Related Links:
Costs of Quality
A Proposal by Chris Perez
Is it worth it to "upgrade"? How much do you pay, and how much will you gain? What is the cost for each extra unit of quality achieved by upgrading? These questions and many others will be addressed in this look at the costs and benefits of upgrading. You will probably be shocked, as I was, to discover that many often recommended "upgrades" don't deliver any useful resolution improvements, despite their high costs.
| Enlargeability vs. Resolution (8 lpmm Quality factor) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| format | lens lpmm | low magn. | size (low X) | high magnif. | size (hi X) |
| 35mm | 50-100 | 6X | 6x9" | 12X | 12x18" |
| 645 | 40-80 | 5X | 9x11" | 10X | 18x22" |
| 67 | 40-80 | 5X | 11x14" | 10X | 22x28" |
| 4x5" | 32-64 | 4X | 16x20" | 8X | 32x40" |
Enlargeability is a simple concept. The best eyes can resolve about 8 lpmm on an 8x10" print held at a standard viewing distance (about 10 inches). To produce an 8x10" enlargement from a 24x36mm or 1x1.5" piece of film requires about 8 times enlargement on the limiting (24mm) edge. So with a perfect enlarger and lens, we would need at least 8x 8 lpmm or 64 lpmm on that 24x36mm film image to produce a critically sharp (8 lpmm) print.
In practice, you would need more like 80 lpmm to allow for enlarger lenses being less than perfect and other issues. Various people also use different critical sharpness criteria; some use 8 lpmm (Leica standard), others use 6 lpmm, and some are happy with just 4 lpmm. As the table of enlargement factors by West Coast Imaging below shows, a high quality 8x10" print is about as good as this pro lab can do from a good quality 35mm film negative (suggesting they are using a high standard, e.g., 8 lpmm critical resolution level). Most very high quality OEM lenses (Nikon, Canon..) can barely provide 80 lpmm in the center (and more like 50 lpmm in the edges). The very best and most costly high quality 35mm optics can sometimes squeeze out a critically sharp (8 lpmm) print of 11x14", assuming an excellent enlarger (or laser scanner).
While some folks like to print their 35mm negatives up to 20x24", they aren't getting a critically sharp print, as close examination (at the standard 10 inche distance) will attest. But since they don't look at the print from that close distance, but back off a lot, it is as if they were looking at an 8x10" print held at the correct distance (in terms of angles seen by the eye). Simply hold an 8x10" print the right ten inch distance from your eye and look at how big a print it would cover up on a nearby wall!
Other factors go into enlargeability, including accutance and film qualities, which we will downplay here in our focus on lens resolution factors. But our point here is simply that the size of a critical quality print (defined here as 8 lpmm on the print) is determined by the resolution recorded by the lens on the film, and the degree of enlargement used, which is related to the size of the film. So larger film formats such as 4x5" large format need less enlargement (here, 2X) to produce an 8x10" print. Conversely, you can make a much larger critically sharp print from a 4x5"negative than you can from a 1 x 1.5" (24x36mm) negative from a 35mm SLR. Bigger really is better, in the darkroom when enlarging!
Conversely, any print which delivers more than 8 lpmm on the print is wasted, because even the best and younger eyes can't see more than 8 lpmm resolution improvements on the print. So what if you have two upgrade paths, such as our Mamiya C220 TLR to Kowa 6 SLR or Mamiya 6 rangefinder example below? Both will enable you to deliver a critically sharp (8 lpmm) print of the same size (e.g., 20x24"). The Mamiya C220, with lower resolution optics, can only deliver a critically sharp 16x20" print, so both of these cameras would be "upgrades". The lenses need to deliver circa 84 lpmm for a critically sharp print at this size. The Kowa delivers 85 lpmm, while the Mamiya 6 delivers 95 lpmm. Obviously, the Mamiya 6 is much better than the Kowa 6, right?
Wrong! Both are delivering a critically sharp print. The excess resolution of the Mamiya 6 might be delivering say 10 lpmm on the print, but your eye can only see or resolve 8 lpmm. So as far as your eye can see (literally), the two prints are both equally and critically sharp. So there isn't any benefit from the higher resolution lens, since your eyes can 't see it at this print size. Granted, you can enlarge a bit more with the higher resolution lens. In this case the Mamiya 6 lens would not quite be high enough resolution to permit the next larger print size to be critically sharp. If you do elect to enlarge at the next bigger print paper size, then the image be not quite critically sharp, and some sharp eyed folks will catch this deficiency.
