Other than the pancake (which is not highly regarded) all the NEX lenses are positively huge! Since you need to mount a lens to the NEX in order to use it, you can't really say that the Olympus m43 cameras are "similar in size." Panasonic lenses are generally much larger and closer to NEX.
>>The thing here however was that the NEX system and the m4/3 compacts are very similar in size, operation and price. So the question was why people choose the smaller sensor over the larger sensor when all else seems equal. And the answer that has been given is that all else is not equal - there are fewer lenses for the NEX, the m4/3 bodies have more appeal to some etc
mawz wrote:
Buying an E-620 for the OVF is not exactly the greatest idea.
The only thing I need an OVF for is pan shots shooting motor sports. The size of the VF isn't very important, but the blackout time of the EVF makes pan shots guesswork and the results all over the place. What I have found trying to do pan shots with the GH1, is that I can work for longer periods of time because of the lower weight, so although an E-30 or E-5 would be ideal for many reasons, I'm trying to minimize weight.
The NEX is butt-ugly, has few lenses and all but one are all huge.
I think the direction of Oly with its new beautifully designed classic lenses and range of bodies take the system beyond current systems.
denoir wrote:
I must say that I'm curious what makes somebody choose m4/3 over the newer generation of ASP-C compacts such as the NEX. Is it the availability of good native AF lenses?
When considering the same generation of sensors ultimately from an image quality point of view larger is always better. With a larger format you get better wide angle lenses, better dynamic range, better high ISO performance, more control over DoF and you get overall better performance (resolution & micro contrast) from lenses as far less strain is put on them.
I was pretty sure that since the introduction of the compact ASP-C lenses, m4/3 would die. After all, ASP-C is to m4/3 what m4/3 is to a 2/3" P&S. So why isn't m4/3 dead or even dying?...Show more →
denoir wrote:
The thing here however was that the NEX system and the m4/3 compacts are very similar in size, operation and price. So the question was why people choose the smaller sensor over the larger sensor when all else seems equal. And the answer that has been given is that all else is not equal - there are fewer lenses for the NEX, the m4/3 bodies have more appeal to some etc
Exactly. IQ is important, otherwise we'd all be talking about cell phone cameras. But there are many more factors at play, and everyone weights them differently. M43 and NEX are quite a bit different, especially if you're shooting with system lenses.
denoir wrote:
It's a beautiful photo due to the subject and the composition as well as the long exposure..but the rendering does seem somewhat problematic. The details have very low contrast producing a rather muddy and indistinct rendering of the textures. It's a good example of the photographer doing everything right but where the camera/lens is the limiting factor.
Can you see how you can almost feel the texture of the rock? And this is not an ideal shot as it was taken at f/16 where the 21 Distagon becomes seriously diffraction limited. Had I shot it at f/8 the rendering would have been a notch better. Now scroll up and look at the Panny uwa zoom photo again. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? ...Show more →
It is a bit optimistic to expect that a $1,000 zoom would measure up to a $1,800 prime, isn't it? Particularly when we talk a bout a prime that has a slightly legendary status among WA lenses. It would be interesting to see the same comparison involving the Zuiko 12mm f/2.0 though. It seems to be rather good.
CKrueger wrote:
Exactly. IQ is important, otherwise we'd all be talking about cell phone cameras. But there are many more factors at play, and everyone weights them differently. M43 and NEX are quite a bit different, especially if you're shooting with system lenses.
User interface is part of the deal. While the NEX cameras have a UI that is similar to a camera phone, the GH cameras works better for me ergonomically than my Nikon cameras, which says a lot. Nikon cameras have very good ergonomics. That can often be the difference between getting the shot or not. All the image quality in the world won't help me if the photo shows the shoe of Elvis Presley as he's running out the door, while one second earlier, he was facing me directly
The lack of lenses for the Sony system is a problem too, and since NEX is a proprietary mount, there's probably more skepticism among lens makers to support it than m4/3 which is supported by two, and potentially more camera makers in the future. If Sony doesn't make a profit on NEX, it can be discontinued by their board overnight (and history has shown that Sony makes decisions like that very easily). With m4/3, that would be a much more complex process, and since it's a more or less open format, other suppliers will be able to pick up the ball if Olympus and/or Panasonic drops it.
