Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: 35mm vs 2 1/4, my real world experience
From: Gerard Captijn <captyng@vtx.ch>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 1997 09:31:20 +0200

>Since a 2-1/4 sq. image area is about 4x 35mm image area, the resolution
>difference would have to be really big to be noticeable (this is a guess.)
>Is it possible that a 25 lpm lens on a 2-1/4 would produce similar results
>to a 100 lpm lens on a 35mm ? Assuming the same size final print.

35mm lenses are calculated to deliver smaller diffusion circles than 6x6
lenses. The 35 mm lens delivers resolution, when in focus, in the order of
50% over the 6x6 lens (1/30mm versus 1/20mm). This is normal as 6x6
negatives need to be enlarged less than 35mm negatives and explains also
why 6x6 lenses usually come out less well in lens tests than their 35mm
equivalents. In addition, the tolerances with whom they are build are
usually wider.

There is 4,86 times more information in a 6x6 negative than on a 35mm
negative but you won't get it on paper. Part of the difference is absorbed
by lower lens quality, difficulties in handholding, lower speed lenses
requiring longer shutterspeeds, difficulty of having a perfectly flat film
in the camera, movement of the big mirror, etc. This having said, no doubt
the 6x6 format can produce better pictures than 35mm. As films and glass
continue to improve but our final enlargement sizes remain the same, time
is on the side of 35mm photography.

Gerard Captijn.