In this case, a similarly performing (95+ lpmm) 90mm lens on the Koni Omega 6x7cm rangefinder would provide a 25% larger film area (6x7cm versus 6x6cm). The lens resolutions are about the same, so the step larger film size and format of the 6x7cm camera wins out. So this lens and camera combination would handily beat the one step size smaller 6x6cm Mamiya 6 rangefinder, and provide a one step larger print size for a similarly critically sharp print. More importantly, the Koni Omega 6x7cm rangefinder is much lower cost than the Mamiya 6.
Assuming the Mamiya 7 optics are as stellar as their Mamiya 6 lenses, and with the 6x7cm format advantage too, would you be upgrading by switching from the low cost Koni Omega 6x7cm rangefinder to the Mamiya 7 6x7cm rangefinder? Given both lenses are scoring in the 90+ lpmm range, and with the same film size format, neither would be expected to outperform the other significantly in terms of enlargeability or image quality at any paper size.
Surprise! What matters is how the lens and camera perform, and not how much they cost! So spending ten or twenty times as much on a new Mamiya 7 rangefinder won't buy you any larger or visibly sharper prints than if you had just used the similar Koni Omega 6x7cm rangefinder. Again, this flows naturally from the critical sharpness limit, the fact the lenses are similar in resolution, and both cameras use the same 6x7cm film format.
The fundamental reason we change formats from 35mm SLR to medium format, and from 6x6/6x4.5cm to 6x7cm, 6x9cm, and 4x5" large format, is to get larger films, so bigger enlargements and print sizes are possible. So upgrading formats is one way to get bigger or better quality enlargements. Similarly, we can use higher resolution lenses (say 120 lpmm instead of 60 lpmm in our example above). In this case, doubling the resolution recorded on film by our camera is equivalent to permitting us to double the size of our enlargement while still producing a critically sharp print.
We can increase the resolution on film by improving the camera and lens, or the resolution limits of the film itself, or both, as we will see below. Using a higher quality lens to record more detail (higher resolution) on the film enables us to get bigger enlargements from the same size film without having to change to a larger (bulkier and heavier) format. But how much do we need to improve our lenses to equal a change in format from say 6x6cm to 6x7cm (25% increase)? We will find out below.
Chris Perez, a noted medium format and large format lens tester and photographer, created a very interesting cost of quality proposal. Chris measured a number of medium format and large format lenses to determine their resolution in lines per millimeter (lpmm). While there are many qualities to a lens besides resolution that are important, resolution reflects a major lens quality factor (reflecting other qualities too such as degree of control of certain aberrations). Lens resolution closely relates to overall lens capabilities in the view of many lens testers (including the magazine writers). Then he simply divided the cost of the lens and camera by the resolution in lpmm to derive a "cost of quality" parameter measured in dollars cost per lpmm.
One of my favorite examples from Chris' proposal is his observation that a Kodak 620 Special camera with 100mm f/4.5 anastigmat lens turned in a stunning 63 lpmm resolution, at a cost of $15 from the camera store junkbox, or a cost of quality of $.23 per lpmm. Wow! By contrast, a $2,800 Mamiya 6 MF bought new delivered 95 lpmm, at a cost of quality factor of $29.47 per lpmm. The new Mamiya 6 MF cost over 100 times as much per lpmm of resolution. Ouch!
I propose a somewhat different approach here, in line with our study of incremental or upgrading cost. Suppose you buy a Kodak 620 Special camera off EBAY for $25 after reading the above proposal. What is it going to cost you to "upgrade"? A similar format 6x9cm Fuji GW690 III used rangefinder costs $1,000 US, but delivers only 67 lpmm. So you are paying $.23 per lpmm for the Kodak 620 Special, and $14.92 per lpmm for the Fuji rangefinder, by Chris' analysis.