Thirdly, the whole concept of not offering a viewfinder for any camera for more than a year now makes me skeptical. It says something about the attitude of the developers and/or the marketing dept. at Sony. Olympus and in particular Panasonic have shown a completely different level of understanding for basic photographic needs.
It will be interesting to see what the NEX 7 brings to the market and what lenses will be released. It will have to be extremely good to convince me to buy that in addition to my m4/3 gear. Then there will probably be a GH3 in e few months...
It's no accident they picked up Minolta and signed exclusionary agreements with Zeiss so that they won't produce/lenses AF lenses for any other platform.
They made huge company betting investments in fabrication technology including CMOS imaging. They want a guaranteed consumer of said chips since Nikon/Pentax/etc can switch to a different supplier with each generation.
I don't think its an accident that the NEX system sensor size is APS-C since the wafer size could be economized.
denoir wrote:
I must say that I'm curious what makes somebody choose m4/3 over the newer generation of ASP-C compacts such as the NEX. Is it the availability of good native AF lenses?
Yes, exactly right. Panasonic and Olympus have also put together a much more comprehensive set of lenses tailored to MFT than I've seen for any APS-C system. Sure, you can use FF lenses on many APS-C cameras, but at that point you're throwing compactness out the window. APS-C lenses also are generally larger than their MFT counterparts. If anyone made a great APS-C camera system with a comprehensive set of compact lenses, I would buy it over MFT. But that hasn't happened for the past decade.
Now, one might ask whether it's worthwhile shooting any of these crop formats in the first place. There's no question in my mind that my MFT kit can't match my Nikon FX kit in the IQ department. But I often find that trading some IQ away for weight and convenience is worth it in order to get shots that I would otherwise completely miss. Instead of bemoaning the slight loss of IQ, which is imperceptible to most people anyway, I'm happy that I can now get high quality shots from more situations than I used to. I'll casually carry my MFT kit at times when I would otherwise have had to put serious consideration into whether or not it was worthwhile to carry my D700 and lenses. I'm also much more comfortable using my MFT kit in public spaces, where it attracts way less attention than an expensive looking SLR.
denoir wrote:
Bob, you are quite right and it's a good point. There is however another factor that one must take into consideration then - the fact that lenses designed for crop sensors (be it ASP-C or m4/3) are as a rule have low cost as a high priority. So you won't find any really high end crop lenses. Well, not unless you buy cine-lenses which are usually quite good, quite large and ridiculously expensive - so I don't think they can be considered as viable alternatives.
I think what you might get that is a bit better with a lens designed for a smaller image circle is better controlled field curvature as the lens designers will probably seek to minimize it. The levels of the MTF curves (i.e the micro contrast at a spatial resolution) won't be helped by a lens specifically designed for a crop camera though.
No, not quite. The relation between the focal length and the diameter of the circle of illumination is angle of view. The resolving power of a lens is independent of the image circle and will depend on the materials used in the lenses and the optical design of the lens. So designing a lens for a smaller image circle won't per se increase its resolving power. ...Show more →
Not true.. A good 180mm lens designed for 35mm format generally resolves up to double (if not triple) as much as the best 180mm lens for 4X5 format (including the Apo-Symmar-L) .. 50 lines/mm is stratospheric for 4x5 format. Great deal of the 50mm lenses for the 35mm format resolve better than the 50mm Distagon or 80mm Planar for Hasselblad. Just check the Zeiss site as an example; the MTF curves of the FF lenses vs the MF format ones; from the same manufacturer. (You can also refer to the lens test standards of the old Modern Photography for example.)
