I love lenses. They are the tools with which we create pictures. Without lenses, we would be restricted to pinhole photos, and we would miss out on much of the fun of photography.

This zen guide to lenses takes lenses as they are, with both good and bad qualities. We will explore some of the compromises inherent in lenses, and ways of minimizing their impact on your photography.

Nobody sets out to design, build, and mass-market a "bad lens". The reality is that today's lenses are very, very good - even the budget lenses. Some tricks such as slow films and sturdy tripods will help you get the most out of your lenses, and your photography. Picking a higher resolution film or sturdier tripod can often improve your images far more than "upgrading" to the most expensive cameras and lenses available in medium format. And better film is a lot cheaper too!

Format Factors

For large format users, most modern lenses from the 1950s onward can deliver enough resolution on the larger 4x5" or larger film negative to permit any needed degree of enlargement.

In medium format, we also rarely push the limits of our lenses with typical enlargements. By comparison, the small 35mm format is pushed to the limits to deliver a critically sharp 11x14" print with most color films. Switch to higher resolution black and white films (with a thin single emulsion layer), and you can get substantially higher resolution out of these same lenses (on a tripod and with ideal conditions).

My Setup for Comparing Medium Format Lenses (80mm, 150mm...)
Note: Random number #121 in center for on-film ID

Blind Lens Test Surprises

I ran such a blind lens test for over a dozen normal lenses on ten different medium format cameras. These cameras ranged from TLRs (Rolleiflex, Yashicamat) to rangefinders (Koni-Omega) to SLRs (Hasselblad, Bronica, Kowa, and Chinese Great Wall DF-4). Lens and camera costs ranged from circa $50 on the low end to over $1,800 at the high end (Hasselblad). Not only did I take the test, but I had volunteer amateur and professional photographers take the same blind lens test.

So what were the results? One volunteer subject thought on first inspection that the test was a joke, as the slides looked so nearly identical. Only after carefully examining the images under a high powered loupe could he see small differences in coloration of highlights (the fountain spray) or contrast in the shadows of the building in each slide.

I was shocked to discover that I couldn't see the kinds and magnitudes of differences I just knew I should find, given the huge cost difference between the different cameras and lenses I had. Shouldn't a $2,000 used Hasselblad blow away a $200 Koni-Omega or a $500 Bronica EC with a $50-75 nikkor lens? Turns out I wasn't the only one who couldn't reliably tell these differences apart, thanks to some volunteer subjects who also took the blind lens test challenge.

So how did our volunteers do in rating the lens? Hardly better than random (about 65% vs. 50% for purely random). The best score among many tests so far is only 75%. Some tests were negatively correlated, meaning the pricier lenses got rated below the cheaper ones.

More volunteers rated the modest cost Bronica 75mm nikkor(s) and Kowa 6 85mm lenses as the best performer, rather than the more pricey Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblads and Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR. Ouch!

What if you remove the two low end three element lenses (e.g., on the $50 used Yashicamat that most folks rated below par? The lens rating results are now nearly entirely statistically random. What you have left are the remaining pro quality 4 element or better medium format lenses and cameras. These systems delivered images that were so good they could not be reliably told apart!

I cheated a bit by putting multiple shots from the same camera and lens (Hasselblad, Bronica) at the same f/stop settings in the test slide batches. But nobody could reliably and consistently sort the Hasselblad shots from the same lens in one group together. The more experienced and pro photographers seemed to do better at clustering shots, but even then some scattering took place.

One of the often top rated lenses was a $50-75 nikkor 75mm f/2.8 on an older Bronica EC 6x6cm SLR. Since I had a number of bronica 75mm nikkor lenses, I tested three of them. Two were often rated quite similarly highly, but one was downrated well below the other two lenses by most viewers. What this means is that lens vary, especially after years of use and abuse. If you get a decentered or abused or lemon lens, even new out of the box, you won't get the full performance that a luckier user with a better example of that lens will get.

In our blind lens test, lens variations were a bigger factor than brand of camera or lens you used. Most users rated the good examples of the $50-75 Bronica Nikkor lenses ahead of the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex Zeiss planar lenses. But the "bad" lemon lens example was rated quite a bit lower on average than the Hasselblad lenses in this test. So now you know why many people report great results with one camera and lens, but another user with a different example of this camera and lens may downgrade the kit performance.

