Collin seems to have figured it out. Bravo Collin!!! William Robb
----- Original Message ----- From: "collinb" Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 > I'm going to chime in again with some thoughts. > > Lens coverage information > http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html > > Resolution information > http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html > > The particular lens can make a perception difference here. > > A very good medium format lens, say on Pentax 67, will hit around 90 lp/mm > A mediocre medium format lens, like a Yashica D, will hit around 40 lp/mm > > A good LF lens, Super Symmar XL, is up at that 80+ lp/mm range. > A decent LF lens, Fujinon-W 135/5.6 (70s vintage), is around 70 lp/mm. > A mediocre LF lens, like a Wollensak, will be about 35 lp/mm, and really > bad corners! > > There's so much information on those large (6x7 & 4x5) negs > that the minimal enlargement to 11x14 makes little difference when > quality lenses are involved on both parts. > A mediocre lens on either unit will make a clear difference. > > 4x5 to 11x14 is only a (roughly) 3x enlargement. > 6cm x 7cm to 11x14 is a (roughly) 5x enlargement. > So there's not much to compare because the difference isn't being pushed. > The film will hold everything the lenses will resolve. > > It's not surprising that the difference isn't immediately visible with > quality lenses > on both formats. The detail is all there. The tonality difference will > show up @ 16x20, > with a good 4x5 lens really shining. But @ 11x14 & up, I suspect you'll > find that corners > are more a problem. It's like the difference of an average zoom and that > Vivi 90-180 > flat field zoom. The image just feels better. A good wide-coverage 4x5 > lens gives that. > (Which is why I picked the Fujinon-W 135/5.6. Wide circle, excellent > resolution, > modern multi-coating, and relatively cheap @ about $250 shipped. And why I > print with > longer lenses in the darkroom--keep those corners from pulling any little bit.) > > In many ways, 6x7 is far more practical when prints stay below 16x20. > You lose the facility of Zone control on a shot-by-shot basis, but > with a good neg you still get an excellent print. > > http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/ > > The Zone System is nice, but it's a practice all its own. I don't use it > because > I don't have the time, patience, or funds to keep testing density curves. > Rather, for me a good neg == a good print. > And (even cheap) 4x5 allows some practical lens movement.
