Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by studentsarah, Jan 20, 2002.
Is my LF equivalent in quality to yesterday's 110 format?
Will, I saw photographic proof, Davids is bigger.
Now I think of it there was a successful professional landscape photographer profiled in A.P. a few weeks ago (I'm no good on names) who said he often heard aspiring amateurs wishing they could move up to medium format. In his view 35mm is so good now that he couldn't see the point - he didn't elaborate on bodies and prime/zooms etc though. I think he was using LF. So maybe he was making a genuine point or perhaps he was taking a swipe at MF buffs. Just goes to show we ARE an argument of photographers.
'Twas Colin Prior, he of the 6x17 panoramics.
Now, if the quaestion is "Is the image quality obtainable by 35mm now equivalent to what MF produced previously", the answer is probably "yes". But my ancient MF cameras can produce better results on today's films than 35mm can, so the answer is "no". Take your pick.
Lens resolutions might improve by a few percent. Film grain and quality might also improve by a few percent. However, the inescapable fact is that with MF the negative is not just a few percent larger but several times larger than 35mm and thus requires much less magnification to produce the same size print. So, no matter how much 35mm improves, MF is still miles better than 35mm.
35mm is good and but MF is even better. Go up to 10x8 inch format and a contact print will blow your socks off!
To clarify: if I were to compare a print made from a neg from my Rolleicord when it was new, I could get the same quality with 35mm today. If I were now to use Velvia in the 'Cord, it would blow the socks off any 35mm camera/lens. Lens resolution has improved an awful lot over 40 years or so, more than just a few percent, but film has improved even more.
I wouldn't say the same about LF, though!
Separate names with a comma.