Absolutely - because while large format captures fewer line pairs per mm, it has an awful lot more millimetres to play with.
Absolutely - because while large format captures fewer line pairs per mm, it has an awful lot more millimetres to play with.And yet it allows the 8x10 to capture the highest resolution ever seen in a commercially available device!
I know i will catch some heat for this from some of you but while Zeiss lenses are well-built, in terms of optics they lack character so much. I had a Biogon 35mm 2.8 which simply lacked character, a look if you will.
In theory a lens designed for digital could leave certain aberrations for automatic digital correction, but I’d be curious to see any examples of that actually happening, i.e., an image made with the same lens on a full frame 35mm digital body and film body showing something like really excessive curvilinear distortion
I don't know if a 8x10 lens resolves more than a 35mm lens on that 36x24 patch the smaller lens will cover.
Absolutely - because while large format captures fewer line pairs per mm, it has an awful lot more millimetres to play with.
The ignore button is such a wonderful thing.
The majority of opinions say that the 8×10 lens would resolve less do to it's primitive design.
Even medium format lenses are largely considered to be inferior.
a modern plasmat (aka planar) is inferior ?
to what?
and in what way exactly?
I wasn't specifically referring to every available lens design.
Well, then what are you trying to say?
You made a general statement condemning most, if not all, large format lenses as being primitive and implied that they are inferior.
So, again I ask, large format lenses are inferior? to what? and in what way?
and in what way is the Plasmat (aka Planar) design primitive exactly?
This sounds like a troll! Your modern planar does not represent the pool of antique large format lens designs that I had previously referred to.
Use your head!
You did not specifically mention antique. You made a blanket statement. I asked you to clarify. Your response seems a bit defensive.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of non-extreme focal length, Large Format lenses designed in the past 40 years or so are based upon the Planar design (Plasmat and Planar refer to the same design).
So, can you please explain to me, in simple words that even I can understand, in what way the plasmat/planar design is primitive and inferior?
I am not going to play your stupid little games of misrepresentation!
Okeeey....
I infer from this that you were just vomiting bull shit...which is perfectly fine...but maybe, in the future, you can try to be a grown up and just admit it. I think that you'd find it much less embarrassing.
No. First, there are larger formats than 8x10. Second, "resolution" and "information" are different concepts. 8x10 might capture more information, but if you know of any lens with a 300mm image circle that can resolve 250 lp per mm (not unheard of for 50mm lenses for 35), please tell me about it.And yet it allows the 8x10 to capture the highest resolution ever seen in a commercially available device!
No. First, there are larger formats than 8x10.
Second, "resolution" and "information" are different concepts.
8x10 might capture more information, but if you know of any lens with a 300mm image circle that can resolve 250 lp per mm (not unheard of for 50mm lenses for 35), please tell me about it.
No. First, there are larger formats than 8x10.
Which may have been common over 100 years ago. Have you actually seen one of these formats make an image with a modern, high resolution film?
Does Ilford Delta 100 qualify as a modern high resolution film?
Just as a technical matter: although plasmats and planars are both 6-element designs in their basic forms, I believe the arrangement of the elements is different and the strengths/weaknesses of the design trade-offs are different.a modern plasmat (aka planar) is inferior ?
to what?
and in what way exactly?
Just as a technical matter: although plasmats and planars are both 6-element designs in their basic forms, I believe the arrangement of the elements is different and the strengths/weaknesses of the design trade-offs are different.
A plasmat has cemented doublets as the outer elements and single element lenses as the inner elements. A planar has simple lenses as the outer elements and cemented doublets as the inner elements. I think a plasmat typically has a smaller aperture and is designed with a wider angle of view in order to work well with shifts and tilts on a large format camera. I think a planar is designed with a narrower field of view, with the main design goal being large aperture.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
It's acceptable. I would prefer a transparency. But who has used it in an ultra-large format?
Is there a high quality analog print made from it?
As that troll you were responding to always does....you were just vomiting bull shit...
The ignore button is such a wonderful thing.
As that troll you were responding to always does.
The most valuable relevant observation was posted a bit earlier in this thread:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?