Hey smarter-than-me-people: what do you make of this article?

[jp]

It's just a bunch of lenses and film I'm not likely to use, even though I use 35mm, MF, or LF. I don't use tmax100, hasselblads, or zeiss planar 35mm lenses or sironar LF lenses. Change a lens or film and his tests are useless.

From a non-technical overview, it's quite clear the LF is tops, and there is mention of movements for LF bringing additional focusing flexibility.

I'm not into lens charts and such. I use a format based on it's suitability to a task and based on the lens choices. I have lesser interest in the latest and greatest via consumerism, and more interest in historic aesthetics and lenses with new subjects.

[Drew Wiley]

Idiotic comparisons like this pop up rather frequently, esp on digital photog sites, generally
written and believed by folks who have never printed from large format to begin with. And
basically, you take a worst-case scenario with the bigger film (imprecise film plane, grainiest film you can find, no plane of focus control using movements) and compare it with
a best case scenario with the little camera. About all one can say, is just go out and make
a large print with the finest technology you can find, and it will still look like mush compared to even a garden-variety LF print of the same size. It's no use arguing with the
geek mentality. But for 35mm work per se, some of those new Zeiss lenses are indeed very
desireable.

[Jim Jones]

As I recall, with quality lenses diffraction may become noticable when the entrance pupil is less than about 6mm. The hyperfocal distance is about 2000 times the entrance pupil for modest print size. This much math we had to cope with in elementary school, and may be more convenient than charts and tables in the field, let alone MTF charts. Someone with more facility in explaining math might present this more lucidly than me with many decades old schooling clouded by a poor memory.

[Dan Fromm]

Idiotic comparisons like this pop up rather frequently, esp on digital photog sites, generally
written and believed by folks who have never printed from large format to begin with. And
basically, you take a worst-case scenario with the bigger film (imprecise film plane, grainiest film you can find, no plane of focus control using movements) and compare it with
a best case scenario with the little camera. About all one can say, is just go out and make
a large print with the finest technology you can find, and it will still look like mush compared to even a garden-variety LF print of the same size. It's no use arguing with the
geek mentality. But for 35mm work per se, some of those new Zeiss lenses are indeed very
desireable.

Drew, it is just, or wasn't just, digital geeks. Do you remember H&W Control film and developer and the fuss the Leicanuts of the day made about the lack of need for larger formats?

[Jay DeFehr]

I don't think the article was a total waste of time; it reminded me how good Tmax 100 is. TMX was the fist film of its kind I ever used, and I remember vividly being blown away. My standard film then was Verichrome Pan, and I developed in D-76, as per the tutelage of the codgers at the photo shop. They had nothing but contempt for TMX, so I had to buy it elsewhere for fear of recrimination and ostracism. Not long after, VP was discontinued, and I switched to TMX. I haven't used it in a while, preferring Acros, but I could be happy with it if Acros was not available or convenient. To be honest, I use TMY-2 99% of the time, and nothing else comes close to that film.

[onnect17]

The article makes perfect sense to me. The whole point is that if you use impeccable technique, fine grain/high resolving power film and high quality lenses used at their best apertures, you can take photographs with 35mm and medium format film that are not too much inferior to those shot on 4x5 for many purposes. There is no claim that the results are equal in all respects, but the article does validate the idea that large format does not offer as much increase in image quality as is popularly assumed. No big mystery there (one of those diminishing return things).

Ditto - I'm sure I getting more details with my combination apo-sironar-s + 4x5 + drum-scan than many ?lens + 8x10 + epson. Bigger camera does not means better details.
Not to mention saving 4x emulsion

[Robert Jonathan]

Just read Tim Parkin's camera comparison, and then you'll really know what the difference between formats is.

[onnect17]

Just read Tim Parkin's camera comparison, and then you'll really know what the difference between formats is.

Robert,
I would not put to much weight in Tim's comparison. I second the post mentioning the chapter in "way beyond monochrome..." book.
Why? Just a couple of points:
- Tim should have used the same lens to compare the 4x5 and 8x10.
- Based on the images, the drum scanner used is defective. It's hard to ignore the "waving" and out of focus.
- Only one target located on the side. I can even see the chromatic aberration. I would use at least 5 targets: Center-Middle-Border and two more positioned vertically.
...
Armando

[Bob Salomon]

The diagonal of a 35mm negative is not 50mm. It is closer to 44mm and the diagonal of a 45 is closer to 135mm.