Steve wrote:
> I've always been curious about this effect, which I first heard it called the >"diffraction" effect. No. This is not the diffraction effect. It just an effect of the fact that it's harder to make the "same" lens for a larger coverage. Not to mention the fact that it is more expensive. It could be reformulated in the way that you do not need as good lenses for MF (or larger) as to for 35mm because lens resolution forms a smaller percentage of overall resolution in MF than for 35mm. Basically, you'll hardly see dufference between a mediocre and great lens in MF. Maybe this also explains why "bad" lenses hardly exist in MF. >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? No. The differences aren't that large. I'll say the typical MF lens compare to a consumer zoom. P�l