For any given focal length, the circle of illumination counts as one determining factor for the resolution power of a lens. That's why some microscope objectives from Leitz or Zeiss are specified of resolving more than 1000 lines/mm.
It seems so that the next year we will be playing with over 20MP sensor cameras in the APS-C format, probably also in the m43 format, and I am expecting a great leap in the lenses to be designed to match with such sensors. The great majority of the FF format lenses available today, including those from Leica or Zeiss, are far from being optimum matches for such cameras. (Yes, I have a bunch of Leica and Zeiss lenses to use on my M-Leicas as well as on my Nex-5 and Olympus EP1).
As long as the features like AF, lens interchangeability, auto aperture, image stabilization, compactness and lightness are demanded by the masses, the APS-C format, IMHO, is going to replace the 35mm to redefine the "new FF format" of the future. We "can expect pixel sizes less than a micron within 5 years in consumer products" according to Dr. Eric Fossum, the inventor of the CMOS. Consequently a new generation of optical designs, far different than the ones we have seen so far, are to be expected too.
denoir wrote:
Eh? I think you need a serious reality check. Phase detection focus on a pro DSLR is orders of magnitude faster and more accurate than the best contrast detection AF.
Edit: Unless you meant the Live View focus on the D3 - in that case you are of course right.
GH2, 280 ms average with 85% sharp, 14% acceptable and 1% not sharp
K5 309 ms average with 62% sharp, 29% acceptable and 9% not sharp
7D, 440 ms average with 40% sharp, 29% acceptable and 30% not sharp
D7000, 460 ms average with 35% sharp, 40% acceptable and 25% not sharp
The test is a bit painful to read because of the language barrier, but this was done over a huge collection of shots and lenses. Best AF measurement methodology I've seen to date. If you've never shot a GH2 with a 14-140/14-42 on it you have no place to make any comments about the "best CDAF" system. It is out of this world and crazy fast - difficult to believe fast if you understand the huge advantage PDAF should have, it doesn't seem like it should be possible to be this quick. Once you understand what they are doing it starts to make sense, but it is still shocking the first time you use it - and I'm talking coming from L glass with USM, not crap kit lenses.
Now I'm aware the K5, 7D and D7000 aren't the full blown Canikon pro AF systems, but the GH2 is besting these cameras easily and so your "orders of magnitude" comment is obviously way off base - the pro systems are not that much better than the 7D and D7000 prosumer models.
The GH2, G3 and EP3 CDAF systems are simply amazing and not at all like anything seen in any other CDAF system before. Plus, you should know of course that a proper CDAF system is always more accurate than a PDAF system as there is no alignment issues to deal with or lens micro-calibration fussiness. Pro-PDAF systems can be made as accurate as a CDAF system to be sure, but the natural accuracy advantage is to CDAF, not PDAF.
Now, where CDAF will fall apart compared to a good PDAF system is in burst shooting (PDAF still sees the scene while CDAF is blind during read out) and at least so far tracking motion towards/away from the camera (PDAF magnitude and direction information is a major help in this case). If I was shooting sports I would definitely want a pro-PDAF system, no doubt. I'm flabbergasted at how fast the GH2 is in single shot mode, and amazed we've gotten to that point as fast as we did, but I suspect it will still be awhile until CDAF can track a moving object through a burst anywhere near as well as a pro-PDAF system.
denoir wrote:
No, not quite. The relation between the focal length and the diameter of the circle of illumination is angle of view. The resolving power of a lens is independent of the image circle and will depend on the materials used in the lenses and the optical design of the lens.
So the fundamental relationship with resolution while scaling focal length and image circle size (that is taking a given lens prescription for one image format and perfectly scaling it to another image format by multiplying all dimensions) is that the relationship for resolution scales perfectly linearly.
