LF vs MF & 35mm.

<p>A while back I bought a 4x5 Crown Graphic and went to shoot landscapes w/ a friend that has an expensive Sinar and all the Nikon lenses you would ever want. I also took along my Leica R5 and a Rolleiflex TLR. After we got the negs developed it looked like my old press camera w/ it's uncoated Kodak 203 lens did very well against his expensive gear. On a light table the developed slides looked essentially identical in sharpness and color. Same w/ the B&W negs. But what surprised me was that I preferred the shots from the 35mm & 6x6 cameras, and they looked sharper as well. Thinking that I didn't really need LF if I wasn't going to print very large, I sold the LF gear and later returned to the same spot w/ just the Leica, a digital P&S and the TLR. Lots easier on the back! Again I was very happy w/ the results, especially the P&S digital that had performed so woefully for other things but somehow managed to do a good job w/ landscapes.</p>

<p>I started looking closer at the MF negs though, and noticed that while overall they looked plenty sharp, because I couldn't do any tilts w/ the lens the DOF was not as good as the 4x5. It just wasn't possible to get the foreground and background equally sharp, no matter how much I stopped down. The square format appeals to me so I am going back to a 4x5 camera and devise some sort of a mask so I can get 4x4. But the sharpness issue is what concerns me. Someone told me that a MF lens was sharper than a LF lens because it was optimized for straight line shooting, while a LF lens is designed to be sharp throughout most of the full image circle. Once you started doing movements w/ something like a 2x3 monorail camera and MF lenses you lost the sharpness edge and now the LF was sharper of the two. Does this make sense to anyone else?</p>

<p>All of the formats have their own set of advantages and disadvantages and these tend to vary somewhat with the individual using them. For example, I love the ease of carrying and shooting with my 35mm's, but I tend to waste alot of shots; with the 4x5's I slow down and spend more time on composition and get the results I want without "shotgunning"...either method works fine, but I like working slowly and taking only what I really want. I shoud also mention that I shoot alot of 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 also, depending on what I want to accomplish and how I feel at the time.</p>

<p>By the same token, I use my DSLR exclusively on photos taken for my main business: Real Estate Appraisal; in these, I'm not worried about technical excellence, but just want a decent representation of the appearance of the subject property. Of course, I can't forget the technical aspects entirely, and my shots tend to have more technically correct perspective than do those of alot of non-photographer appraisers and I'm often asked by owners for a print for their wall.</p>

It all makes sense. You've personally experienced the many trade-offs between LF and the various smaller formats....size, weight, portability,

movements, speed, lens quality, difficulty/facility of producing good images and the ability to make significantly larger prints while retaining IQ.

If the square format appeals to you, try a 6x6 roll fim back, or just make temporary 4" x 4" marks directly on your ground glass so you can

visualize that aspect ratio, you can later simply crop the 4x5 negative/transparency.

<p>The longer a lens is, the less sharp it tends to be. That is why LF will never be as sharp, in contact prints as a Leica. Large format seems sharper because you enlarge it less, if at all. Did anyone see the Avedon retrospective at the Met? They showed prints that I recall being 5-6 feet high, made from 8x10 negatives. 5ft is a 6X enlargement. The quality was nowhere near that of a 35mm negative enlarged to 6X9", because the longer lenses are not as sharp. If sharpness were the most important thing to me, which it certainly is not, I might consider a 6x7 or Hasselblad negative. Your comments about the Graphic camera negatives being about equal to the 35 and 120 are interesting. Considering that Leica has the sharpest lenses ever made for normal film photography, and the Graphic had quite outdated lenses, this is not a surprise. I had 2 Crown Graphics and never could get anything I wanted out of either of them. The lenses just are not that good, though not bad for the time. Why do you have such a concern for sharpness? Yes most photographers want the picture sharp at least in some places, but it is not the be all of photography. If you get the sharpest and best lenses for your new large format work, they will be far better than what you got before. If sharpness is the main consideration get Rodenstock Apo Sironar S lenses. Then when you compare the prints to smaller formats they will stand out in a class of their own.</p>

<p><em>The lenses just are not that good</em></p>

<p>LOL. That's like saying "Italian girls just aren't that pretty', which, as we know, <a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=gina%20lollabrigida&rls=com.microsoft:en-ca:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SNYI&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi">simply ain't so</a>. There is a lot of variation-- Graphics were supplied with everything from triplets to very high-quality Ektars.</p>

