Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Photodo lens sharpness ratings

Subject: Re: [OM] Photodo lens sharpness ratings
From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:57:21 -0700
Large formats suck (sharpness-wise, not grain-wise) if you keep the
aperture miniscule. Wider is sharper.

<rant mode>

Duh. Sorry to be rude, but is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?

I'll be the first to agree that the best 35mm work can exceed sloppy large format work, but what the one-sided Photodo story leaves out is how to get the most from large format. I suspect the author has not actually used large format outside of the tests he did. If you use a screwdriver to pound nails, you're bound to come to the conclusion that hammers are superior tools!

So it states, "With a shorter depth of field and wider apertures, we notice large format's superiority," but goes to great lengths and formulas to "prove" that you need to use smaller apertures with large format to get the same depth-of-field that you get with 35mm -- further proof that the author lacks large format experience.

What tips me off is the Photodo article's complete lack of mention of basic camera movements! In fact, in the apologist's section (cleverly disguised as "objective journalism"), he cites only three reasons why large format is perceived as superior: 1) use of a tripod, 2) settling for less depth of field, and 3) more time devoted to composition -- completely ignoring basic Scheimpflug theory.

It is true that I always use a tripod for large format, and always spend more time (but with camera movements, NOT composition), but I don't "settle for a shorter depth of field," and I can't remember the last time I stopped down smaller than f22. Indeed, I get greater depth-of-field than would be possible in 35mm at ANY aperture! What's a "circle of confusion?" -- I can get feet-to-infinity with a "normal" 150mm lens at f3.5! Pssst! It's the movements!

My favorite LF shots are with a foreground and background subjects in sharp focus, but with a soft, bokeh-filled middle-ground -- try that by stopping-down a 35mm lens!

35mm is a hammer; large format is a screwdriver. While it is true that it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools, I think it's a poorer one who can't tell them apart, and know which situation fits which tool, and thus believes that the one HE uses is superior in all situations -- that's simply called "self delusion." I suppose it's possible to do inches-to-infinity landscapes with 35mm, and it's probably possible to do photojournalism with a 4"x5". Either approach is for masochists!

Tom, why don't you and the Photodo author go grab a couple David Muench books, and tell me those shots could have been taken with 35mm. (Then look at some early Weegie photos, and tell me you can't do photojournalism with a Speed Graphic 4x5! :-)

</rant mode>

Requisite OM content: I'm still planning to butcher a bellows into doing at least rear tilt, and then seeing how the Zuiko 80mm and 135mm macros behave before slapping some awful enlarging lens on it.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled mailing list... :-)

--
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz