Hi Dan, thanks for your response....
> That films are better isn't controversial at all, but the big gain in lenses since WWII is not in central resolution, it is in coverage. Your application -- nominal 6x7 negatives shot with lenses no shorter than half normal for the format -- doesn't need lenses with much coverage. And at the apertures you seem to have in mind to use, f/11 or thereabouts, modern lenses' improved sharpness, if any, will largely be lost to diffraction anyway.
I think you will find this not to be true. If you shoot the same test target with the same modern film and switch between modern hi rez lenses and post WWII lenses, the differences are huge. View Chris Perez site for more information on this. An example, my Mamiya 7 lenses on his tests resolve 120 lpmm, whereas post WWII glass is in the 60 lpmm range.... I would say this difference is huge... both on MF film also, same coverage? is it possible, all his test results are wrong, he is very tehncially astute.... I see the differences with my own eyes..
> It sounds to me like you've drunk from the same well as the gigapixel and Ross zealots and are warming up a propaganda engine parallel to theirs.
Drunk? yeah, I have been accused of this before, but not with propoganda, but rather with sound test results and good application of accepted scientific practices. A good dose of common sense and facts is rarely well received by everyone, I accept that, but I am willing to stand "in the line of fire" to solicit opinions of other enthusiasts.
> Why don't you just put better lenses on a well-sealed well-baffled Sputnik and be done with it?
The only issue resolved with a spud body is a roll film advance, and lens spacing... i still have the same focus issues as before, and I loose ground glass focussing...thsis is not the camera i want, but it sounds like it would suffice for you, so try one, I am sure it would do well.. I would be happy to give you constructive input and encouragement if you decide to!
> And if you use a Graflex focal plane shutter, well, vibration can be tamed too.
I have seen tests results from firing a camera with an open shutter, with dark cloth over lens, using long exposure, vs. the same with new copal shutters using shorter exposures.... modern shutters cause vibration, older , massive size shutters cause more vibrations... they all reduce resolution, not a good mix with super high resolving lenses, hence why Sinar probably switched to LCD shutters, as they were removing the bottleneck of resolution, hampering expensive lenses and digital backs. I would like to perform this same experiment with high resolving digital lenses, but I do not have any yet...
As an experiment, I may just try this, shoot test target with digital camera, so no film plane issues.... then fire at fast ss speed, slow shutter speed, then fire on bulb with dark cloth over lens, remove dark cloth expose, then put dark cloth back over and close shutter, and compare results. This should be interesting... would you accept the results, regardless of the outcome?
Even in a hail of gunfire, good things can surface! Thanks Dan!
Bookmarks