At 3:43 AM +0100 1/20/04, Listar wrote:
>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:48:03 -0500
>From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Reply Re: Free OM-to-E-System adapter?!
>
>
>Brian,
>
>I don't disagree a bit with what you wrote. But the point of my
>mini-diatribe, which I dashed off hurriedly during halftime of a
>football game, was simply to counter the assertion that 35mm
>lenses, in general, have greater resolution than MF or LF lenses.
>Therefore, my aim was to make an apples-to-apples comparison,
>giving no consideration to the obvious advantage of the larger
>format and comparing like-size images.
>
>In the real world, using, for example, a 6x9cm format camera, a
>lens with half the resolution of a 35mm lens would, in the end,
>produce a superior, more detailed print than the higher resolution
>35mm lens simply because of the greater film size. When the
>lenses are at least equal, as you prove, MF wins hands-down. LF
>is a whole 'nother ball game.
Yes. They all have about the same resolution on the film, as film is film, and
there is no point for a lens to have greater resolution than the film it will
be used with.
Joe Gwinn
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|