Often I read about someone who went from 35mm to a big medium format SLR, and they talk about the better image quality that resulted from the switch. To me, medium format is just different, not necessarily better. But they usually mention this as the reason for why they're not going back to a smaller camera and smaller film size.
I have negs from lots of folders and MF SLR's, including 2.8 Rolleiflex, 'blads, Autocords, etc. The shots from my old 6x6 Voigtlander folder w/ a Heliar lens look as good as almost any of the SLR 6x6 negs. It's hard to beat that 2.8 Xenotar on the TLR for sheer sharpness of course, but the Tessar on an old Ikonta came pretty close.
Leaving aside the convenience and versatility factors that come w/ an SLR, shouldn't a folder give IQ that's essentially the same as a bigger SLR? Or have I overlooked something?
I have negs from lots of folders and MF SLR's, including 2.8 Rolleiflex, 'blads, Autocords, etc. The shots from my old 6x6 Voigtlander folder w/ a Heliar lens look as good as almost any of the SLR 6x6 negs. It's hard to beat that 2.8 Xenotar on the TLR for sheer sharpness of course, but the Tessar on an old Ikonta came pretty close.
Leaving aside the convenience and versatility factors that come w/ an SLR, shouldn't a folder give IQ that's essentially the same as a bigger SLR? Or have I overlooked something?