I suggest we take the 63 lpmm as our base. That's what we have, or can easily get with a low cost Kodak 620 Special camera. Now to reach 67 lpmm, using an admittedly wider angle and nicer Fuji GW690 III (used) is going to cost us $1,000. The difference in resolution is 67 lpmm (Fuji) - 63 lpmm (Kodak 620), or 4 lpmm. The difference in cost for the upgrade is $1,000 (Fuji) - $25 (Kodak 620), or $975. I am assuming we sell the old camera to buy the new. So this is a cost of upgrading from a very low cost entry level camera (the Kodak 620 Special $25 folder here). Dividing the upgrade cost difference ($975) by the resolution improvement (4 lpmm) yields $975/4 or $243.75 per lpmm improvement!
Now we can answer a number of questions about how much upgrading is going to cost us, and how big an improvement you will get from this process. From the above Fuji GW690 versus Kodak 620 Special (a 6x9cm), we discovered that gaining 4 lpmm resolution improvement was going to cost us $975. Ouch! Now 4 lpmm improvement is only a 6% improvement in resolution. Such an improvement means we can enlarge 6% more linearly, so our 16x20" prints could be enlarged to 17x21". Clearly, spending $975 for a mere 6% improvement in image quality and enlargeability doesn't seem like much benefit from a costly upgrade.
We can use a table from a major pro processing lab, West Coast Imaging Inc.:
format print 35mm 8x10" 645 11x14" 6x6 16x20" 6x7 20x24" 4x5" 30x40" 8x10" 40x50"
The first issue here is that there is a minimal value for upgrading if you aren't pushing the limits of your current format's enlargeability. So if you are only shooting 35mm, but you never enlarge beyond 5x7" prints, you won't see any quality benefit in going to 6x4.5cm.
Naturally, I am ignoring many issues like greater accutance and other factors here to simply this analysis to simply enlargeability and lens resolution issues. But if you rarely enlarge to 30x40" sized prints, you would probably find it hard to justify buying an entire large format system. It would be hard to justify such an "upgrade" on quality needs, if you normally shoot 6x6cm and rarely enlarge beyond 11x14",and never beyond 16x20".
Again, I am ignoring the utility value of different camera formats and features by focusing exclusively on the lens resolution and upgrading issues here. A 6x9cm view camera may be excellent for architectural work requiring perspective corrections, while the lack of shift lenses for 6x7cm cameras might make them less useful. A TLR with interchangeable lenses has advantages over a higher resolution TLR that lacks such a feature. But if we just want to know if we can see differences in the resulting prints by making various changes in formats and lens resolution, the analysis suggested here gives some useful insights.
Suppose we have a version of the Kodak 620 Special that is masked for 6x6cm. Would we see a worthwhile improvement by upgrading to a Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR (also 6x6cm)? Our lens resolution goes from 63 lpmm (Kodak) to 75 lpmm (Rolleiflex), for a 19% improvement in resolution. Instead of a 16x20" print, we can now print to 19x24", rather close enough to 20x24" standard print size. So upgrading to the Rolleiflex 3.5f looks worthwhile, and likely to enable us to use a one size larger printing paper to produce a similarly critically sharp print (barely).
Suppose we decided to buy a used Mamiya 6 MF with superb 80mm lens, one of the highest resolution medium format lenses in Mr. Perez's tests (at 95 lpmm). Unfortunately, the camera is priced in line with its stellar optics, or $1,800 US, yielding $18.75 per lpmm from Mr. Perez's proposal formula. In our case, the cost of upgrading from our 6x6cm masked Kodak folder would be ($1,800-$25)/(95-63 lpmm) = $1,775/32 lpmm = $55.47 / lpmm. But our enlargeability factor would be a respectable 95/63 or 50.7%. We would need custom 24x30" prints to take full advantage of our critically sharp print size capability over the standard 16x20" and 20x24" step size larger prints.
The reason I am emphasizing the enlargeability factor here is that you can set a limit below which you aren't going to see any significant improvement in your prints. For example, a 25% improvement in going from 6x4.5cm or 6x6cm (cropped) to 6x7cm would be expected from the larger 6x7cm film format. From the West Coast Imaging Table, that corresponds to one print size larger. So we might infer that a useful improvement has to be very near one standard print size, or one format change size.
So if you are shooting 6x6cm Kowa 6, an "upgrade" is worthwhile if it delivers the ability to use the next larger standard print size (20x24" instead of 16x20") or is equal to the jump in format (e.g., from 6x6cm to 6x7cm) [note: i.e., the same factor, as seen in West Coast Imaging's Table]. The change from 6x6cm to 6x7cm, or from 16x20" to 20x24" print sizes, is a 25% improvement. So we will say that a given improvement is useful if it is close to this 25% improvement level, corresponding to a step up in format size (to 6x7cm) or a step up in print size (from 16x20" to 20x24").