Now you also know why photo magazine articles reviewing new lenses vary so much in their ratings. This approach using only one sample lens is not as useful as many proponents believe due to lens variations of up to a full grade (1 in 5 scale) in many mass produced lenses. In many cases, the lenses reviewed by the magazines were hand-picked and supplied by the manufacturer. You are unlikely to get a similar creampuff lens on your trip to Ritz camera or via mailorder. One of the things you get with much more expensive lenses is more quality control, rather than better designs, which reduce the number of lemon lenses which get through to consumers.

I am obviously not claiming that all lenses perform similarly at every setting. Used wide open, some of the pricier lenses presumably perform better than the real cheapies. My Hasselblad 38mm biogon lens has less distortion than my low cost Komura 45mm ultrawide lenses, as one example. Some lenses may be better at preventing flare than others too. But used at typical mid-range f/stops (e.g., f/8 to f/16), where diffraction may be our limiting factor, your results in terms of contrast and resolution may be much more limited by your technique than your lenses.

We have a quiz below which may shock you when learning how huge the losses in resolution can be from simple and common poor techniques like hand-holding or slight mis-focusing with fast lenses. If you are handholding your camera, or are not very careful in focusing, you can easily lose 25-50% of your potential lens resolution. If you are using color print films, the film resolution limits will be more limiting than your lens choice in most cases as well.

Personally, I find these results to be quite surprising, given the amount of argument about which camera or lens brand is really better. It basically doesn't matter much which pro quality medium format camera and lens you use or can afford. Chances are good that with good technique, the results you get will be hard or impossible for most observers to distinguish in side by side tests. In the end, technique and good composition count for much more than expensive gear.

These blind lens tests have been very helpful in liberating me from concerns over "upgrading" lenses at great cost. Instead, we should take a more zen approach to accepting our lenses as what they are, i.e., usually not the limiting factor in our photographic results. Other factors more under our control like film choice or careful focusing (e.g., chimney finders at 5X) will improve our results more than the most costly lens and camera used with poor technique.

Pop Quiz on Resolution 

1. A greasy fingerprint on your lens can reduce contrast by up to:

   a) 2%    b) 5%   c) 10%   d) 15%    e)  20%  (see Norman Goldberg quote)

    

2. A good filter can reduce resolution by  ____ %, while a low cost filter may reduce resolution by ____%:

   a) 20%, 50%    b) 15%, 40%    c)  10%, 30%    d) 5%,  20%    e)  2%, 10% (see Erwin Puts posting)

    

3. Autofocusing can reduce your lens resolution by up to:

   a) 10%   b) 20%   c) 30%   d) 40%   e) 50%      (see AF problems pages)

    

4. A 2mm error in focusing a 50mm f/2 lens wide open on high resolution film can cut resolution by up to:

   a)  5%    b)  10%    c)  20%   d) 40%   e) 60%+  (see Critical Focusing Surprises)

    

5. Handholding a 50mm lens at speeds below 1/125th second can reduce potential resolution by up to:

   a)  5%   b) 10%    c) 20%    d) 40%    e) 50%  (see Erwin Puts posting)

    

6. A slight error in focusing can reduce potential on-film resolution by circa:

   a) 5-10%    b) 5-20%    c) 10-25%   d) 20-50%   e) 30-80%  (see Erwin Puts posting)

    

7. At f/4 with high resolution film(s), the typical 50mm f/1.7 to f/2 normal lens can deliver over:

   a) 50 lpmm   b)  60 lpmm  c)  70 lpmm   d)  80 lpmm   e) 100 lpmm  (see Bennett Sherman quote)

How did you do?  The correct answer in each case is the last answer listed!  Surprised?!! See links for sources and notes.

Why Medium Format Lenses May Be Better Than 35mm

35mm SLR:

24mm x 50 lpmm ~= 1200 pixels
36mm x 50 lpmm ~= 1800 pixels
1200 x 1800 pixels = 2.16 Megapixel equivalent

6x6cm SLR:

56mm x 40 lpmm ~= 2240 pixels
56mm x 40 lpmm ~= 2240 pixels
2240 x 2240 pixels ~= 5.02 Megapixel equivalent

Suppose the resolution of 35mm is 25% greater than medium format (e.g., 50 lpmm vs. 40 lpmm). The medium format system delivers 5 Megapixels vs. 2+ Megapixels or about 2.3 times the data. We are assuming here that we are comparing somewhat similar angles of view (e.g., normal vs. normal lenses).

