I think that the depth of detail that you get when you increase neg size is what it's all about. The grain in ISO 100 colour films used in a large MF (6x7) format are superb. But you still see the nuances of detail in a 4x5 or 8x10 image that MF doesn't and never will have.
This sort of thread comes up periodically. I remember the first time I read a post from someone with rave reviews about a Minox picture that was sharper than LF, complete with all the math number crunching, etc. There's always a way to emphasize some factors and de- emphasize others those that don't support your argument.
If we backfill the claims that mf is equal or better than LF, then why sotp there? Why not make the analogy 35mm vs MF?
I use everything from 35mm to LF, including Technical Pan, Velvia, etc. Provided the subject is the same, nothing comes close to the impact that LF has on the viewer. Just use the right tool for the job, like 35mm for quick action sports, LF for landscape, MF for portrait, etc. Of course you can always use a format for something a different format is better suited for.
An 8x10 from a 4x5 will be so sharp you'll have to protect your eyes. It's statement that 'MF equals it' couldn't be uttered if pictures of the same subject matter on the same type of film were placed side by side.
A 4x6" print from a 35mm looks inferior to a 4x6" print from a MF 6.45, and is expecially obvious when the two are placed next to eachother.
Um, er, ah surely it depends a little on what you mean by MF and what you mean by LF. Coupla years ago one of my pals stepped up from 25 mm to 6x4.5, or as we americans say, 2 1/4 x 2 3/4. Got himself a very nice Pentax 645 that does nearly everything for him. Slowed down, started thinking.
When he came by last spring, I showed him some 6x9, sorry, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, EPP slides I shot with a 2x3 Speed Graphic and 101 Ektar. He's still stewing. If he doesn't abandon film for digital, a real possibility, I think he'll go 4x5.
There are some pencil sketches in museums by masters that are forever, timeless, and there'll be subject matter produced with expensive brushes, 35mm, MF, and LF that may make it to the top but it won't be because of what gear produced the sharpest 20x24 print.
Pencils, crayons, brushes, Holgas, Polaroid SX-70, Nikon, MF, LF, whatever the tool of choice, none of this makes the final difference. The idea is the final equalizer. Whoever comes up with the best idea transcends his gear.
I've got an old lens that I use on one of my 35mm cameras that's plenty soft compared to what's being sold today, but it's nice on head shots, if that's the look that I'm after.
There are just so many other considerations, processes, effects, that are just as important as the difference between the gear.
I shoot both MF and 5x4, and with T-max100 film the grain is near enough invisible in either format. In nearly every case where I've shot the same subject on both formats, my MF prints are actually sharper. I can think of several reasons for this:
Primarily, MF cameras are made to a MUCH higher standard of precision than any LF camera, and they hold the film flatter.Secondly, no two 5x4 makers can agree what the register of a 5x4 camera ought to be. Should it be 5.5mm, 5mm, 4.8, 4.75? (The maker's attitude seems to be - Huh?, we don't know. We only make 'em. We don't have to use the darn things.) And in addition, most filmholders don't actually lie very flat against the camera back. Consider that it takes just a 0.2 mm error in film plane (the thickness of a sheet of film) to give a one metre discrepancy in focus at 10 metres with a 150mm lens. With a 90 mm lens the error is 3 metres in 10!
Then the exposure time with LF is almost invariably longer that its MF equivalent, leading to subject movement, no matter how slight, which takes the edge off sharpness.Now add the effect of diffraction at the small apertures necessary with LF, and it's very easy to see why MF usually comes out on top in terms of sharpness.
What MF can't offer is a full range of camera movements, and that's where LF wins out.I can honestly see no other advantage that LF gives these days.
Pete, there are several MF view cameras that DO offer "the full range of camera movements" -- my Toyo 23G is a scaled-down version of their 45G and has every movement available that it does -- and if you use a good quality back (in my experience, the Toyo backs are the best) and choose your lenses carefully, the resulting images will be comparable (not identical, mind you, but comparable) to those shot with a typical MF rangefinder or SLR.
I shoot both MF and LF,IMHO, they are differents tools, it depends on what kind of photo you plan to shoot, and LF is not better than MF. I think sharpness is not all, when I look to a photo from a reasonable distance, I don't care about sharpness; The subject itself seems more important, then many other things like contrast, light, shades ....Anyway, since there is more silver to record each detail on a LF neg, it's obvious that you will get more informations on it. That means more nuances in the shades, more velvety in the textures, and many other things more! At the end, OK! you're right, MF can't match LF
I did not intend the question to be rhetorical. If someone really thinks (I only shoot B&W) that there is a film/develper combination that is capable of making a print in 16X20 or larger which is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from a 4X5 or larger in normal viewing conditions, tell me what to try and I will try it. There are now 17 responses, none of which answer that question. Everyone who thinks this isn't possible...well...my experience kind of agrees with that but there have been so many people declaring otherwise I wanted to ask a serious question without merely providing a platform for a rerun of the debate.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks