I'd disagree with that characterization. The MF lines that ended up dominating the market (Hassy, Pentax, Mamiya) all are known for being quite high resolution and sharp for MF glass. It simply never hit the resolution of the 35mm lenses.
-Adam Jack Davis wrote: > Image size off-set is, of course, the savior of MF. Interesting to > consider that the MF segment wholly accepted lower resolution lenses to > dominate as a way of increasing profits. > > Jack > > --- Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 35mm lenses are typically of higher resolution in terms of lpmm as >> compared to MF lenses. However MF still has higher effective >> resolution >> because the increase in negative size is larger than the decrease in >> lens resolution. a 25% decrease in lens resolution per mm (pulling a >> number out of a hat, based on lens resolution numbers I've seen in >> the >> past) is much less notably when the size of the negative is increased >> by >> 75% or more in each dimension. And that's only the case of 645, >> larger >> formats have more notable increases (6x9 for example has more than >> 100% >> increase in both dimensions). >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Jack Davis wrote: >>> This may not be true any longer, if it ever was, but 35mm lenses >> have >>> been tauted as having greater resolving power than MF lenses. >> Reason >>> that I heard offered many years ago was that wedding photographers >> used >>> mostly MF and they found a "creamy" image more acceptable to the >>> customer. >>> Lens tests, over the years, seemed to bare out the disparity. >>> LF lens resolving power v image size is another matter, obviously, >> and >>> one I'm not even prepared to guess about. >>> >>> Jack >>> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
