Shouldn't a medium format folder give the same IQ as an SLR?

[gone]

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?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well Hasselblad is an SLR as is the Rollei 6000 series and both shoot 6x6 so the answer has to be yes as long as the lenses compared are similar in performance.
Now if you mean a 35mm SLR again assuming that the lenses compared are similar in performance, then the MF will be better.
Now if you want to compare a 4'"x5" Graflex Model D [an SLR] again assuming that the lenses compared are similar in performance, then the 4"x5" will be better.

 

[reddesert]

I'm not sure if you are referring to something in particular such as the thread discussing Arne Croell's lens tests, in which (IMO) the most clear difference was that between folding cameras (mostly older) and TLRs/rangefinders (mostly postwar to newer). The issue, again in my opinion, is that people consume "lens tests" as data on the optical quality of the lens and its venerable name (Tessar, Heliar, etc), but what we see as results on film is the entire imaging system (focusing accuracy, film plane flatness, person holding/operating the camera). And what lens tests usually measure is somewhere in between. The image quality from folding cameras has been satisfactory to many people at many times, but if or when there is a problem, it probably has a lot to do with the lack of rigidity of the lens to film system.

 

[gone]

No, it wasn't in reference to any specific thread, it just pops up frequently. I understand the dilemma, I'd rather carry the folder, but the SLR or TLR is easier and quicker to use, better for portraits, etc.

It's just that you seldom hear of a person moving from 35mm to a mf folder to get better IQ, they usually do it for the bigger neg and easy portability factor. The bigger neg doesn't necessarily lead to better IQ, just bigger enlargements, different grain, etc.

That may be the problem. Terminology. If someone needs or wants really big prints, then yes, they will take a hit in the print IQ if they move to a smaller format film and camera.

 

[Vaughn]

A Mamiya 6 or 7 with a good representative of their glass might have that bump up in image quality you are wondering about. The lens pops out some I think, so not a folder.

The following probably is not what your asking, but I won't erase it...

It does seem that 35mm has had the advantage of research and development. Both film and digital cameras were getting smaller and smaller, but now seem to go with the smaller iPhones -- or back up in size to a full-size of a 35mm camera, or slightly less with the mirror-less cameras. It is a good size and they can feel right in one's hand. To make a 120 camera equally solid-feeling, I think it would start to weigh too much. There is a lot of empty space in a TLR Rollei. I have both flex and cords. Same quality build, but the extra bells and whistles of the flex makes it heavier and more solid feeling...but no change in IQ. The 'cord goes into the backpack!

 

[gone]

I had a Mamiya 7, great glass. Hard to beat a Heliar, but it has a different type of look. The Mamiya pics looked as if they came from a medium format Leica, very nice and sharp w/ quite a bit of 3D.

I wish you hadn't mentioned it, now I want another one!

 

[Sirius Glass]

A Mamiya 6 or 7 with a good representative of their glass might have that bump up in image quality you are wondering about. The lens pops out some I think, so not a folder.

The following probably is not what your asking, but I won't erase it...

It does seem that 35mm has had the advantage of research and development. Both film and digital cameras were getting smaller and smaller, but now seem to go with the smaller iPhones -- or back up in size to a full-size of a 35mm camera, or slightly less with the mirror-less cameras. It is a good size and they can feel right in one's hand. To make a 120 camera equally solid-feeling, I think it would start to weigh too much. There is a lot of empty space in a TLR Rollei. I have both flex and cords. Same quality build, but the extra bells and whistles of the flex makes it heavier and more solid feeling...but no change in IQ. The 'cord goes into the backpack!

While the 35mm SLR have more R&D, but the photons already know what to do so it comes down to lens optics and format size.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have 2 folders, a Mamiya 6, 50s fixed lens 6X6, negatives are as sharp as my Kowa 6 and super 6, and a scale focus Kodak Tourist 6X9, I would give my Mamiya Universal a nod over the Kodak. Downside to any folder now going 70 years old is a light tight bellows and keeping the back in aliment with the lens. So, I think it depends on camera by camera, I would not make a generalized rule that one will have better IQ than another, case by case.