That is identical prescriptions for a 20mm lens with a 20mm circle and a 40mm lens with a 40mm circle will result in the 20mm lens have exactly double the resolution of the 40mm. No resolving advantage to the larger format. This is because scaled prescriptions have identical *angular* resolving power but the focal lengths have scaled with a resulting difference in linear resolving power at the image plane. This is why compact cameras have surprisingly similar resolving power to 4x5 despite the ridiculously large difference in format size.
Your assumptions are failing to consider that comparing a FF 20mm lens to a m43 20mm lens is neglecting the fact that the prescriptions are in fact wildly different because of the different image circle size, different distance to the rearmost element and different exit pupil distance as a result of the different sensor formats.
So designing a lens for a smaller image circle won't per se increase its resolving power.
----------------
EDIT: The below example is most likely not a reliable one as the MTF curves are not measured and are potentially calculated in different ways (as noted by others later in the thread) - original text left here so subsequent discussion still has the original context.
----------------
Except that it does for the reasons outlined above and clearly shown in the MTF curves for two UWA zooms for FF and m43 - note the higher resolving power of the m43 lens compared to the FF lens as a direct result of the smaller image circle:
And no, I'm not saying bigger isn't better! It sure is, I'm just saying as far as resolving power and micro-contrast goes it is a second or third order effect at best. Both the practical examples and the theory clearly indicate resolving power and micro-contrast are weakly correlated to sensor size.
I think you are on the right track that as we go bigger we have access to more lenses designed with "no compromises" that just aren't supported by the market for smaller sensor cameras. The nice thing with Panasonic is that while not doing anything like a Zeiss prime they have gone all out on some of their m43 lens designs (like the 7-14). It is nothing at all like the selection of insanely expensive primes available for FF, MF and LF though.
Bob, you are confusing cause and effect. MF lenses don't have to have the same resolving power as 135 format lenses and large format lenses don't have to have the same resolving power as medium format lenses to get equivalent high contrast in the fine detail. You can easily enough find examples where they've maintained the same quality for different formats.
Here's an example from two same generation lenses The Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon (CY) and the Zeiss 35/3.4 Distagon (Hasselblad V). The FF 135 lens is in red:
Of course, if we equalize the angle of view there's an endless supply of examples such as the 50 Sonnar (135) vs 110 Planar (mf). FF135 in red: http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/mtf/ff50vsmf110.jpg
No it does not and this is basic optics. A difference in maximum image circle will of course affect the lens design and subsequently performance. But apart from diffraction which will limit lens performance as you go towards lenses with smaller image circles there is no optical relation between image circle and lens performance. You'll need a higher quality lens for a smaller format than for a larger format to get the same results and that is also subsequently reflected in the lens designs. But don't confuse the cause and the effect.
Anyway, the record holder for a photographic production lens, regardless of format is the Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon ZM. It becomes diffraction limited on FF at f/4 when it resolves 400 lp/mm (center frame). On m43 an equivalent lens would have been diffraction limited at f/2..
--
No, that's not true. Although this is really basic, I don't really know where to start. I could simply give you a screen shot from lens design software that shows you the effect of scaling up a lens design to a larger image circle. The answer is that there isn't much of an effect in terms of what you'll see in an MTF chart but there will be a very large difference in weight and size. As volume increases in a cubic fashion, you very quickly end up with a lens that would be both too heavy, large and not to mention expensive (optical glass isn't free).
Compact cameras have nothing close to the resolving power to 4x5 cameras. With a 4x5 with a digital scanning back you can get a gigapixel+ image with a much higher per pixel sharpness than what you get from a P&S.
Why do you think that for resolution critical stuff people use larger formats? The most fundamental requisite for there being a point in using a larger format is that lens performance is relatively constant regardless of maximum image circle. Otherwise there would be no difference between a tiny mobile phone cam and a full blown digital medium format camera.
Except that it does for the reasons outlined above and clearly shown in the MTF curves for two UWA zooms for FF and m43 - note the higher resolving power of the m43 lens compared to the FF lens as a direct result of the smaller image circle:
You're comparing simulated MTF charts from two different manufacturers for different focal lengths and apertures?