<p>I don't think Graphics ever came standard with a 203, but I may be wrong. If your lens is a postwar 203 Ektar, it is an excellent lens. 'Ektar' was synonymous with 'Kodak's best lenses' when Kodak made some of the finest lenses in the world. If it's a pre-war Kodak anastigmat (which it sounds like, if uncoated), it's still a good lens. </p>

<p>But I digress. Your small format negatives appear sharper because of an effect of film grain size. You get increased acutance-- that is, a perception of sharper edge fall-off between light and dark-- when you have some grain, even if the print doesn't look at all grainy. An HP5 negative will often look sharper than an FP4 negative shot under the same conditions, for that reason. Barry Thornton and other authors talk about this. It's sort of intuitive, although I'm not explaining it very well.</p>

<p>There are plenty LF lenses that are every bit as sharp as MF lenses:</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html<br /> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html</p>

<p>There are, of course, outliers such as the Mamiya 7. But factor in less enlargement and there's no reason why LF shots should look soft when printed.</p>

<p>Good observation on the lens. No, I don't think the Graphics came w/ the 203 Kodak. Maybe the Graphic View cameras did. 203mm would be too long of a lens for a press camera. I had the 203 on another camera and put it on the Crown Graphic. It's an apparently pre war lens w/ no coating and no markings anywhere really. I used to have a coated 203 Kodak and haven't seen than much difference between it and the uncoated one, but then I'm usually shooting w/ a yellow filter and B&W film. It's a fine lens and the filter adds contrast to it. Actually my Sinar friend had an APO lens that he used on some of his shots, and I still preferred the crispness of the 35mm and MF photos, but I know very well they won't be sharper blown way up, especially the little 35mm Leica neg. But maybe Bruce is right, I just wasn't comparing the best of LF lenses w/ the best of MF and 35mm lenses. It's not a deal killer, as the lenses that I have are plenty sharp enough for me on the 4x5 format. I was just wondering why the smaller format lenses were sharper, or appeared to be sharper.</p>

<p>It certainly may be a grain thing Robert, as the grain on a 4x5 is really smooth while the same FP4 film that I used has a real bite w/ the 6x6 negs. It's not just the negs though. The prints appear sharper as well at normal enlargements.</p>

<p>I used to live in North Beach in frisco, and there were some beautiful Italian girls. Unfortunately they all had brothers and fathers that were extremely effective gate keepers.</p>

<p>If the 6x6 format appeals, and you just want to be able to control the plane of focus, you could take a look at the Rollei SLR system. I forget which models exactly - I'm sure a Rollei expert can chime in here - but some of them have tilts. <br>

I've not seen many people complain about the lack of sharpness from this system.</p>

 

<p>It's the tonality of LF that appeals to me most. I can get that from 35mm, too, if I print really small!</p>

<p>Here I have used a 203mm Ektar on a Speed Graphic 4x5 for several decades; it focuses to infinity; mine is on a standard speed graphic lens board. It is not a lens too long for a press camera; unless one is trying to shoot 1:1 The 203mm F7.7 Ektar is a fine lens; highly corrected even for closeups too.<br>

<br /> As Bruce as mentioned; a longer lens *tends* to not be as sharp as a shorter lens. It is way easier for a 50mm lens to resolve say 60 lines per mm on film than a 300mm lens. This is because the *arc angle* is one sixth.<br>

One of my 127mm Ektars here has been measured to record 85 line pairs per mm on film when it is stopped down; that is with a LF press lens that is not well regarded on Photo.net at all. Its failings are it is really just a 3x4 lens for great images; a 4x5 is just fair at the corners; mine is about say down to 17 to 20 line pairs a the far corners of a 4x5 frame. Still for a 4x to 4.5x enlargement one can make a tack sharp 16x20 print; with the corners still at about say 4 to 5 line pairs on the prints corners; maybe say 7 is what a guru wants :)<br>

<br /> It is easier to get a sharp image with a smaller format; one has less focus problems; less film plane/film tolerance issues. One often shoots at a higher shutter speed too.<br>

An LF lens doesnt have to be a sharp usually; one typically is not enlarging as much. Alot of LF and MF is about great even tones compared to 35mm; one doesnt have to enlarge as much for a given print size.</p>

<p>On a light table with a loupe; a 4x5 might appear not a sharp as 35mm original. But if both are of the same scene; the 4x5 only has to be say enlarged 4.5x for a 16x20 print; and the 35mm say 18 to 20x for a 16x20 print. The 35mm might resolve 50 line pairs on film; the 4x5 press rig only say 35 line pairs; and the 16x20 from the press rig will be sharper with better tonality.</p>

