--- "J.M. Vitoux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ken Lin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I don't want to engage in nitpicking but AFAIK,
> > > Medium Format lenses are on average quite
> > > inferior to 35mm lenses (not talking
> > > about results of course but about sharpness).
> > >
> >
> > Really??
> >
> > I have occasionally used a few medium format
> > cameras ranging from Hasslebled to Bronica to
> > Pentax to Fujica, and have found that provided
> > my focusing and exposure were correct, the
> > sharpness of the results have always been
> > noticeably superior to the 35mm.
>
> No argument here but this is not due to MF lenses
> being superior in resolution.
MF and larger formats have an inherent advantage
regarding sharpness compared to 35mm - they require
less (%) enlargement to produce a given size print.
This means that a MF or LF camera with a mediocre lens
can produce as good or better results than a 35mm
camera with a great lens.
Which is why the results from MF/LF with a good
quality lens can't be beat! Which *could* explain why
35mm lenses have better resolution (i.e. to catch up).
A disclaimer. I have no idea whether the average
Medium Format lens has better or worse resolving power
than the average (or otherwise) 35mm lens. I have only
ever used 35mm, so I have no personal terms of
reference. The point I'm making is that the larger
format puts them ahead in terms of results, *all else
being equal*. Now THAT, I have seen for myself.
Regards
Gary
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
