How sharp can you get?

[Bill_1856]

What the heck does it matter? Large Format Photography is a state of mind, not a resolution test -- just enjoy doing it.

[Jon Warwick]

I used a Mamiya 7 + 80mm for many years ........ it is very sharp, no doubt. An outstanding camera for that format.

Then I started using 5x4 (Ebony + Super Symmar 110XL). I got enlargements made by a pro lab to 24"x20" from the large format, and started to get used to that "look".

The other week, I looked back at some of the photos (also 24"x20") that I'd taken with the Mamiya 7. Those photos, which I once thought were super-sharp and grain-free, suddenly looked a little disappointing ...... much more grainy and slightly less sharp than I remembered.

For me, it was suddenly clear that large format has raised the bar substantially in terms of image quality. I was surprised that my response was so marked, but that's the way it was. One day, I hope to return and take those same landscape scenes with the 5x4.

[sanking]

I have been using both MF and LF for many years. There is no question but that all other things being equal a good 4X5" negative from a quality camera and lens combination will give a better print at 20X24" size than a good 6X7cm negative from Mamiya 7.

However, by using a film of slower ASA with MF than LF you can even things up a lot. My experience is that using Tmax-100 or Fuji Acros with Mamiya 7 6X7 cm format it is possible to equal image quality with a 4X5" negative made on a higher speed film in a print size of 20X24". This assumes that you use the Mamiya 7 on a tripod, as you would the 4X5", and that you use an optimum aperture for resolution.

Scanning and printing digitally would level the playing field even more.

Sandy King

I used a Mamiya 7 + 80mm for many years ........ it is very sharp, no doubt. An outstanding camera for that format.

Then I started using 5x4 (Ebony + Super Symmar 110XL). I got enlargements made by a pro lab to 24"x20" from the large format, and started to get used to that "look".

The other week, I looked back at some of the photos (also 24"x20") that I'd taken with the Mamiya 7. Those photos, which I once thought were super-sharp and grain-free, suddenly looked a little disappointing ...... much more grainy and slightly less sharp than I remembered.

For me, it was suddenly clear that large format has raised the bar substantially in terms of image quality. I was surprised that my response was so marked, but that's the way it was. One day, I hope to return and take those same landscape scenes with the 5x4.

[sanking]

It should be noted that the final resolution in a print is determined by the resolution in the negative and the degree of mangificati0n (not by the overall image area). A 6X7cm (2.75 X 2.25") negative that has resolution equal to 80 l/mm should produce a sharper print than a 4X5" negative that has resolution equal to 40 l/mm.

Sandy King

I'm not sure I'm understanding what people mean by "resolution on film". In terms of sharpness per a given area of film, I think that's an uncontroversial statement. But when you're talking about making prints the same size -- particularly large prints -- it seems to me that the sharpest LF lenses will out-resolve the sharpest MF lenses; even though the lens itself is "less sharp"; simply because the film is so much larger.

[Ben Syverson]

I love my Mamiya 7, but its sharpness is overkill on color negative film, which is what I shoot. I've seen people quote the resolution of the 80mm as high as 120 lp/mm, but color negative film tops out at 60 or 70 lp/mm...

On the other end of the spectrum, some LF lenses (especially older ones) only reach 30 lp/mm... or lower... And the resolution just goes down from there as you stop down the aperture and introduce diffraction.

In other words, I don't think it's shocking at all that a well-produced Mamiya 7 print would beat a 4x5 print in sharpness. In fact, I would expect the 7 to win most of the time. But a people have said, they're sort of apples and oranges, and the 7 won't match the 4x5's tonality/grain structure...

[sanking]

I agree with most of what you write, but in fact I am convinced that negatives from Mamiya 7 can match 4X5 in terms of tonal values and grain, *if circumstances allow you to use a slower speed, finer grain film.* I can definitely see this in my own work.

Sandy King

I love my Mamiya 7, but its sharpness is overkill on color negative film, which is what I shoot. I've seen people quote the resolution of the 80mm as high as 120 lp/mm, but color negative film tops out at 60 or 70 lp/mm...

On the other end of the spectrum, some LF lenses (especially older ones) only reach 30 lp/mm... or lower... And the resolution just goes down from there as you stop down the aperture and introduce diffraction.

In other words, I don't think it's shocking at all that a well-produced Mamiya 7 print would beat a 4x5 print in sharpness. In fact, I would expect the 7 to win most of the time. But a people have said, they're sort of apples and oranges, and the 7 won't match the 4x5's tonality/grain structure...

[walter23]

I have been using both MF and LF for many years. There is no question but that all other things being equal a good 4X5" negative from a quality camera and lens combination will give a better print at 20X24" size than a good 6X7cm negative from Mamiya 7.

However, by using a film of slower ASA with MF than LF you can even things up a lot. My experience is that using Tmax-100 or Fuji Acros with Mamiya 7 6X7 cm format it is possible to equal image quality with a 4X5" negative made on a higher speed film in a print size of 20X24". This assumes that you use the Mamiya 7 on a tripod, as you would the 4X5", and that you use an optimum aperture for resolution.

Wouldn't most people tend to end up using higher speed films in a handheld medium format rangefinder compared with a bulky LF camera that typically sits on a tripod? Just being pedantic here

I know I tend to use HP5+ or TMY400 in my super ikonta, whereas most of my 4x5 is ISO100 FP4+, Delta, or APX100.

[sanking]

Perhaps, but whenever feasible I always shoot with the Mamiya 7 on a tripod, and with a slow speed fine grain film like Fuji Acros or Tmax-100.

For shooting with the Mamiya 7 handheld one would probably use a higher speed film. But I use the camera whenever possible on a tripod in situations where the camera is a faster alternative to 4X5 or 5X7 format.

Sandy King

Wouldn't most people tend to end up using higher speed films in a handheld medium format rangefinder compared with a bulky LF camera that typically sits on a tripod? Just being pedantic here

I know I tend to use HP5+ or TMY400 in my super ikonta, whereas most of my 4x5 is ISO100 FP4+, Delta, or APX100.

[Ken Lee]

Wouldn't most people tend to end up using higher speed films in a handheld medium format rangefinder ?

If some of us are going to carry a tripod anyhow, we'd rather do it right, as it were, and use the biggest camera we can.

We're also going to appreciate having View Camera movements and all the other compelling attributes, like the use of sheet film, which lets you perform development by inspection.

Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for some of us. There are a lot of photographs out there these days. I'd rather make one really good one than... vice versa.

[mandoman7]

"If some of us are going to carry a tripod anyhow, we'd rather do it right, as it were, and use the biggest camera we can...There are a lot of photographs out there these days. I'd rather make one really good one than... vice versa.[/QUOTE]

Ken's point is similar to my thinking. Once I'm to the point of using a tripod and taking notes on a shot, it seems less sensible to use smaller formats. I used to wonder about the guys who'd go to all this trouble with tech pan and using tripods with costly 35mm outfits, just to get the look of another format that might be easier to master than they realize.
Also if you're talking about investing in one system and whether or not it will suffice, that's a different question than what might be the best system for a given project. I like having a 6x6 system available for the quality it provides when mobility is important. If I had to make a living with one system, that would be it, and that's what I did in the 80's/90's. But now I wouldn't be comfortable having that as the best than I can do for a project.
Particularly when you can get a sinar F for $300 on ebay these days...!