Lens Rating for Central Lens Resolving Power (lpmm) by Lens Type

Source: Modern Photography Nov. 1983 p. 12 Techniques Tomorrow by Bennett Sherman

The above chart from Modern Photography (of November 1983) summarizes their lens ratings for central (axial) lens resolution in lines per millimeter by type of lens (focal length in millimeter axis).  I suspect that the one step lower rating scale for the telephoto lenses is due to chromatic aberrations, which plague non-apochromatic telephoto lens designs and reduce resolution.  Conversely, the relative ease of achieving high resolution in a normal or slightly wide angle lens in 35mm optics enables many normal lenses to achieve "excellent" ratings at mid-range apertures. 

Lenses for 35mm have to be very high resolution, since the system resolution is marginal with a 24x36mm film image. For an 8x10" print, you need 8X enlargement (24mm ~ 1 inch x 8 = 8 inch side for 8x10" print). A good quality print typically requires circa 5 lines per millimeter on the print to look critically sharp. Multiplying 5 lpmm times 8X enlargement means you need to start with 5 lpmm x 8 or 40 lpmm on the negative. Actually, you probably need a good bit more to allow for enlarger lens losses. So you need 50 or 60 lpmm to get a critically sharp 8x10 inch print (see Quality pages). 

The situation is much less critical in medium format.  The film sizes are typically at least 6x4.5cm and up. So you need only about HALF the resolution to get the same critically sharp 8x10 inch prints. You might think you can get the same 5 lpmm critical sharpness in a 16x20" print using medium format (and you probably can). But you generally view 16x20" prints at a greater viewing distance than an 8x10" print for comfort (usually the print diagonal is roughly the viewing distance).  This is why many folks are happy with their 16x20" or larger prints from their 35mm negatives, even though simple math will show these larger prints won't and can't be critically sharp with most color films and 35mm lenses. But the medium format derived 16x20" print will still be critically sharp viewed closeup, while the 35mm enlargement will show loss of sharpness and quality in comparison. 

In other words, medium format lenses don't have to be as good as 35mm lenses in resolution scores to still produce critically sharp prints. Similarly, large format lens users can be even less concerned about their lens resolution, as the degree of enlargement is usually less than 35mm or medium format (e.g., 4x5" film to 8x10" is only 2X, versus 5X for 6x6cm, versus 8X for 35mm). 

Leica Realities

These low light conditions are precisely the worse conditions for getting the performance they paid large sums to get from their Leica lenses. Camera shake alone would ensure low resolution and blurring at these speeds, unless the photographer had the benefit of rigor mortis. It is very difficult to focus accurately with fast lenses used wide open in such low light conditions too. I suggest it is very unlikely that such conditions would permit breaking the 40 to 50 lpmm resolution barrier.

What I am suggesting here is that from a technical standpoint, any fast lens on a similar rangefinder could probably deliver similar resolution results. Subjective factors like bokeh may differ among lenses, but good bokeh is available from many fast lenses and not just one premium priced brand.

Now if you want to shoot on a tripod, with high resolution black and white film (or high resolution slow color slide films like Velvia), then you might begin to get some of the benefits of that higher lens performance. Perhaps these pricey lenses will deliver better edge sharpness when used wide open, but that is rarely required on tripod shots, right?

I have generally suggested that the most pricey lenses (e.g., Leica, Zeiss..) might possibly deliver 10-15% higher resolution or contrast than the rather much less costly OEM lenses. Only you can decide if paying 200%, 300%, or more is worth it for such modest improvements in performance. But our regular OEM normal 50mm lenses (Nikon, Canon, Pentax..) can reach the 100 lpmm resolution limit with careful focusing and the right film (and a sturdy tripod). Surprise!

As my blind lens tests of medium format lenses suggest below, a lot of us probably can't reliably tell the difference between very good and slightly better but much more expensive lenses in our typical real world shots. If you don't intend to use those pricey lenses under optimal conditions (film, tripod...) which permit them to deliver their full potential, then you may be wasting your money for little real benefit on film.

My Search for a Bad Lens

I actually launched a search for a "bad lens" a few years ago. I wanted a really bad lens, so I wouldn't feel bad about bashing it up. You see, I wanted to document the effects of lens faults like scratches and gouges and cracks in the lens on the images the lenses produced for my lens faults pages.

