siu_wang_leung

The hypothetical numbers that I use is more like the theoretical limit achievable by 35mm format versus average/low end MF setup. Even under that condition MF is still better than 35mm. In normal contrast situation one may not get even 60 lp/mm from Velvia. If you compare 35mm with more modern MF lenses, you will see that the film is usually the limiting factor in terms of resolution (unless you use Techical Pan like the poster). Hence, the larger the film size, the better the image will be.

This test shows why MF is so much better than 35mm in medium wide to medium long focal length. Although Velvia "may" be able to resolve 160 lp/mm under high contrast condition, it is very hard to obtain even 100 under real world condition. Assume that a 50mm (in 35mm format) lens can resolve 100 lp/mm in the center, you get 24mm * 100 lp/mm = 2400lp in a landscape picture while a 80mm in MF will give you 45mm X 60 lp/mm = 2700lp (I use 8X10 as the ratio). So, at the minimum you will get more details and have 1/2 the grain size when enlarge to 8 X 10. Of course, there are a lot more than just lp/mm, contrast, color rendition and distortion are also important factors when evaluating the performance of a lens. I think 35mm format does very well in ultra wide and long tele range, but in the middle range it just can't compete with the quality of MF.