RB67 vs Nikon 35mm film - my results maybe 2 stops down aperture?

<p>I got the RB67 sometime ago and I did a comparison shot with Delta 100. Details at the link. Both cameras were at F11. Maybe I should have stopped the RB67 down by 2 stops? The RB looks less sharp than the Nikon.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/31194022@N00/29538099553/in/dateposted/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/31194022@N00/29538099553/in/dateposted/</a></p>

<p>Any feedback gladly received. Thanks.</p>

<p>I remember the first time I shot medium format and was disappointed at the apparent lack of sharpness, but then a friend had told me to stop down further than I usually do on 35mm to get the results I wanted. Voila. Apparently the lens' sweet spot wasn't where I thought it was. Lesson learned....always do a test roll to find a particular lens' sweet spot.</p>

<p>How were they scanned?</p>

<p>Epson V700 with the standard film holders - 135 and 120 versions. Both with the height adjustment set to the + mark. Epson Scan software in professional mode at 4000dpi TIF format with unsharp mask sharpening turned off, also not Digital ICE, everything else just auto - preview and scan. </p>

<p>One thing to remember; cameras are not being tester here.....it's the lens. Film doesn't care about the box.</p>

<p>https://flic.kr/p/MRs4a2<br>

To me, the RB67 shot looks sharper, with significantly more tonal range than the Nikon. Contrast is lower though.</p>

<p>@tom chow - yes that one I upsized 35mm scan to the medium format. A bit unfair perhaps. The tonal range etc are better but on a smaller size it seems maybe the newer Nikon lenses are a bit sharper than the RB67 lens on a pixel level. The extra surface area does help it though when we are not comparing pixel to pixel.</p>

<p>Tom Chow is right. You are just looking at more contrast in the 35mm which gives an appearance of being more sharp. Also, focusing could be different when you shot them. I always shoot my RB67 with mirror up to reduce shake. </p>

<p>In the end, I always get better scans (Epson V600) from 120 than 35mm. </p>

<p>the difference is DOF. at the same F stop, the rb has less DOF than the 35mm. what was the focus on in the RB shot?</p>

<p>have you made prints to actually see the difference other than just judging by the scans? You may be surprised.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I focussed on those window frames on the main round building. Tks. </p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Recheck your negative height while scanning. Your issue is most likely there. It's also possible the 35mm camera had less vibration. Avoid using f-stops higher than f8 with 35mm, you will not gain any sharpness, only loose. Two f-stops higher than wide open is usually the best quality (there are exceptions), MF lenses do like f8-f16. Repeat your test, in theory your RB should produce a better image at equal magnifications. Use a tripod and MLU.<br>

Rick</p>

the most obvious difference is contrast. i do see more shadow detail in the rb n nicer tonal

range.

<p>It's a no-brainer IMO: the bigger negative knocks the 35mm frame out of the park. Not even close. ;-)</p>

<p>The magnification is completely different, so you are not really comparing the same thing. But is this not curious as a 90mm on 6 x 7 is about equivalent to a 50mm on 35mm? How about enlarging the 35mm pic to match the 6 x 7 shot. Then, probably, they will more closely resemble each other. You might then find the 6 x 7 is demonstrably superior.</p>

<p>A Mamiya 6X7 camera RB or RZ will blow any 35mm SLR out of the water for producing photo technical quality.</p>

<p>Yes. Tom Chow - linked to one of my other image upload where I increased the 35mm scan to the scan size of RB. Page 1. </p>

<p>If you look at my Flickr, I also reduced the RB to match the 35mm scan. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes. Tom Chow</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well there you have it: the RB image <em>is</em> much superior.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I remember the first time I shot medium format and was disappointed at the apparent lack of sharpness, but then a friend had told me to stop down further than I usually do on 35mm to get the results I wanted. Voila.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have wondered for a long time about the transition from low to medium quality, medium format cameras (including box cameras, Brownies, and folding cameras) to 35mm rangefinders and then SLRs. Not counting, for now, the high-end cameras normally discussed in this forum.</p>

<p>To actually do that requires going through the various scaling laws that come up when comparing the different formats. A simple doublet lens on a 116 box camera isn't so bad, but is probably f/8 at most. In 35mm, the same physical size lens might be f/2.8, but now you need four or five element lens to get a quality image into the smaller frame. (Where it will be enlarged more when printed.) Until relatively recent mass production, it was significantly harder to make large lens elements than small ones. (It still is harder, but, it seems, not enough harder.) </p>

<p>The advantage of better lenses, and film good enough to use them, at affordable prices, allowed for the quality 35mm cameras we know today. On the other hand, there wasn't much reason to buy lenses that can resolve better than the best film available. </p>

<p>I am less sure about what comes next. It seems to me that people now use medium format not because they want larger prints, but for higher quality at the same print size. But maybe not proportionally higher. That is, a high quality lens for a 35mm camera might have better image quality (spatial frequency in the image plane) than a comparable lens for medium format. (That would be comparing a proportionally longer focal length lens in medium format, maybe with proportionally larger lens elements.) </p>

<p>And that is not even including the effects of different depth of field for comparable f/numbers.</p>

<p>How do they look in a 11x14 or 16x20 optical print? That's where the difference is. Film was made for optical printing, not scanning. You'll less magnification factor when enlarging with a medium format negative than a 35mm negative. That's where the advantages of medium format came in. <br>

As for the scanner, what I normally did with the V750 was scan, then do two types of sharpness with Photoshop. That basically brought you where it was really good. I apply a 172 sharpness at 1.2 or 1.3 and then a 100 or so sharpness at 1.0. <br>

You need to remember, also, that 35mm lenses were always sharper than medium format lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You need to remember, also, that 35mm lenses were always sharper than medium format lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not always. Maybe there are no medium format lenses as sharp as the Leica 50/2 APO or a Zeiss Otus. But these are newer lenses. I think you'll find that a lot of 35mm lenses will disappoint you, while a lot of medium format lenses will surprise you.<br>

<br>

Some cinematographers use Mamiya lenses on S35 sensors and the results are amazing, regardless of how cheap they are. In fact they're a smarter purchase than old Nikkors would be at this stage, with one or two exceptions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You need to remember, also, that 35mm lenses were always sharper than medium format lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a generalization which is not true in many cases - and it is also unfair to apply it to lenses of widely different generations. <br>

The RB67 lens here is a 90mm non-C...this is the oldest variant from 1970, with less sophisticated coatings than the 1974 C version, and less sophisticated design and glass types than the 1990s K/L version. So the non-C contrast is understandably low in comparison to a 1990s Nikon D lens.<br>

The K/L version would give the D lens a real run for its money.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, 35mm lenses are sharper than medium format lenses, which are sharper than large format lenses. You will get more resolution and less grain w/ larger format films, but that is not the be all, end all of photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>at Carl Zeiss, medium format lenses, contrary to popular belief, offer no lower resolution than the very best 35 mm lenses. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/resolution.html</p>

<p>The above was written in 1997, long before the introduction of modern lenses such as the Zeiss Otus series. One could argue that in the 1990s, some cinema lenses were sharper than even the best photographic lenses, but I would want to see evidence.</p>