Conversely, anything less than 20-25% improvement on our 6x6cm current resolution and enlargeability factors may not be a useful or noticeable improvement (except marginally in the same size standard print).
Let us assume you have a Kowa 6 SLR with 85mm lens. Should you upgrade to a Mamiya 6 MF, given its superb lenses? The Kowa 6 (from Kowa FAQ) standard 85mm lens is superb, and had many resolution values of 85 lpmm. We will assume these numbers are comparable to Chris Perez's numbers. Although they probably aren't exactly comparable, we hope they are close enough for our use here. You would want to do your own identical resolution tests on both lenses and cameras to ensure comparable test numbers in your own analyses.
From Chris Perez's study, the Mamiya 6 turned in 95 lpmm. So "upgrading" from the Kowa 6 to the Mamiya 6 MF will produce a 95/85 or 12% improvement in enlargeability. So while we could get a 16x20" from the Kowa 6, the Mamiya 6 MF would permit 12% more or an 18x22"enlargement (or 26% larger area).
The cost of upgrading is about $1,800 for the used Mamiya 6 MF, versus about $300 for the Kowa 6. So $1,500 US bought us 12% more enlargeability, at a cost of $150 per lpmm ($1,500/(95-85 lpmm)). Ouch!
Now observe that this 12% improvement is much less than our step size of circa 25% improvement. So "upgrading" from the Kowa 6 to the Mamiya 6 is not going to enable you to get any larger critically sharp prints using standard paper sizes. As far as the eye can see from the prints, both the Mamiya 6 and Kowa 6 deliver critically sharp prints up to 16x20", but not beyond that point (for standard paper sizes). So there is no observable benefit in the prints which would justify making this upgrade.
I should note that Chris Perez assigns the highest center resolution score for his cost of quality analysis. I think that's very liberal, since many lenses have only one good score and mostly lesser scores. Conversely, some lenses like the Kowa lens cited here are rather consistent in their quality over many stops. So you might want to develop your own score, using a weighted mean or average score (an Excel function) or the average of the best 3 or 4 lens resolution scores. This technique probably gives a better overall average for the lens, unless you decide to use the lens only at its top scoring f/stops whenever possible (cf., "F/8 and be there").
A problem with our above analysis is that we need to adjust for format sizes and enlargement sizes too. So if we need 20x24" prints for a project, and only have a 6x6cm SLR available, we may have a quality problem according to the West Coast Imaging Table. We really need 6x7cm typically for pro quality 20x24" prints, according to this table. So one solution to the quality problem here is increase the film size 25% by switching from 6x6cm to 6x7cm (a 25% linear increase, as really 56x56mm vs 56x69.2mm size).
Another solution would be to upgrade to higher resolution lenses within our format (or a smaller format), such that we can achieve the same enlargeability level. So instead of increasing the film size by 25% to get a 25% larger enlargement (from 16x20" to 20x24" is 25% on limiting axis of 16"), we can increase lens resolution in the same 6x6cm format.
How much do we need? We need 25% higher resolution in lpmm. So if we had a Mamiya C220 with 80mm lens scoring 67 lpmm, we would need circa 84 lpmm or better to produce such an improvement in the same format.
Checking Chris Perez's medium format lens test results, we see that the Rolleiflex 3.5f only scored 76 lpmm. So that is only a 13% improvement (best lpmm against best lpmm). The Rolleiflex 3.5f won't provide enough improvement. On the other hand, we see that a Mamiya 6 MF delivered an astonishing 95 lpmm. This is much more than the minimum 84 lpmm resolution we need over the Mamiya C220 TLR. So a simple calculation confirms that a Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR is not enough of an improvement, while the Mamiya 6 MF is way more than enough.
If you owned a Mamiya C220, it might not be obvious to you from lens resolution figures that "upgrading" to a Rolleiflex 3.5f wouldn't deliver enough quality to make a noticeable improvement in your prints. Now you can see that the change from 67 lpmm to 76 lpmm is not enough to provide an extra step of enlargeability. In fact, you will see lots of people on rec.photo suggesting such an "upgrade" to a poor Mamiya C220 owner, without realizing that the Mamiya TLR optics are really already pretty good. Conversely, from our Kowa 6 example, a Mamiya C220 owner who upgrades to a Kowa 6 SLR might hope to see a full step in enlargeability improvements, based on the Kowa 6's reported resolution of 85 lpmm (again, assuming comparability).
