Is a cropped MF/LF identical to 35mm?

[MattKing]

This seems to have devolved into a lens issue when it really started as a film issue or question, it seems to me.

It was started as a film question, but the answer was essentially that film is not the determining factor - the lens (and I would suggest film flatness) are the determining factors.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You are right Matt, but see my post about macro and micro contrast and sharpness above.

PE

 

[frank]

This was practically a 135 format crop from my Rolleiflex 6x6. 75f3.5 Planar

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You are right Matt, but see my post about macro and micro contrast and sharpness above.

PE

Hi Ron,

The test linked to above shows clearly that when it comes to getting the best out of 35mm we see demands on the film. With 35mm Tri-X the film was the limitation to what the system can do, but with 35mm TMax 100 we wandered into territory where the lenses started to become the limitation of the medium format and large format lenses, while the 35mm lens took full advantage of the extra resolution of the film. So it progressed into lens territory in order to be fully explored.

But again, in practical terms I doubt it really matters that much. Prints can look nice based on many factors other than sharpness, resolution, and graininess. Mood, tonality, distribution of tones due to exposure and development, printing method, etc will have far more impact on the final results, in my opinion. I guess it depends on what the photographer wants.

 

[Dr Croubie]

This seems to have devolved into a lens issue when it really started as a film issue or question, it seems to me.

Well, I think it's been successfully argued that cropping MF or LF film down to 24x36mm will give identical results with identical films at identical focal lengths and identical apertures and with mysteriously-identically resolving lenses.
Seeing as the only thing in that sentence that is very hard to keep constant for all the tests is the lens, now it's just developed (!) into fun arguing about which lenses resolve more (per mm² of film)...

The one thing that 35mm lenses have going for them is that they're still being produced, en masse, with lots of R&D money still pouring in.
And lately a lot of pixel-peeping MTF-chart-drooling internet-forum-reading fanboys have been getting wet-dreams over the latest high-resolving lenses.
Cue lenses like the Sigma Art series (which aren't the best but certainly are for the price), some of the latest red-ringed Canons like the 35/1.4L II and 24/1.4L II, and especially the house-mortgaging Zeiss Otus line. Which I might consider buying if I a) win the lottery, b) need to take some stupidly-high resolution shots, and c) defrost my stash of ATP.

I'm sure the Otus lenses could give almost any MF lens a run for its resolving-money in terms of lines/mm.
But then I'm also sure that the still-produced Fuji/Hassy and Mamiya/PhaseOne MF lenses could beat almost any 35mm zoom lens and most non-Leica/Zeiss primes too.

Of course all of it is moot to people who don't print over 20x30" (and to some strange people who might *gasp* favour subject and composition over razor-sharpness), just like all digital pixel-peeping discussions these days too. But that won't stop the discussions...

 

[markbarendt]

This was practically a 135 format crop from my Rolleiflex 6x6. 75f3.5 Planar View attachment 152077 View attachment 152077

Self portrait?

 

[frank]

Ha, ha!

 

[benjiboy]

I know that the instruction manual for the Mamiya C330F says that every 24X36 mm section of the negatives shot with their lenses will enlarge to
20"X 16".