The resolving power of a lens does not depend upon the film size ...
but what is resolved depends upon the whole chain lens-film-print.
Most older MF lenses weren't as good as 35mm lenses. Some of the newer
MF and LF lenses are probably better than most older 35mm lenses. I've
got 16x20 prints from my Mamiya 7 II that close up look as good as any
8x10 that I've got from my OMs and Zuikos.
How many pixels depends on how big you want to print and how close you
stand to it when you look at it. If your lens isn't good enough to
handle the no. of pixels you won't get what you want. If 17 MP is
useful for 35mm, something approaching 68 MP would be useful for MF
(with lenses equal to those used on the 35mm camera).
-jeff
On 10/6/06, swisspace <swisspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps I shouldn't have because it has got me confused, but is the
> quality of medium format lenses bette than 35mm, I mean if the resulting
> image from a medium format is better than 35mm do the lenses resolv more.
>
> I bought a second hand bronica etrsi about 12 years ago and have only
> put 3 rolls of film in it, partly because I lost the manual and didn't
> now how to use it and partly because of time, anyway I used it for the
> recent car pictures and spurred on I have just loaded another film into
> and handed it to my wife who promply declared its 3d, so I looked again
> and sure enough it does have a more 3d look to it, then I looked at the
> lens and the rear element doesn't look that much larger than some of my
> zuikos, so then I started wondering about resolution.
>
> i.e. if as discussed before we are reaching the limits at 35mm why do
> they sell more 22 megapixel backs for medium format.
>
> IanW
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|