A subtle point here is that converting from the Mamiya C220 TLR to the Kowa 6 would be optimal both optically and economically, while converting to a Mamiya 6 would be "overkill". The Kowa 6 improvement to 85 lpmm is just enough to enable the next larger step in enlargeability (one paper size, or one format equivalent) while making a critically sharp print. The upgrade cost is also low, given the $300-350 cost of a used Kowa 6 SLR is very close to the cost of a Mamiya C220 with 80mm.
By contrast, the Mamiya 6 upgrade path produces "excess" quality, but not enough to enable us to jump up to the next standard step in enlargeability or paper size up. That would take well over 100 lpmm, and even the Mamiya 6 only delivers 95 lpmm. More importantly, the Mamiya 6 costs over a thousand dollars (even used), which is a very big step up for the upgrading buyer. So by making this analysis and comparing these resolution improvements and upgrade costs, we find one very low cost solution (Kowa 6) provides equally critically sharp prints at the same print size as a much more costly upgrade path (Mamiya 6).
From our film resolution pages, we have the manufacturer's data on their film resolution. For the T-max 100 used in Chris Perez's tests, we have a black and white (1000:1 contrast ratio) test target figure of 200 lpmm for film resolution. We can use our formula for system resolution as the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of film resolution and aerial lens resolution here. We know the film resolution at high contrast, here 200 lpmm for Tmax 100. We know the overall system resolution from Chris Perez's measurements. So we can interpolate the unknow lens resolution using our reciprocals formula. Once we have those aerial resolution estimates for the lenses, we can change the film type and its corresponding film resolution in lpmm. Using these two values (for new film resolution (here, 320 lpmm for Tech Pan 25) and the estimated aerial lens resolution) in our reciprocals formula, we can estimate the system resolution results to be expected from switching to the new higher resolution film. As we have shown on our film resolution pages, these estimates are often with 10% of actual measured values.
Calculating Lens Aerial Resolution from Tmax Figures; then Estimating System Resolution for Tech Pan Film
| Camera/lens | System Resolution | Film Resolution (from Mfger) | Aerial lens resolution |
| Mamiya C220 / 80mm TLR | 67 lpmm measured | 200 lpmm (Tmax 100) | 100 lpmm estimated |
| Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR | 75 lpmm measured | 200 lpmm (Tmax 100) | 120 lpmm estimated |
| Mamiya 6 MF 80mm | 95 lpmm measured | 200 lpmm (Tmax 100) | 180 lpmm estimated |
| Mamiya C220 / 80mm TLR | 76 lpmm estimate | 320 lpmm (Tech Pan 25) | 100 lpmm (from above) |
| Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR | 87 lpmm estimate | 320 lpmm (Tech Pan 25) | 120 lpmm (from above) |
| Mamiya 6 MF/ 80mm | 115 lpmm estimate | 320 lpmm (Tech Pan 25) | 180 lpmm (from above) |
Yet another solution would be to switch to a higher resolution film. Since Chris Perez's tests were done using Tmax film, this won't be easy to find. Using Kodak Technical Pan 2415, an ISO 25 slow film, we can achieve a 60% increase in the film resolution limits (from 200 lpmm to 320 lpmm). With higher resolution film, we get better performance out of our lenses. The Mamiya C220 with 80mm on Tech Pan 2415 now should perform slightly better than a Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR performed on Tmax 100. But sadly, that's still just a 13% improvement again. But the Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR is now delivering 87 lpmm on Tech Pan. Great news, since that is about a 30% improvement, or more than our typical 25% standard enlarging paper step size.
In other words, we can get the same enlargeability improvement factor of 25% by going from a Mamiya C220 with 80mm 6x6cm TLR to a 6x7cm camera with similar quality optics (67 lpmm on Tmax 100). Or we can switch films and use a very high resolution film like Tech Pan 25 (a 320 lpmm resolution film at 1000:1) in place of Tmax 100 (a 200 lpmm resolution film at 1000:1 contrast ratios). Switching films alone on the Mamiya C220/80mm TLR gets us a 13% improvement, to 76 lpmm (see table above).
