives.
Walt
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:59:41 +1300
>
>Hi all,
>
>Walt wrote
>
>>I'll have to disagree in a major way with the implication that
>>MF lenses are inferior to 35mm lenses in resolution. I've got
>>some of the best of the Zuikos -- 50/2 Macro, 90/2 Macro, 100/2,
>>etc., etc. -- and I wouldn't hesitate to cut a 24x36mm piece out
>>of any 6x9cm tranny or negative shot with one of my Zeiss
>>Planars or Schneider Symmars and compare it head-to-head with an
>>equivalent Zuiko shot (or any other 35mm lens, for that matter).
>>
>>Walt, getting defensive about the good stuff."
>
>I think this is the wrong comparison to make.
>
>Supposing you want to compare 35mm and 6x9cm formats; the same
>aspect ratios. And let's suppose that with each you frame the
>subject to use all the negative, as most of us probably do in
>order to get the most out of a 35mm frame.
>
>For this example, suppose the 35mm lens and the MF lens in
>question each provides a resolution of 60 line-pairs per mm.
>(this is possible - see my lens test pages - it was because we
>had this argument some months ago I put some MF tests up there).
>
>Take a shot of the same topic with each, and what do you have?
>35mm; 36mm x 60 line-pairs = 2,160 line pairs across the long
>axis of the frame.
>6x9 cm; 90mm x 60 line-pairs = 5,400 line pairs across the long
>axis of the frame.
>
>5400/2160 = 2.5. The 6x9 has 2.5 times more detail on one axis.
>
>If you do the calculation on a two-dimensional basis rather than
>on one dimension, this is the result.
>
>35mm; 2160 x 1440 = 3,110,400 line-pair squares
>6x9cm; 5400 x 3600 = 19,440,000 line-pair squares
>
>or 6.25 times the detail, for the identical subject.
--SNIP--
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|