So I started buying really, really cheapo no-name lenses on rec.photo.marketplace with asking prices of $10 to $15 or so. The first one was a very clean (i.e., little used) OSAWA 28mm f/2.8 lens in AI mount for $10 US. Naturally, you have to do the "Before" photos before you bash the lens. So I mounted the cheapy Osawa 28mm and compared it with my OEM nikkor 28mm lens in side by side shots.

That was a bad mistake! The Osawa 28mm wasn't quite as good in the corners wide open as the nikkor 28mm. But stopped down a bit, and the Osawa lens delivered surprisingly good performance, especially by f/8 or f/11. I just couldn't bring myself to bash such a decently performing lens.

You can probably guess what happened next? After testing four or five more budget lenses in the $15 and under class, including a 400mm f/7.7 T-mount, 50mm f/1.7 MD, pentax M42 50mm, a 105mm f/2.8 portrait lens, and a 135mm f/2.8 telephoto, I had failed to find a really, really bad lens.

Pareto Rules

You can achieve 80% of the quality of the best professional photographic lenses for perhaps 20% of the cost. To get the very, very best performance possible in a mass-produced lens, you have to pay a lot more. For example, a modest 100mm macro lens from Cosina costs $129, while the Tamron macro is circa $400 and the OEM macros from Nikon or Minolta may cost $500 and $600 and up. A 500mm f/8 telephoto glass lens in a T-mount from Korea might cost $99 or $129 (multicoated). Here again, you would probably have to spend 4 or 5 times that to get a similar OEM 500mm f/8 glass lens from the major mfgers.

The most expensive lenses such as Leica (in 35mm) and Zeiss (in medium format) use human labor to optimize the lenses. Extra quality enhancing steps and processes are used to minimize problems and maximize quality. As an example, lenses are carefully hand centered to ensure precise registration and enhance performance. Lens elements may be selected and matched to minimize aberrations and improve resolution. Each lens will be tested at a number of points during manufacture, not just batch tested at the end. All of these extra steps add to the cost of production, which in turn raises the cost to buyers.

Quest for Quality

I am in the process of running a series of blind lens tests using various brands of 35mm SLR lenses (See above on medium format normal lens results). My thesis is that most folks can't tell the 35mm lens used for typical shots at f/11 or f/16 (the "sweet spot" of most medium format lenses). If that's true for you, should you make major sacrifices for lenses whose qualities you can't reliably detect in the final images? I have held off buying a Leica rangefinder because I now doubt if the results would be sufficiently different to justify the costs for the modest improvements against my already very good rangefinder cameras. IF I can't see the differences, should they really matter enough to me to pay kilobucks for the better system?

Zen = Acceptance

You really have to believe in yourself, and accept the results of your own tests and eyes rather than what others tell you to believe. When you start performing your own tests, you will probably discover as I have that much of what you have been told or led to believe is complete bunk. In the end, it isn't the cost of your equipment but how you use it that will determine the results you get. Skill in photography is achieved by effort and practice, and not by purchase!

In the end, lenses are what they are, and they are very good enough to not be the factor limiting us in our photographic results. If you aren't happy with your 35mm results, try changing formats to medium for large format to see a real difference in quality. The costs of a budget medium format or large format camera and lens(es) will be much cheaper than trying to squeeze the last few percentage points of quality out of the smaller 35mm frame. With medium format and large format, you can assume that the quality of the lens and resulting images will be very good indeed. You can concentrate on improving your technique and composition, which will produce far larger (and cheaper) benefits to your photographic results than even the most costly optics.

From: "Bernie Kubiak" bkubiak@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kowa Vs. Bronica?
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 

I have a Petri rangefinder that, in its day, was termed "the poor man's
Leica".  Like Kowa, the company's out of business (or at least not making
cameras).  I guess those of us without wealth just don't buy enough of the
substitutes! grin>

A friend of mine, who makes her living as a photographer, bought a Bronica
as a backup to her Hassy.  It was intitially an economic decision.  She now
uses the Bronica most of the time and leaves the Hassy for studio setups.
Ask any commercial printer if they can tell if an image was shot with a
Bronica, Hassy, Pentax, Mamiya, or Rollie.  They'll tell you they can't.  So
my advice is to stop obsessing on brand and make a list of the features you
want and the price you're willing to pay.  There will be compromises, of
course, but that's called life.  When you find a camera with the features
you want, in good condition, for the price you're willing to pay then buy it
and enjoy it.  Make sure that whomever you buy it from gives you the
opportunity to try it and return it if you're not happy.

