Duh. Sorry to be rude, but is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?
I'll be the first to agree that the best 35mm work can exceed sloppy
large format work, but what the one-sided Photodo story leaves out is
how to get the most from large format. I suspect the author has not
actually used large format outside of the tests he did. If you use a
screwdriver to pound nails, you're bound to come to the conclusion
that hammers are superior tools!
So it states, "With a shorter depth of field and wider apertures, we
notice large format's superiority," but goes to great lengths and
formulas to "prove" that you need to use smaller apertures with large
format to get the same depth-of-field that you get with 35mm --
further proof that the author lacks large format experience.
What tips me off is the Photodo article's complete lack of mention of
basic camera movements! In fact, in the apologist's section (cleverly
disguised as "objective journalism"), he cites only three reasons why
large format is perceived as superior: 1) use of a tripod, 2)
settling for less depth of field, and 3) more time devoted to
composition -- completely ignoring basic Scheimpflug theory.
It is true that I always use a tripod for large format, and always
spend more time (but with camera movements, NOT composition), but I
don't "settle for a shorter depth of field," and I can't remember the
last time I stopped down smaller than f22. Indeed, I get greater
depth-of-field than would be possible in 35mm at ANY aperture! What's
a "circle of confusion?" -- I can get feet-to-infinity with a
"normal" 150mm lens at f3.5! Pssst! It's the movements!
My favorite LF shots are with a foreground and background subjects in
sharp focus, but with a soft, bokeh-filled middle-ground -- try that
by stopping-down a 35mm lens!
35mm is a hammer; large format is a screwdriver. While it is true
that it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools, I think it's a
poorer one who can't tell them apart, and know which situation fits
which tool, and thus believes that the one HE uses is superior in all
situations -- that's simply called "self delusion." I suppose it's
possible to do inches-to-infinity landscapes with 35mm, and it's
probably possible to do photojournalism with a 4"x5". Either approach
is for masochists!
Tom, why don't you and the Photodo author go grab a couple David
Muench books, and tell me those shots could have been taken with
35mm. (Then look at some early Weegie photos, and tell me you can't
do photojournalism with a Speed Graphic 4x5! :-)</rant mode>
Requisite OM content: I'm still planning to butcher a bellows into
doing at least rear tilt, and then seeing how the Zuiko 80mm and
135mm macros behave before slapping some awful enlarging lens on it.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled mailing list... :-)- --
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>
GREAT post!
Thanks for the excellent post. There is so much nonsense in all the
photography users groups, and various web sites, it is incredible.
For instance, one of my favorites is claims by certain 35 mm camera type
users (usually Leica and Contax) that the lenses are so good that they get
"medium format results with 35mm". What they heck is that supposed to
mean????? Comparison of grain size and inherent , resultant sharpness in
enlargements makes this a ridiculous statement, not physically possible.
Lay a 6x9 neg down next to a 35mm neg and see for yourself- dream on German
camera users!
people using 200 ASA color print film and measuring ultimate resolution of
lenses, on and on, and-
all the talk about one lense better than the other, and photodo tests,
(ever read the test methodology?)etc., is mostly nonsense too.
The feel and size of my OM gear attracts me to this excellent system, and
many of my OM lenses are superb, at least in what they have done for me in
slides and enlargements, and in sales to clients following assignments.
Same thing with my EOS system, - specific reasons why I like use it in
certain assigments like sports, I hardly have reason to claim one lense
system is better than the other or any other mfgr for that matter, nor do I
care- if I do my job right the results are plenty good enough with either-
especially with today's films! Durability and feel are key for me, and OM
and EOS excels in both, in my opinion.
When I want "media format quality" (?), I use my Fuji 6x9 RF. :)
Dave
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|