All you have to do is take a look at the published MTFs for 35 mm lenses and compare them with those for Medium Format to see what you say is not true. Lenses for 35 mm are always much better corrected because they have to do more exacting work. Wherever possible we used lenses made for 35 mm cameras in preference to any others on the optical bench. We also used hugely expensive Nikkor process lenses, 6" in diameter, where needed (as collimators). They were not better, in fact they were much worse. The best lens I encountered in those days was the 50 mm f/1,8 Macro Switar made by Kern for the Alpa Reflex cameras. It resolved hundreds of lines per millimetre on Kodak high resolution plates. I don't have the figures now but 250-350 lines per millimetre, and better, springs to mind. But this is not really a valid comparison because we used polarised monochromatic light at 720 �. If we'd had single element lenses, corrected to tiny fractions of a wavelength, they would have been better suited to the task. But such things were beyond my budget. The output - HR images on plates - was processed mainly by physical development methods that are beyond the scope of this discussion.
Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:52 AM Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Desjardins > Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? > > > 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? > > No. 35mm lenses are not that much better than lenses for medium > format, if in fact they are better at all. > > If grain were not an issue, would 35 mm and MF be equivalent? > > No. > > > William Robb > >