 

[Vaughn]

While the 35mm SLR have more R&D, but the photons already know what to do so it comes down to lens optics and format size.

True.
One issue is the ability to maintain film flatness, with generally more issues with this as film area increases. Along with this, Paul mentioned a factor with folders, which is alignment. TLR Rolleis have to be taken care of not to knock them out of alignment, too (good reason to keep them at infinity when not in immediate use.

 

[reddesert]

It's just that you seldom hear of a person moving from 35mm to a mf folder to get better IQ, they usually do it for the bigger neg and easy portability factor. The bigger neg doesn't necessarily lead to better IQ, just bigger enlargements, different grain, etc.

That may be the problem. Terminology. If someone needs or wants really big prints, then yes, they will take a hit in the print IQ if they move to a smaller format film and camera.

I don't know if it's possible to talk about "image quality" independent of the degree of enlargement. For reasons stated elsewhere, I am not a fanatical reader of lens tests. However, after looking at my own pictures and reading people's results of this or that testing, my thoughts are that 35mm is near the limit where the combo of film and lens resolution becomes apparent in a decent size enlargement ("Decent size" is in the eye of the beholder, say 8x10", or 11x14, or 5x7" for picky people). Using medium format so it's only a 4x enlargement instead of 8x makes the lens's job a lot easier. Then it's a question of whether the camera is in good enough adjustment to deliver on it.

 

[DWThomas]

These days I do most of my film shooting in medium format (or larger in the case of pinhole work ). I feel another factor with larger negatives is not so much optical performance as easier mechanical handling. The reduced magnification needed to produce a given size print from a larger negative tends to subdue the effects of dust and scuffs when viewing the final prints.

I also note that the human eye has its highest resolution near the center, and I think except in certain applications, sharpness of the central part of an image is more important than the periphery, especially the corners. Since most lenses are pretty decent in the center, assuming steady camera support and proper focus, the central area is the part that counts.

I have an Ercona II 6x9 (folder) with CZJ Tessar, and the fleet of 6x6es include a Perkeo II (folder) with Color Skopar, a Yashica Mat 124G with Yashinon, and a Bronica SQ-A with an assortment of Zenzanon PS glass. For the things I shoot, I have no complaint about the optical capabilities of any of those lenses, other than most of them don't focus closer than a meter or so without some help.

("30x40" from 35mm? I'll assume that's in centimeters. )

 

[Vaughn]

These days I do most of my film shooting in medium format (or larger in the case of pinhole work ). I feel another factor with larger negatives is not so much optical performance as easier mechanical handling. The reduced magnification needed to produce a given size print from a larger negative tends to subdue the effects of dust and scuffs when viewing the final prints.

I also note that the human eye has its highest resolution near the center, and I think except in certain applications, sharpness of the central part of an image is more important than the periphery, especially the corners. Since most lenses are pretty decent in the center, assuming steady camera support and proper focus, the central area is the part that counts.

...

I enjoy just contact printing my negatives (silver gelatin and alt processes), but then I do it with 120 negatives and up to 11x14 negatives.

We also have to consider we tend to scan the landscape, shifting our focus near and far, and creating a over-all sharp fluid image of our surroundings. To keep an image active, I usually try to keep the viewer's eye from resting in the center (although that is one of the allures of the square format) -- keeping the foreground in nice sharp focus so that the snakes can't hide in there (unless I am getting the viewer's feet wet instead), and allowing their eyes to safely wander through the image...and they may end up in the center. I like your concept of using sharpness as an element of composition.