But switching to a higher resolution Rolleiflex 3.5f lens AND using Tech Pan 25 high resolution film together gets us to 30% improvements. So if you did upgrade from the Mamiya C220 to a Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR, you couldn't use the next larger paper size and get a critically sharp print. But if you switched to Tech Pan 25, a slower and top resolution film, your Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR would permit using a full step size larger (25%) paper size while still delivering a critically sharp print.
Now suppose we use color slide films, such as Kodak Ektachrome 100 (film resolution at 1000:1 is 100 lpmm) and we switch to Fuji Velvia 50 (film resolution at 1000:1 is 160 lpmm). The resulting film changes will produce dramatic effects, viz.:
Effects of Switching from Ektachrome 100 to High Resolution Velvia Color Slide Film
| Camera/lens | System Resolution (estimate) | Film Resolution (from Mfger) | Aerial lens resolution (above) |
| Mamiya C220 / 80mm TLR | 50 lpmm | 100 lpmm Ektachrome 100 | 100 lpmm |
| Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR | 55 lpmm | 100 lpmm Ektachrome 100 | 120 lpmm |
| Mamiya 6 MF 80mm | 64 lpmm | 100 lpmm Ektachrome 100 | 180 lpmm |
| Mamiya C220 / 80mm TLR | 62 lpmm | 160 lpmm Velvia | 100 lpmm |
| Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR | 69 lpmm | 160 lpmm Velvia | 120 lpmm |
| Mamiya 6 MF/ 80mm | 85 lpmm | 160 lpmm Velvia | 180 lpmm |
Amazing! Just switching from Ektachrome 100 to Velvia produced a 24% improvement for the Mamiya C220 TLR (from 50 lpmm to 62 lpmm). In other words, just changing these films improved resolution and enlargeability by an amount equivalent to changing from 6x6cm to 6x7cm formats! Amazing. The Rolleiflex 3.5f also improved by circa 26%. But the real winner was the high resolution lens on the Mamiya 6 MF. It improved nearly 32% (from 64 to 85 lpmm). One lesson here is that slower films produced even greater improvements with better resolution lenses.
Now you know why so many photographers have switched to Fuji Velvia. Velvia and Fuji's Provia 100 (140 lpmm film resolution at 1000:1 contrast) films are the top resolution slide films among those listed and tested. Changing from Kodak Ektachrome 100 to Fuji Velvia can enable a 24% improvement for the owner of the tested Mamiya C220 TLR, roughly equivalent to using Ektachrome 100 in a 6x7cm camera (an Omegaflex 6x7cm TLR?) with similar resolution lenses and overall performance. Or more simply, where Ektachrome 100 would permit you to get a good enlargement from the Mamiya C220/80mm TLR up to 16x20", switching to Fuji Velvia would push that circa 24% to 20x24" (an area increase of 50%). Wow!
We have really derived some interesting conclusions here. You can determine if an upgrade to a given lens (or film) is going to have a significant impact on the enlargeability of your film results. For many upgrades, the quality improvements are so marginal that you can't use the next size up paper sizes. Your eye won't be able to tell the slightly improved prints from the more marginal prints, provided both are at least critically sharp (i.e., 8 lpmm on print). You can now calculate whether the improved resolution, change in formats, or shift in film resolution limits will singly or in combination result in a full paper step size of improvements - or not. You can also find out how much each lpmm improvement in your upgrade strategy is going to cost you, and how large or small that improvement is going to be, or if it is even going to be visible or not on your prints.
In most cases, pro quality lenses of the same format and film used will deliver similar levels of performance. A decent medium format lens may deliver 67 lpmm (Bronica SQA) or even 63 lpmm (Kodak 620 Special), while a classic Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR may deliver 75 lpmm, and a top performing Kowa 6 deliver 85 lpmm. Yet taking a Mamiya 6 with top optics, and using it with Ektachrome 100 film, drops its performance to 64 lpmm, while switching to Velvia film raises it to 85 lpmm. My point here is that while it can be very costly to switch out and upgrade your camera or its lenses, it can be rather cheaper to switch films to higher resolution films, and achieve similar levels of improvements. So before you start switching cameras and lenses, try switching films first!
Medium Format Site Startup Date: Feb. 14, 1998