RE: 35,MF,LF was RE: [Leica] FIGLIO4CAP@aol.com wrote:

["Lee, Ken" <ken.lee@hbc.com>]

DT,

I am not am expert on anything, but based on my limited experience with
35mm, 645, 6X6 and 4X5, it's the film not the lens that makes the
difference.  The larger formats just have more silver based on more area.
The difference I see is usually in the tonality... bigger is better.  If
that isn't an issue for you then enlarge away. I have gotten rid of my 4X5
and some of my 645 stuff lately to fund my recent purchase of the 21 ASPH
and 135 APO M lenses because I find the M suits my style better now. 

Whatever works for you...

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	InfinityDT@aol.com [SMTP:InfinityDT@aol.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:54 AM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject:	Re: 35,MF,LF was RE: [Leica] FIGLIO4CAP@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 10/26/99 9:25:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> jborden@mediaone.net writes:
> 
> << On
>  the other hand, as the resolution of the film goes up, problems are
> created
>  for larger format lenses which are now required to have high resolution
>  across a much larger area, we all know it is easy to optimize the center
> of
>  the field. If you pit a 20 year old MF lens against a Leica ASPH etc.
> using
>  Tmax or Delta 100 or TechPan and/or K25 or whatever new Fuji high
> resolution
>  film, don't expect the larger format to win. >>
> 
> It seems like the math doesn't agree here.  Taking a 35mm neg and
> enlarging 
> it to 6x7 cm (roughly 5x),  would it not produce an image equivalent to
> that 
> of an original 6x7cm neg shot with a MF lens with 1/5 the resolving power?
> 
> Checking the MTF results of various MF lenses on Photodo one finds nowhere
> 
> near that kind of discrepancy.  Glad to hear from any experts in the field
> of 
> optics who can authoritatively correct my thinking if it's incorrect.  
> 
> DT