 

[wiltw]

Assuming the detail resolution and contrast and acutance of the lenses are the same, fMF older vs.MF SLR should not matter much. OTOH, can you prove the folder lens performs as well as the SLR lens?!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

MF does indeed provide "better IQ" so long as all else remains constant and apples are compared to apples. So long as neither has technical compromises, it is partly due to not needing higher magnifications, and partly due to detail compression and loss of detail separation in 35 vs. MF. The latter is quite obvious in specific scenes, but may not be so clear in some others, and completely inconsequential in a lot of others still.

As for folders vs. SLR, the challenge is in inherent technical specifics and built quality. OP does not state any models, so this can be construed as a very general comparison. In such a case, majority of older folders suffer from lens standard not being parallel to film plane and (again) in some scenes clearly lose the contest. But in the end what is this whole question about? What are the qualitative points being considered to arrive at a winner or a tie? If this is to be objective, it can only be about technical tests, shooting charts, and ... wasting time.

Photographic result in most cases has little to do with resolving power or other technical differences. There are more than enough proofs of crap images taken with technical marvels and once in a lifetime shots with simplest of lenses/boxes. So I'm in and I'm out.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Probably the biggest shortfall of folders is that, due to when they were common, almost none have lenses with more modern designs like double Gauss or similar -- I have a 35 mm folder with a Xenon (not a Retina, which also offered that lens), but few if any larger folders had even 5-element upgrades from a Tessar type. Tessars are very good lenses, but they are an 1890-ish design; there were better options by 1945 or so, but very few of them are seen on folders because they tend to be bulkier than a Tessar or Heliar type and therefore reduce the advantage of a folding camera (a deep bulge in the bed/door means it's harder to carry around, won't fit in even a coat pocket, etc.).

I can see this difference between my Weltini (f/2 Xenon) and my Jubilette (f/2.9 triplet): the Jubilette is half and inch thinner than the Weltini, attributable almost entirely to the extra elements of the Xenon formula.

Now, put an f/2 or even f/2.8 Xenon on a camera like, say, my Super Ikonta B, and you'd make the already heavy camera heavier, require a still deeper bulge in the bed -- and gain little. A little sharper when near wide open, one stop better light gathering (or not, if you go with f/2.8).

 

[Helge]

Probably the biggest shortfall of folders is that, due to when they were common, almost none have lenses with more modern designs like double Gauss or similar -- I have a 35 mm folder with a Xenon (not a Retina, which also offered that lens), but few if any larger folders had even 5-element upgrades from a Tessar type. Tessars are very good lenses, but they are an 1890-ish design; there were better options by 1945 or so, but very few of them are seen on folders because they tend to be bulkier than a Tessar or Heliar type and therefore reduce the advantage of a folding camera (a deep bulge in the bed/door means it's harder to carry around, won't fit in even a coat pocket, etc.).

I can see this difference between my Weltini (f/2 Xenon) and my Jubilette (f/2.9 triplet): the Jubilette is half and inch thinner than the Weltini, attributable almost entirely to the extra elements of the Xenon formula.

Now, put an f/2 or even f/2.8 Xenon on a camera like, say, my Super Ikonta B, and you'd make the already heavy camera heavier, require a still deeper bulge in the bed -- and gain little. A little sharper when near wide open, one stop better light gathering (or not, if you go with f/2.8).

You'd first have to find a way to deal with the sliver thin DoF projected from a wobbly standard onto wavy film.

The beauty of these folders is that once you have the basic premise down, they kind of design themselves.
Once you insist on folding, self erecting and relatively thin. Then the rest kind of follows.
At the time they where designed, they couldn't have been much different.

Something like a Retina IIIc Heligon scaled to just 6x6 would have been one heavy and fat fucker.

 

[Petrochemist]

I think all four of my folders (built between 1924 & 1953) are limited to triplet lens designs. In addition their focusing is less precise than any SLR I've handled.
If the lenses were cleaned up carefully they might be able to beat the IQ of my Pentax Auto 110, but I doubt they'd be better than a 35mm SLR...

 

[Helge]

I think all four of my folders (built between 1924 & 1953) are limited to triplet lens designs. In addition their focusing is less precise than any SLR I've handled.
If the lenses were cleaned up carefully they might be able to beat the IQ of my Pentax Auto 110, but I doubt they'd be better than a 35mm SLR...