FWIW, I really like shooting with the Petri.  If it breaks, I'm not
optimistic about having it repaired but then it's not my main camera.

"Neurula [Sydney]" intelligence@technologist.com> wrote 
> Why is Kowa dubbed 'poor man's Hasselblad' but not Bronica? Doesnt it look
> more Hassy-like? and the design of the film back closer in resemblance to an
> Hassy?


From: dilbertdroid2@aol.com (Dilbertdroid2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 12 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: Leica-Konica incompatibility?

Take it with a grain of salt. He's the same guy that claims that his Leica
lenses can produce images comparable to medium format.   greg>>

Your anti-Leica obsession has caused you to lose the ability to read, Greg. 
(Or you are so ignorant of photographic technique that you don't understand
what he is saying--  probably quite a bit of both.)    Here's an excerpt from
Irwin's comments on Leica and Medium format.   (edited to get straight to the
heart of the matter)

"The medium format advantage. Here we have the origin for the superiority of
the medum format camera. .... If we picture the same scene on a 35mm negative
and the medium format negative it is obvious that every part of the subject
will be covered by a much larger area with the medium format. This larger area
does not translate in higher sharpness (as both systems
do resolve the required 2 lp/mm), but the medium format reproduces the
gradation in the tone value differences more faithfully as there is more
silverhalide available to reproduce these subtle gray scale differences. 

HOWEVER GOOD THE LEICA LENSES, THEY WILL LOOSE THIS GAME as there is (as the
word goes in the automobile world) no substitute for cubic inches, in this case
square inches of negative area. 

My own comparisons between Leica and Hasselblad show a virtual equality till
30x40cm (which is already a big tribute to Leica and the lens/film combinations
used) and a gradual loss after that as the grain of the 35mm negative starts to
break up the smooth tonality, NOT the sharpness or reproduction of fine
details."

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/Topics/topic16.html
************  END OF QUOTE

I'll store this message away to bring out the next time you put distorted and
false statements in Irwin's mouth.


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Grain etc.
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 

Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video wrote:

> You will certainly get considerable D-of-F at f/22, but keep in mind that
> shooting at a lens' min aperture means you're sacrificing the lens' optimal
> sharpness and performance. At min aperture you're bending rays of light a
> fair amount which introduces distortion.

Even worse, not distortion, but loss of resolution. Maximum attainable
resolution halves every two stops you close your lens. No matter how good or
bad the lens.

Using f/128, as some member mentioned, and obtaining good results is quite
simply impossible. Unless you're easily pleased ;-)




From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:  Medium format camera for a Leica user?


Heavens!  The world is your oyster.  MF does have a few limitations, though
not major ones, as well as major benefits.  The system used falls to the
Ted Grant Rule:  take pictures and learn from your own usage.  The
methodology is slower and more methodical, but this depends, more than a
bit, on the camera used:  a Rolleiflex TLR is close to the speed of a Leica
M, a Hasselblad or Rollei 600x is quite a bit slower, and a Mamiya SLR is a
studio-only item save for the physically extreme in our number.

I do more MF work than miniature-format now, and do most of this with
Rolleiflex TLR's, though I have a slew of cameras from Voigtlander to Zeiss
Ikon to play with as well, and a Hasselblad kit which is most wonderful but
heavy and slow.


I have said it, again and again, and will go on saying it, that no one
really understand the craft of photography who avoids the darkroom.  Learn
to make your own slides.  Learn to do black and white and colour prints.
Learn to Ilfochrome.  Then, if you wish, have your lab do the work.  But
never lose touch with the darkroom, as this keeps us intimately in touch
with the distinction between those teen miniature-format shots and the
roominess of the 6cm square format.

Which system would I recommend?  Hmm.  Either a TLR or a folder -- and the
Prewar Super Ikonta B's are loss-leaders at the moment.  But the choices
are immense, as 120 film has been in production for all but the tiniest
bit of a century.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net




rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
[1] Re: what do you use to take protraits?
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:


MF because it is the ideal compromise between quality and ease of use. LF
would be better, but is so much more time consuming. And 35 mm would be
worse, and only a bit more convenient.




From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rollei and the Press

Jerry,

> I think of them as too noisy, too heavy and too slow for
> press work.

The Hasselblad is really not much heavier than a Leica M6 (I have weighed
them both)...though it is quite noisy, no doubt...much less so without the
motor...they are definitely not too slow!  They are far faster than I am
able to use a TLR, since I don't have to change hands to focus/shoot/wind,
and they are equally as fast as the 6008.  Certainly not as fast as either
of my 35mm cameras though (M6 with RabidWinder, or Contax RTS III).

