Does LF handle as much enlargement factor as we all think?

[Glenn Kroeger]

While I agree with Pete's view that film is the limiting factor in 35mm and MF, I am not willing to trash LF lenses. Most modern LF lenses perform at or near the diffraction limits for the aperatures we use them at. Pat points out the problems with using resolution and the Rayleigh limit as absolute measures, nontheless, they give an indication of MTF limitations. At f/22 your just not going to get more than 68 lp/mm out of any lens regardless of what size film you put behind it (the lens doesn't know). Chris Perez's numbers show some lemons, but the overwhelming conclusion from his data is that most modern lenses (post 80s) are pushing diffraction limits at f/22 and many at f/16 as well. The reason we all see "better" resolution from MF is that we are shooting the Hassies and Mamiyas at f/11.

But Pete is right about tonality. More film area counts.

[Dick Clark]

THis is a comment, not an answer. While I too want to have the sharpest lenses possible, I wonder if there isn't more to the total photo story. Conjecture and personal expereince tells me even though MF lenses may be sharper than LF ones (and in a lot of cases they definately are), unless you use MF one two-dimensional subjects, or subjects where only one area has to be sharp (maybe a protrait), the lack of depth of field quickly compromises the sharpness edge. I've seen near-far hassleblad and pentax images where the image isn't sharp everywhere as it can be in LF. Using MF where you're forced to utilize hyper focal distance focusing can result in nothing in the picture being very sharp. Now LF seems to avoid these problems, especially when the movements are used.

What I mean is that all things considered, the LF tends to be a better tool for delivering quality prints than MF, regardless of slightly inferior lenses. I'm talking about landscapes, which is all I do; this probably isn't true for other applications.

I'd be interested in what subjects people are shooting where the MF gives equal results for 16X20+ prints?

Also, while we all want to best equipment possible, there's a lot more to the equation than just having sharp lenses. I see lots of technically perfect shots taken with the best equipment, but they lack any artistic quality, being merely what I call illustration, not art. Seems like 99% of the effort is on getting the best equipment and fine tuning development/printing and camera technique to perfection, with where the camera is pointed being of a minimal concern. If the sharpness is there and it's printed perfectly, anyhting can be a good print/image - ridiculous, yet it's what I see a lot of.

Todd