<p>I had a Mamiya 7 which according to a number of reviews that I've read has some of the finest lenses available. I'm using several of the modern Schneider lenses on my 4x5 Ebony. When I enlarge and print both at 24" x 30" it's easy to see that the 4x5 has better resolution. The Mamiya does very well, but just doesn't quite match the larger format.</p>

<p>There may be some exceptions. Years ago, I taped several lengths of 35mm Agfa APX 25 into an 11X14 film holder, covering center, edges, and in between. I then inserted this into the back of my homemade 11X14 camera and made an exposure at f/32 or thereabouts with a 14" Kern-built Goerz Blue-Dot Trigor lens. The results, when viewed with a loupe, were astoundingly close to negatives pulled from the same emulsion from my tripod-mounted Leica M4 with a 50mm Summicron - stopped to its "ideal" aperture setting....right between 5.6 and 8. So sorry to have sold the Trigor!</p>

<p>But by and large, yes...LF lenses, at least those with "large" image circles, are designed to spread their performance evenly throughout this circle - so that their "line per line" performance might fall somewhat below that of a decent 35mm or MF lens. But this is beside the point - as for most of us who use view cameras to photograph landscapes, the whole experience is about total control of the image. I, for one, very rarely shoot "straight on" with LF in the landscape - and if and when I do shoot "straight" - it is only out of necessity borne out by choice and/or conditions (or some compromise between the two).</p>

<p>I had the great honor recently of being invited to stay as a guest - for ten days - on Star Island off the Maine/N.H. coast. It had been awhile since I'd been able to spend any significant time behind a camera with the ocean landscape I so dearly love to photograph - so I figured I'd cover the bases by bringing, in addition to my 4X5 outfit, a Rolleiflex 3.5 F (Planar) and a 6X9 Voigtlander (Heliar). I'd more recently been using these MF cameras almost exclusively, as schedule, logistics, and situation have not permitted my unfettered use of LF.</p>

<p>The Star Island experience quickly became an indelible reminder of why I had so long ago embraced large format photography...and reminded me also of how truly, frustratingly limiting it can feel to use a camera which allows for no off axis movements. In almost every single case of my having used the Rollei or Voigtlander (and in the past my having used Hasselblad, Pentax 6X7, Mamiya 6 and RZ 67) in the realm of landscape, I've felt shortchanged by my inability to employ a swing, tilt, shift, rise/fall, or any combination of these to help achieve congruency with my own vision. Indeed, the whole MF experience can, in certain situations, seem very monochromatic with the realization that the only tool available is aperture...and this only influences depth - whereas LF movements open up entire realms of image response and control...with depth of focus being but one aspect among many. </p>

<p>But I'm also quick to remember the old adage that the very best camera is "the one you have with you." And with this in mind, I will remain thankful in knowing that if the situation dictates, I can always just grab my Rolleiflex/Voigtlander/Leica/Nikon/whatever...and go out and photograph, knowing that there are many situations in which MF outshines LF, and in which 35mm does better than both MF and LF. But ultimately, this reflects my own bottom line, to keep exploring, and to never stop making images no matter what. </p>

<p>Just remember that no matter what equipment you use, there will (almost) always be a compromise of some sort - always a sense of "if only I'd been able to respond quicker, I wouldn't have lost the moment," or "if only I'd have schlepped my LF camera out here, I could have made the photograph I truly wanted to make." The trick is to always be aware of your own capabilities to utilize the equipment at hand to its best capacity given what exists before you, and to make images whose strengths outweigh whatever compromises might be necessary. </p>

<p>Aach!...a sermon! But I cannot help this and have already forgiven myself...so take from it what you will. </p>

<p>"Someone told me that a MF lens was sharper than a LF lens because it was optimized for straight line shooting, while a LF lens is designed to be sharp throughout most of the full image circle."</p>

<p>Clearly this is true. With a smaller image circle (cameras where the film plane is fixed in relation to the lens plane) you can optimize the heck out of the lens. And the smaller the image circle, and thus the shorter the focal length of the lens, the better (to a point, and I don't remember what that is).</p>

<p>If it's only about sharpness (and only a fool thinks that it is) then 35mm wins pretty much hands down. You can really load some image detail into a 35mm negative. More than MF. More than any larger format. But it requires carefully choosen subjects and meticulous execution to do it. No hand-held low-light street shooting here. Think tripod mounted rangefinders and optimum apertures -- which costs you many of the advantages of smaller formats (hand-held SLR mobility and response to rapidly changing scenes).</p>

