Olympus wrote:
>
> 24mm x 36mm = 864mm^2
> 600mm x 700mm = 420000mm^2
>
This made me sit up and take note, having just this morning passed a
very temptingly cheap Lubitel 166U at a shop on New Oxford Street. But
unfortunately there's only 10mm in a cm, so the areas are 864mm^2 and
4200mm^2...about 5 times the size as opposed to 500:) Still a big jump,
and you're right that MF lenses wouldn't even have to be as sharp as
35mm lenses for an improvement in quality at 8x10.
But, you'd have to agree that one of the delightful things about the OM
system is its compactness. I think nothing of heading out with two
bodies, four lenses and a few accesories. I can't imagine doing the
same with MF. I'm also very very tempted by an excursion into MF, but I
really can't see myself using an MF camera anything like as often as I
use the OMs. I can't see the cost being justifiable. Besides that, I'd
need to get an MF film scanner, and that's serious money! Nope, OMs and
zuikos are good enough for me right now.
Roger
> Given the difference.. WOW! I'm curious, I understand field work, action
> shots, etc.. BUT, why would someone use a 35mm in the studio then?? 6x4.5,
> 6x6 or 6x7, just has such HUGE advantages it's not funny.. Ok, I'm doing
> the math here..
>
> and it seems to me, even if I want 4x6"'s, or 5x7"'s, there is very little
> blowup from the negative if I do a 6x7cm. I mean less than twice... So if
> I assume that the picture I took with a 6x7cm camera like a Mamiya was
> 50lp/mm, then on print of a 4x6, I might still have 35lp/mm of resolution!
> WOW. vs. something like a 35mm, where I might have 12lp/mm... The Mamiya
> lenses will generally yield 60-70 lines easy, just like the Zeiss optics.
>
> >From reading, they say what is considered "sharp" is 8lp/mm roughly.. I
> don't know if this is true or not, but I'll take it for a moment. It means,
> regardless of what size you blow things up in, there is no way that 35mm can
> compete!! It means the 35mm will drop below the sharpness point, 4 times
> faster than the MF6x7, and no matter what, the MF will be sharper (assuming,
> glass and film resolution is the same) it will be sharper by the ratio of
> the film size difference, in the case of 6x7's about 4.5.
>
> So... how can people say, under 8x10" prints, you won't notice 35mm vs. MF,
> when you are talking 4+ times the resolution?? Either I'm missing something
> here, my math is whacked, or these pro-35mm people, are lying to me and to
> themselves...
>
> I mean if this is the case, ok... now I'm going to ask a strange question..
>
> Assuming my Zuiko lenses are sharper than the ones on the YashicaMat.
> (Which I think is true). But since it's a 6x6cm for the YashicaMat, that's
> more than 4x the size. So... That means, all else being the same, all the
> yashicamat lens needs to be is at least 1/4th the resolution of my Zuiko's,
> and when I print them, they will look equally sharp to me?? Is that how the
> math works here?? Because if that's the case, then I'm buying me a MF!
>
> Albert
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|