You might as well compare a graph of zoos/capita compared to the domestic gross product of France in the years 1844-1848. These are in no way comparable.
I was going to write more, but I'm sorry - it would be too much. I'll just end up being impatient. I'll let somebody else take over.
Seems some of you guys are missing the forest for the trees : why argue merits of IQ when the OP specifically has acknowledged ultimate IQ isn't the goal of m43? There are tradeoffs in everything, and I think most people realize when they pick up m43 as a system it's not for absolute IQ.
Regarding the two stream/rock shots - why is anyone here actually attempting to compare I.Q. between two completely different scenes, shot by two different photographers with most likely different PP techniques, and then posted at web size? I mean, seriously
I've considered this move for myself for a while, but I'm still hesitant, as I think I would miss the performance of my DSLR setup - good discussion though.
As for IQ, though, here's a shot I like to show off sometimes From the regular 43 system, though.
Olympus E-5, 50-200 SWD *and* the 1.4x TC, at 283mm, f/5. Not bad eh?
denoir wrote:
Oh, man.. those large format shots on the site makes me want to raid the nearest camera shop for a 4x5. I really love the look but I also know it would be hell to own and use one. I'd be torn between the love for the photos it can take and hate over the massive inconvenience of using it...
That's not so bad. I got one of the point and shoots of that era, a Speed Graphic - it's a lot of fun to use, and quite small.
cputeq wrote:
Regarding the two stream/rock shots - why is anyone here actually attempting to compare I.Q. between two completely different scenes, shot by two different photographers with most likely different PP techniques, and then posted at web size? I mean, seriously
No, not seriously at all. It was just posted to demonstrate a certain attribute of the lens, not as a comparison.
As for web size, why not? I've never bought/kept two lenses or camera systems that produce images that are indistinguishable at web size. I do print large on occasion but most of my shots are in the end viewed at web size. (With web size I mean in the 1000px-2000px width range).
Antje wrote:
That's not so bad. I got one of the point and shoots of that era, a Speed Graphic - it's a lot of fun to use, and quite small.
Yes, I have been thinking along those lines as well - that's the express LF format path. You still have the hassle and expense of sheet film though and it's not that compact..
kwalsh wrote:
You need reality check on your end as well!
GH2, 280 ms average with 85% sharp, 14% acceptable and 1% not sharp
K5 309 ms average with 62% sharp, 29% acceptable and 9% not sharp
7D, 440 ms average with 40% sharp, 29% acceptable and 30% not sharp
D7000, 460 ms average with 35% sharp, 40% acceptable and 25% not sharp
The test is a bit painful to read because of the language barrier, but this was done over a huge collection of shots and lenses. Best AF measurement methodology I've seen to date. If you've never shot a GH2 with a 14-140/14-42 on it you have no place to make any comments about the "best CDAF" system. It is out of this world and crazy fast - difficult to believe fast if you understand the huge advantage PDAF should have, it doesn't seem like it should be possible to be this quick. Once you understand what they are doing it starts to make sense, but it is still shocking the first time you use it - and I'm talking coming from L glass with USM, not crap kit lenses.
Now I'm aware the K5, 7D and D7000 aren't the full blown Canikon pro AF systems, but the GH2 is besting these cameras easily and so your "orders of magnitude" comment is obviously way off base - the pro systems are not that much better than the 7D and D7000 prosumer models. ...Show more →
If that is the case, then I really do need a reality check! That's pretty amazing if correct. In that case they've come a long way since the GF1. The D3 and similar pro DSLR systems have significantly better AF systems than the 7D and other systems in the class. Still, definitely not orders of magnitude better.
I do have some reservations about the test as the lenses they used on the Canonikon systems are not exactly high end and it seems to me that in most cases there the system is limited by the lens AF rather than the camera AF. Also they made some basic errors in reading the MTF so the keeper ratio is questionable. Even so, contrast based AF seems to have come a very long way.