If they are structurally intact (light tight bellows, no bending or deformation of any part of frame of body, and the lenses are clean (one advantage of triplets: No separation ever), and you stop them down to at least f8, they will wipe the floor with any 135 SLR.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

The phrase 'image quality' is effectively weasel words, imho. IQ is composed of both objective AND subjective elements which makes a non-technical comparison moot. A more comprehensive concept, especially for experienced photographers, would be something like EQ (experience quality) which includes the film choice, loading, subject suitability, exposing, developing, printing/digitizing, and consumption/distribution of the 'final' image.

Some folks might give a high medium format EQ score to an Instax point & shoot while others won't fuss with anything less than their hedge fund manager's 'blad. Diff'rent strokes eh.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well Hasselblad is an SLR as is the Rollei 6000 series and both shoot 6x6 so the answer has to be yes as long as the lenses compared are similar in performance.
Now if you mean a 35mm SLR again assuming that the lenses compared are similar in performance, then the MF will be better.
Now if you want to compare a 4'"x5" Graflex Model D [an SLR] again assuming that the lenses compared are similar in performance, then the 4"x5" will be better.

In general the bigger the negative; the higher the image quality. However, name brand system cameras, such as Hasselblad or Mamiya, often have excellent lenses available to them, which are hard to beat.

 

[Helge]

The phrase 'image quality' is effectively weasel words, imho. IQ is composed of both objective AND subjective elements which makes a non-technical comparison moot. A more comprehensive concept, especially for experienced photographers, would be something like EQ (experience quality) which includes the film choice, loading, subject suitability, exposing, developing, printing/digitizing, and consumption/distribution of the 'final' image.

Some folks might give a high medium format EQ score to an Instax point & shoot while others won't fuss with anything less than their hedge fund manager's 'blad. Diff'rent strokes eh.

Not to me or any other serious person I’ve encountered.
IQ is essential MTF.
Contrast and resolution and how it’s weighted and distributed over the frame by lens and film.

All the apparitions that can contribute to different flavors of reduced contrast can be descriped as character and pleasing to some or in some sense. But it’s still basically lowering contrast.
Various kinds of bokeh and OoF effects and transitions are still more of the same, only lower resolution

 

[Arthurwg]

I had a Mamiya 7, great glass. Hard to beat a Heliar, but it has a different type of look. The Mamiya pics looked as if they came from a medium format Leica, very nice and sharp w/ quite a bit of 3D.

I wish you hadn't mentioned it, now I want another one!

Yes, I must admit the Mamiya 7 has fantastic lenses, some of the best I've ever used. But I much prefer the square to 6x7.

 

[Arthurwg]

I've always had the impression that the main problem with folders like Zeiss Ikon and others was the difficulty of aligning and holding the front standard and lens parallel with the film plane. True or false?

 

[takilmaboxer]

In my experience the limiting factor with folders is their mechanical aspect. They are spring loaded structures and are prone to vibration. With age things get a bit loose and the tendency to vibration increases. I see this especially in 6X9 folders which are large spring loaded structures with long lenses. My 6X4.5 folders are the most reliable with respect to IQ. The 6X9's with prontor shutters, which are fairly quiet, are less prone to vibration that rim set Compurs, which have strong springs.
My own experience has been that six element 35mm SLR lenses are much sharper than triplets or Tessars on the folders. And just in passing let me say that I have never had a problem with film flatness. Your experience may vary

 

[Paul Howell]

I think it very difficult to compare a MF Folder Vs. a SLR, folders were common in the 40s and 50s, only a few MF SLRs were being produced. By the mid to late 60s a only a few folders were made as the MF SLR became the standard. At that point consumer grade cameras were migrating to 35mm. As already noted lens designs improved, and many folders were entry level cameras only a step above a box camera, while MF SLR were pro build.