<p>The thing is, it's *not* solely about sharpness. Tonality, and tonal transitions are at least as important, and many people would say even more important. And for this, film area wins. In general, the more film area the better the rendition of tonality.</p>

<p>This is why photographers like me think the "sweet spot" in photography is 5x4. With impeccable technique one can get excellent sharpness, and excellent tonality, on the same piece of film. The ability to make really big prints is a nice benefit, but I'd use 5x4 even without that.</p>

<p>Judge which is sharper by the prints. Supposing your goal is a particular size print, the LF film will require less enlargement than the MF or 135 ones; the MF less than the 135 one. The smaller enlargement factor will more than compensate for the typical reduction of sharpness on the films from the lenses of the larger formats.</p>

<p>Back in 4H club as a kid we marked the back of prints with the enlargement ratio of that actual print we made. Thus a 8x10 from a slightly cropped 4x5 might have a penciled in 2.5x; a super cropped print from the same 4x5 negative might have penciled in say 5x or 8x. Then some prints off of 35mm; HIT camera 16mm; 8mm cine frames; Box camera/MF; 6x6 tlr etc all had their print outputs marked with the actual enlargement ratios.<br>

<br /> Then we mixed/shuffled up all the prints and graded them by smooth tonal look and grain too.<br /> One finds that if one makes three piles of prints sya greatr; average and poor; they track by magnification that the prints were made; NOT by format at all. This was an experiment done in grade school 50 years ago in 4H club photo; it is just a rehash of a typical Kodak 1920's or 1930's photo books images that show how prints look; versus various enlargements.<br>

<br /> Whether one has a cellphones 1 to 2 mm lens; or a 16mm cine camera; or a 43mm lens on a Kodpak/instamatic; or a 35mm still camera; or a MF/TLR; or a LF lens the performance of the lens is usually best dead nuts on axis; and usually it drops going off axis. This is because many lens aberations kick in when going off axis. Thus any lens has a sweet spot on axis; whether a cellphone; your eyeballs; or the Polamar telescope; or an Instamatic; or 127mm Ektar. With a better corrected lens the sweet spot has a larger cone angle; ie one has a larger view/field with great performance.<br>

<br /> In the past the purpose of using a LF or larger MF rig (6x7) was sometimes for portraits; one need a larger head on the negative just to retouch the face with ease.</p>

<p>I have been <strong>stitching</strong> with the canon 5Dmark II and not considering overlap am getting approximately 40" x 60" fujiflex silver halide lightjet prints at the machines highest resolution of 300 ppi with just 3 shots (4 with overlap - normal aspect ratio) with <strong>ZERO interpolation!</strong><br>

My understanding is that at 60 or 70 inches I am going head to head with LF. Of course if I want a 100+ inch print LF wins, but that is unless I include some more stitches.</p>

<p>You go back the the 30's and 40's most of the photographers were looking for lenses that had that prized smooth look to the photos. Lenses were corrected to give that rather than the highest resolution. Also the lenses were corrected for black and white rather than color. That ran into the Post WWII era. Today everyone says Ektars are great and Raptars are junk. But in the day you chose Raptars if you shot B&W and Ektars if you shot color transparencies. Color print did not make a difference because the film was so bad you could use a 10 cent magnifying glass for a lens and not tell the difference (OK, so I exaggerate a bit).</p>

<p>To the question of which Rollei model had camera movement, it's the SL66, which has modest front tilt capability. The late Barry Thornton (of "Elements" fame) adopted it for landscape as well as macro work, due to its 'near-far' sharpness capability wide open, which facilitated use of ultra slow B&W emulsions, most suited to fine tonal expression in the final print. Thornton suggested that utmost rigour in exposure and development could produce superb results from any format. The Zeiss glass with the Rollei did not hurt. He moved from LF to the 6x6 format, although I have undoubtedly over-simplified his approach here.<br>

I find there's a hugely interesting blurring of formats (both of size and of type) going on in the photographic world today. It's not just the many MF 6x7 and 6x9 roll-film cameras with movements (Alpas etc), but the cross-overs with MF digital backs, the gearing up of film format thru' digital negatives (eg scanning a 4x5 neg to 10x8 size and contact printing out) with apparently superb results. There's a lot going on. It's a question of selecting the right track for yourself, and luckily these do not have to be expensive to get really satisfactory results.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The SL66 series not only had a tilting lens mount for Scheimpflug and a bellows focusing system to get in close, it also had a retro lens mount system so you could easily revers some lenses to get into geater then 1:1 with the normal lens. An adapter ring was optionally available to control the automatic aperture and to let you add filters and a lens hood to the reverse mounted lens.</p>