But scanning certainly adds an extra step that could lead to resolution loss, color shifts and crap sharpening artifacts.
I’m not interested in ruining my happy married life to buy a very expensive German Lens!We're talking about theoretical resolution of approximately 150 lpmm (lines per millimetre) in case of Pan f 50 or Velvia 50 and 200 lpmm for Tmax 100. If you somehow manage to attain maximum resolution, using a high resolution film and a high resolution lens, then print this image on 12x18 inch paper, 1 millimetre of horizontal length of a negative will translate into approximately 17 mm. And that 17 mm will hold 150 "lines" of above mentioned resolution. This means 8.8 "lines" per each millimetre of enlarged print. In other words, you're still gonna need a pretty strong magnifying glass to see the resolution limit of paper. On 12x18 print.
If you specifically need/want a reason to justify spending exorbitant amount of money for German lenses .... well, you don't really need a reason, just go for it. Or even better - buy a medium format camera which will effectively outperform anything in 35 mm class. Even that 50 mm f/2 Apo-Papo magic-bullet lens.
One advantage of optical printing vs scanning is you are less likely to get all the artifacts from bad scanning. Of course you lose out on all the benefits of good scanning. But scanning certainly adds an extra step that could lead to resolution loss, color shifts and crap sharpening artifacts. There is a surprising amount of bad scanning out there.
Besides a tripod, you would also need to lock up your mirror to have any chance of seeing the potential of either lens or film. But before you get to that point, you also have to balance shutter speed and subject movement, depth of field and diffraction, and film speed with graininess. Not to mention practicality.
If you love your Nikon system, enjoy it and stop worrying. The grass may look greener through other lenses, but that’s a distraction.
None whatsoever.
The Leica 50mm f/2 APO ASPH may be really sharp, but can you really precisely focus it at the wide apertures needed to avoid diffraction? If not it won't get the full resolution out of the film.
I tested some lenses against each other on TMax100 film a while ago. My conclusion was the differences came down more to focusing than lens quality. The AF Nikon F100 screen is not accurate enough to manually focus. The AF system is off enough in many cases to focus on the wrong plane. On a manual focus Nikon things were much better, but the mirror and/or shutter moving can affect sharpness. The Mamiya 7 system has excellent lenses, no mirror, and rangefinder focusing. The range finder accuracy makes critical focus of closer subjects very difficult. But when the focus is perfect the sharpness is there. Under an 8x loupe my 4x5 negatives are frequently the equal of the 35mm negatives for apparent detail per mm.
I've also done a little testing of some medium and large format lenses on a high res digital Sony A7R4, which is roughly 133 lpmm. All lenses performed very well and focus could be confirmed on the sensor. Surprisingly I could see very little difference between the LF 135mm Sironar S and the native 135 Zeiss Batis. To me that put the myth that larger formats lose meaningful resolution because the lenses are not as good. They can be more than good enough.
The upshot of all my testing was to put more effort into controlling camera movement and precisely focusing on the subject rather than worrying about how sharp any of the lenses are.
Is sharpness the same as full resolution…?
When it comes to optics, be careful with this kind of smoke and mirrors. The smoke tends to deposit onto the mirrors, and that harms resolution.
I'm still waiting for that lens that will point itself at something meaningful and compose the frame in a complementary way.
Until that arrives, I try not to worry about sharpness too much, and focus more on trying to compensate the deficiencies of the optics as alluded to above as well as I can.
The Leica 50mm f/2 APO ASPH may be really sharp, but can you really precisely focus it at the wide apertures needed to avoid diffraction? If not it won't get the full resolution out of the film.
I tested some lenses against each other on TMax100 film a while ago. My conclusion was the differences came down more to focusing than lens quality. The AF Nikon F100 screen is not accurate enough to manually focus. The AF system is off enough in many cases to focus on the wrong plane. On a manual focus Nikon things were much better, but the mirror and/or shutter moving can affect sharpness. The Mamiya 7 system has excellent lenses, no mirror, and rangefinder focusing. The range finder accuracy makes critical focus of closer subjects very difficult. But when the focus is perfect the sharpness is there. Under an 8x loupe my 4x5 negatives are frequently the equal of the 35mm negatives for apparent detail per mm.
I've also done a little testing of some medium and large format lenses on a high res digital Sony A7R4, which is roughly 133 lpmm. All lenses performed very well and focus could be confirmed on the sensor. Surprisingly I could see very little difference between the LF 135mm Sironar S and the native 135 Zeiss Batis. To me that put the myth that larger formats lose meaningful resolution because the lenses are not as good. They can be more than good enough.
The upshot of all my testing was to put more effort into controlling camera movement and precisely focusing on the subject rather than worrying about how sharp any of the lenses are.
. . .
Any 35 mm "high resolution" is laughable for medium format shooters and any 120 format "high resolution" is laughable for large format shooter. There's always a better one out there.
. . .
Before you go much further with this line of thought, it would benefit you (and everyone else) to come to grips with what you are really asking. What is “resolution “ and how do you measure it… In engineering terms that you can get from product specifications or measurements. Assumptions aren't really valid unless quantified to turn them into facts. Using vague, ambiguous, or subjective terms will only really lead to emotional responses. Then re-read post #2 and do some system-thinking as is implied. Draw a diagram (or make a list) of everything in the “resolution chain” from beginning to end. Also list everything that can negatively impact that chain. For each item obtain the appropriate engineering measurements and do the assessment. Consider the wisdom in posts 2 and 12 whilst doing that.
Otherwise, this thread will just go back-and-forth and wander ad nauseum.
Better yet… load up some film in any camera and do as post 15 suggests.
Can you spell Hasselblad?
My main concern was to achieve the full resolution of film…!
Can you spell Hasselblad?
I sure can, but I humbly leave this honor to you, good Sir!
Okay, I understand theoretical questions; should be easy to answer from the specifications of the lens and the specifications of the film. Beyond that, it's a conversation starter but there is not much practical value. Somewhat meaningless for photography purposes. It's like asking which cartridge/stylus I should use to get the best resolution from a 'vinyl" record with no interest in the capabilities of the rest of the audio system... somewhat meaningless for listening purposes.
I have committed to 35mm
I don’t want to feel limited by the equipment
At some point, this thread will always run into contradictions like these in an attempt to argue for eeking the last drop of resolution from a system. There's nothing wrong with it, per se. It's just so...tedious.
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?