My guess would be no. The tonality would be smoother with the larger negative, something I've noticed between the 645 and 35mm.
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 4:13 PM Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? > I've always been curious about this effect, which I first heard it called the "diffraction" effect. I curious about the relative size of this. Suppose we had film with grain too small to matter for any typical enlargement. Would the resolution gained by the smaller circle of coverage for 35 mm compensate for the larger enlargement needed for an equivalent print from MF? If grain were not an issue, would 35 mm and MF be equivalent? > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/14/02 02:30PM >>> > Tom wrote: > > > > The idea that 35mm glass is sharper than glass for larger formats is a > > relict from befor NC cad/cam production. Almost all current production is > > ground to the same tolerances, thus they is no penalty to larger surfaces. > > > Huh? The Pentax MF lenses are significantly weaker performers than almost any 35mm prime lens. Eg the FA645 75/2.8, which is an equal performer as the 80mm Carl Zeiss for the Hasselblad, is worse than any K-mount prime I've ever used. > Of course theres no law saying that larger format lenses must be worse than 35mm system lenses, but the cost and law of diminishing returns dictated lower quality from larger covering lenses. The latter due to the fact that the resultant resolution depend on the interaction of film resolution AND lens resolution, a larger film area means that the film resolution is the most important factor. Hence, for smaller formats the lens quality may be paramount for resultant image quality whereas for larger formats any lens deficiencies are compensated by more film area. > > P�l > >