I also found the far larger (and brighter) viewfinders of the Hasselblad and
Rollei 6008 are easier to frame and focus for low light work than my Leica
or Contax 35mm cameras.  Mostly the Hasselblad, as I only have one 6008
lense, the 80/2.8, and I prefer the 110/2 on the Hasselblad for low light
work.

I'd say one of the biggest deterrents with using a MF camera for press work
is, I see them using very long teles, which, for a MF camera, would
certainly be far bulkier than their 35mm equivalents, as well as probably a
lot slower.  That's just a guess, since I don't do any "press" work now, and
haven't for near 20 years.

What about the Contax 645?  I've heard that is a very fast and decent
camera.  Bob Shell, I believe, uses one quite extensively...

Austin



From: David Littlewood david@demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Sharpest Lens
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 

Collin
Brendemuehl dpcwilbur@excite.com writes

>#3  You don't find these discussions in the MF or LF lists.
>    So much consumerism exists in the 35mm world that it's
>    created a photo world more concerned about the tool than
>    about the product produced.  I'm glad those who built my
>    house didn't have that attitude.  "I've got a Craftsman."
>    I've got a DeWalt."  "I've got a Ryobi."  What a waste.

I accept that this may be partly because of the type of people who do
(only) 35mm photography.


However, there is also a rational element involved. For producing large
prints (say 12x16 or larger) then 35mm equipment is not really capable
of producing perfect sharpness. A major factor in this is the resolution
of the lenses (most slow to medium films are capable of out-resolving
most lenses, even good ones). Therefore, the resolving power of the
lens, and perhaps how "gracefully" it begins to fail when pushed beyond
its limit, may have a greater influence on perceived technical quality.

In contrast, MF (and even more so LF) equipment will be working at or
within its lens resolution capabilities for most of the time, so the
issue is not so critical.

It may also be significant that zoom lenses are rare in MF, and
virtually unknown in LF, so enhancing the above distinction.

Yes, I do appreciate this is not the only, or even major, factor in
assessing the quality of a photograph, but (a) this is an equipment NG,
and (b) the questioner asked a question about lens resolution.
--
David Littlewood




From: "Jeffery Harrison" jshphoto@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Medium Format
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 


> If you don't have the need for one, none.
>
> The bodies and lenses average 3 to 5 (or more) times the cost of 35.
> You get less shots per roll.  Cost per shot is more.  Inexpensive
> mini-labs can't or won't process the film or do prints.  (You'll have
> to go to the more expensive custom labs or learn to do it yourself.)
> The cameras and lenses are big, heavy, and slow to operate.  That said:
> When do you know if you have the need for medium format?  When you
> become dissatisfied with the quality of the photographs your 35mm is
> producing.  AND NOT BEFORE!

I disagree. He didn't say how long he has been involved in photography and
didn't imply being dissatisfied with the results of his current 35mm gear
but the fact that he is asking means that he may be ready to try medium
format. I didn't jump into it cheaply but my situation was somewhat unique.
There are however many cameras out there that will let you stick your toe
into the medium format waters with little cash invested. He should be able
to get everything he needs for well under $500 US.


When I jumped into medium format I did so with only a vague notion that
might want to. I knew that a bigger negative would give me a "better" image
but knowing that intellectually was not the same as seeing it. I also was
under the dellusion that this improvement only applied to enlargements
larger than 8x10 when in fact it is visible in any print. The things that
make the images better are often subtle and not something you may even be
able to put into words when you look at a print but they are there. I wasn't
unhappy with my 35mm photographs. I had a fairly extensive collection of
35mm gear, I still do and continue to shoot 35mm quite often. However, I
also have started to develop a fairly extensive medium format collection and
also use those cameras quite often. In my studio I use each about half the
time and which I choose is usually based on other issues than image quality.
I like shooting in medium format as much as I like shooting in 35mm but they
are very different shooting styles. I'll also probably be jumping into large
format in the moderate to near future and will probably like that as much as
the others but again it will be different. Probably not better or worse than
the others just different.