---------------
Anyway, sorry for bringing this whole thing offtopic. My initial question was why people choose m4/3 over ASP-C sized EVILs, and I've been given several convincing reasons.
For any given focal length, the circle of illumination counts as one determining factor for the resolution power of a lens. That's why some microscope objectives from Leitz or Zeiss are specified of resolving more than 1000 lines/mm.
No it does not and this is basic optics. A difference in maximum image circle will of course affect the lens design and subsequently performance. But apart from diffraction which will limit lens performance as you go towards lenses with smaller image circles there is no optical relation between image circle and lens performance. You'll need a higher quality lens for a smaller format than for a larger format to get the same results and that is also subsequently reflected in the lens designs. But don't confuse the cause and the effect.
Anyway, the record holder for a photographic production lens, regardless of format is the Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon ZM. It becomes diffraction limited on FF at f/4 when it resolves 400 lp/mm (center frame). On m43 an equivalent lens would have been diffraction limited at f/2.....Show more →
--
Luka, the lenses you chose from 35mm format are not the typical representatives for the subject we discuss. The C-Sonnar design is dating back to the '30s, the other one is optimized for high-speed. How about replacing them with the Biogon 21/4.5 and Sonnar 85/2 for example? Then we will have a more realistic picture.
Any lens you know from MF to compare to the Biogon 25/2.8, or from LF to compare to the Pentax FA 35/3.5? Hmmm?
As a well-known fact and since the beginning of 35mm photography, the 35mm lenses in general have been regarded as resolving more than those of the Medium-Format and the MF lenses were known of resolving more than the ones for the Large Format. Since the '50s the resolution tests for different format lenses were based on different levels of resolution figures. You can come up with a few individual examples to try to prove the opposite however it will not change the overall reality a bit.
Take a look at the resolution power of the Hasselblad lenses in general and compare them to the ones of the ZM lenses for example. Do it for Pentax MF against Pentax 35mm lenses.. or Bronica Nikkor lenses against those of Nikon. Then the "basic optics" is the results of your comparison. We have been following the test results since the '60s.
I always appreciate your inputs to such forums and follow them with interest however there are some established facts in the photographic opticals since decades; neither I nor you could indulge to distort them for the sake of discussion.
denoir wrote:
No, that's not true. Although this is really basic, I don't really know where to start. I could simply give you a screen shot from lens design software that shows you the effect of scaling up a lens design to a larger image circle.
Read what I wrote carefully. Not just image circle, image circle and focal length so that each format has the same FoV. And yes, go ahead and try it with your software...
And yes, it is pretty basic - in fact so you don't have to go to the library here is a Google books result on scaling of optical designs:
That addresses the point I was trying to make, which may be a bit different than what you are referring to. I'm not trying to say a LF lens can't be made higher resolution than a m43 lens - I'm just saying basic optics theory says bigger by itself doesn't improve resolution at all as the lens scaling laws show. If you want to make a LF lens with the same FoV as a smaller format lens and have a higher resolution you'll have to change the prescription (which in fact is what usually happens).
You're comparing simulated MTF charts from two different manufacturers for different focal lengths and apertures?
You might as well compare a graph of zoos/capita compared to the domestic gross product of France in the years 1844-1848. These are in no way comparable.
More comparable than your examples for the point I was trying to make. Same FoV for each format. (And check the graphs again, both at F/4)
Did you bother looking at the prescriptions for the two Distagons? You know, just because marketing put the same label on them doesn't make them the same. The designs are wildly different and have no resemblance to each other at all. You might has well have compared a pinhole to the Hubble space telescope (while were making ridiculous analogies)...
That said, I'm on about something getting a bit more off topic than is probably necessary. I concede that for a larger format I typically have the opportunity to purchase a vastly more expensive lens with better final resolving power for the format than a much smaller format. My point was these things do not scale directly with the format size. It is difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison. I think I'm talking about fundamental optical scaling laws and you are better addressing what is available in the market place.