Whether or not medium format is right for him only he can judge. Yes,
generally speaking it is slower, more expensive, harder to get film
processed (and sometimes even to buy film), and the cameras are generally
larger. How big, heavy and slow the cameras are to operate depends largely
on your subject of choice and the equipment you buy. For genearal purpose,
everyday photography my current favorite camera is my Mamiya 7 II with any
of the three lenses I have for it (65mm, 80mm and 150mm -- in 35mm terms
those lenses are roughly equal to 32mm, 40mm and 75mm). This camera shoots a
6cm x 7cm negative (which means I get either 10 or 20 exposures per roll),
uses the exact same film emulsions I use in 35mm (I typically shoot E100S,
E100SW, Provia 100F, NPS and NPH) and is actually slightly smaller and
noticably lighter than my Nikon F5 but is slightly larger and heavier than
my F3HP without motor drive. It has an accurate light meter so I can use
that, in aperture priority the only thing required is to focus which is
quite easy with the rangefinder is most light and just for good measure it
will sync with any flash at any shutter speed up to its fastest 1/500th
second. For film processing he'll probably find that his current processing
mode won't do the larger film and a lab that does do it will probably cost
more and probably won't allow him (unless he happens to live nearby) to have
1 hr/same day service any more. That probably isn't a bad thing though,
he'll probably see an improvement in the quality and consistency of all his
film processing if he starts to use them for all of his processing needs.

Jeffery S. Harrison


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF scanner quality question
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002


> I have a Canon FS4000 for my 35mm work, but I am wondering about buying a
> MF camera (probably 6x7). With good technique and a fine grain film very
> good results come from the FS4000.

Some may not agree but I've found one of the main advantages in med format
is being able to use fast film, less than perfect technique and still being
better than the BEST anyone could get from 35mm in perfect conditions.

Also it isn't just about sharpness or resolution of fine details. The
smoothness and the tonal range is so much better and must be seen to be
appreciated. IMHO it really becomes obvious when using B&W; film. You can't
get away from seeing grain in a 8X10 print from 35mm no matter what film
you use.

--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/




From: Gary Frost gary.frost@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolution threshold
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com a écrit...
>
> > I seriously doubt that 35mm film can possibly
> > have that kind of res.
>
> Provia and Velvia provide about 22 megapixels of resolution on 35mm slides.
> Technical Pan provides over 300 megapixels, but only in black and white.
>
> > What lenses can produce that kind of res?
>
> Extremely good lenses can match the resolution of fine-grained films like
> Provia or Kodachrome.  Most other lenses cannot.


Velvia has 80 lp/mm 1.6:1 contrast resolution.
It is the combined resolution of the lens_and_film_system that determines
what you will get on the film. Many 35mm lenses are capable of getting
most of that 80 lp/mm onto the film. (with careful technique)
Remember, the lens resolution must be far better than this to even
approach the 80 lp/mm film limit.

Basically, in 35mm it is still the film (size) that limits the
total resolution you get in the image.

Moving to medium and large format other factors play more of a role in
limiting total image resolution. But guess what? While lens designers
have been busy with exotic glass and aspherics designing 16+ element
zooms, others have used the same technology to make some amazing
fixed focal length lenses for medium and large format.

The modern glass for the larger formats is capable of getting almost
that same resolution on velvia as 35mm!
Take a look at the lenses for the Mamiya 7 for an example.


In practical real 3D world photographic applications, large format is
frequently working with the diffraction limit (f/22) as the biggest
factor limiting on film resolution, but this is still getting a good
percent of that 80 lp/mm onto the velvia. The lenses opened up will
still do significantly better than this f/22 diffraction limit.

>
> Additionally, shooting without a tripod causes a lot of resolution to be
> lost, bringing the total to about 5.5 megapixels for a 35mm film frame ...
> about the same as digital.
>
> And since you only need six megapixels or so for a full frame, anyway,
> digital and 35mm are about equal for many applications.

...yes, after many years of Walmart 4X6 machine prints, our standards
have been lowered to where the general public is now ready for digital ;^)


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 
From: "Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS" raghans@powertech.no
Subject: Re: [HUG] Q: CF(E/I) over C?

The question is really; how good optical quality do you need?Do you intend to
make large enlargements or will you only make 40x50 cm? And is yor goal to get
the maximum quality in every picture, shooting from a tripod with mirror up
etc.If you are a resolution and contrast fanatic then go for the CFi's and SA.
They are better.
I have almost stopped using my 4x5 after seeing that the quality of the new
lenses with 6x6 almost compares to 4x5 with my old Zeiss lenses.

Ragnar Hansen