Cputeq hit the nail on the head - I'm not saying micro4/3 is the "Best camera system EVER"... it's just the most likely to make it out the door with me when I'm shooting for fun, or going on a pub crawl with friends, or going on a hiking vacation where every ounce matters, or looking to throw something small in the bag with my 25lb video gear setup.
The majority of the rest of you are missing the point altogether: You're splitting hairs on the last 10% of an image's sharpness. I'd rather have a slightly soft shot from micro4/3 than an incredibly sharp shot from a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera if it means I don't have to haul the monster cam around!
I'm shooting for me, and I'm not shooting for a client with this gear, but frankly, the image quality is right up there with what I was getting out of my Nikon D7000 for all practical purposes when the shots are shown to laypeople who don't know words like "dynamic range", "micro contrast", "RAW format", or even "white balance."
Post less test charts and post more pictures. Put your shutter where your mouth is!
Nice shot, cputeq!
Also... If you think Micro 4/3 is great and compact, try a Leica M8 or M9. It will hti you hard in the wallet, but what an experience it is...
I've tinkered with the M9. I'm not a big fan... I just don't at all see where the $7000 for the body alone is worth it for my photography needs (not to mention the astronomically priced lenses). I'm 25 years old, and though I can afford to drop this kind of coin on Leica gear, I'd much rather spend 1/10th the amount of $$ on my micro4/3 kit and go on a few international trips with the difference.
Bob YILDIRAN wrote:
Luka, the lenses you chose from 35mm format are not the typical representatives for the subject we discuss. The C-Sonnar design is dating back to the '30s, the other one is optimized for high-speed. How about replacing them with the Biogon 21/4.5 and Sonnar 85/2 for example? Then we will have a more realistic picture.
...
I always appreciate your inputs to such forums and follow them with interest however there are some established facts in the photographic opticals since decades; neither I nor you could indulge to distort them for the sake of discussion.
Bob, you're missing my point. Of course 135 FF lenses usually have better MTF curves than lenses covering a medium format image circle as anything else would be a waste of money. Due to the larger area you don't have to have extremely high performance - when comparing 135 to say 6x7 for equivalent lenses (same angle of view) when you look at the 40 lp/mm for the 135 you should be looking at the 10 lp/mm curves for the 6x7 lens. The fact that you need higher quality glass on a smaller format to maintain quality does not however translate into the max image circle of the lens being inversely proportional to the quality of the output.
The point I was making is that it depends on the lens design and the materials used and not on the size of the image circle. That's why it's easy to find exceptions. You don't even have to look at medium format lenses. For instance the highest performing prime lenses that Canon has are the TS-Es (tilt shift) and they cover a much larger image circle (almost 60mm) than a regular 135. The price for that is that they're big, heavy and very expensive.
Bob YILDIRAN wrote:
Any lens you know from MF to compare to the Biogon 25/2.8, or from LF to compare to the Pentax FA 35/3.5? Hmmm?
I'm not familiar with the Pentax, but since the 25/2.8 is supposed to be the highest resolving production lens ever made, regardless of format, the answer would be no.
Take a look at the resolution power of the Hasselblad lenses in general and compare them to the ones of the ZM lenses for example.
The Sonnar I used was a ZM lens. But OK, let's do Planar vs Planar 50/2 ZM vs Hassy V 110/2, keeping the AoV roughly the same:
There's definitely a greater difference between the 135 Sonnar & 135 Planar than between the 135 Planar & 6x6 Planar. Having said that, consider this as well: the detail that you on FF 135 resolve at 40 lp/mm you resolve at 15-10 lp/mm on 6x6. So when looking at the MTF chart you should compare the bottom red graph pair (135) with the top black pair (6x6 MF). So for the same detail in a picture the MF MFT is around 90-95% while the 135 is in the 60-70% region.
From the regular 43 system, though.
