Top resolution digital cameras need top lenses - what about large format film?

[ashaughnessy]

I've read quite a few times about the latest generation of DSLRs, etc. such as the Nikon D810, Canon 5DSR, Sony A7R II, etc needing absolutely the best lenses, absolutely the best tripods, absolutely the best technique, etc. to get the best results that the sensors are capable of. I've never read discussions of large format film cameras talking in the same way. Presumably the same thing applies?
Anthony

[NancyP]

Large format film is not magnified greatly to make the final image. 4 x 5 film is enlarged 4-fold to make a 16 x 20 print. Compare this to a 35mm film format / digital "full frame" format, which is enlarged 16 times to make a 16 x 24 print. Older design lenses, well corrected but perhaps not perfectly corrected, can still make good images on LF.

[Harold Clark]

I've read quite a few times about the latest generation of DSLRs, etc. such as the Nikon D810, Canon 5DSR, Sony A7R II, etc needing absolutely the best lenses, absolutely the best tripods, absolutely the best technique, etc. to get the best results that the sensors are capable of. I've never read discussions of large format film cameras talking in the same way. Presumably the same thing applies?
Anthony

Diffraction is the great equalizer as far as LF lenses are concerned. The majority of 4x5 exposures are made at F22 or less, 8x10 generally a stop or more smaller. The most stellar lens @ f 5.6 will perform about as well as an average lens when stopped down to f 22 and beyond. Many lenses from yesteryear perform very well today, although modern coatings are better.

The part about careful focussing, a sturdy tripod etc still applies.

[Herbc]

Edward Weston never shot anything larger than 8x10. He also never enlarged anything.
When some of his work was enlarged, it did not do well.  That said, he was one of the greats, some say better than Ansel.
Westons lenses would not have done well on a 35mm camera.

[capital]

An old site, but perhaps the most comprehensive test of lens resolution performance:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

I'll add, Mr. Perez favored the medium format Mamiya 7 & lenses, thinking they actually outperformed 4x5.

[MarkL]

Less enlargement means any blur is also enlarged less. As you go up in formats the lenses actually often perform less well and the film stays the same it is just enlarging less for a given print size that makes larger formats perform better.

For very high resolution in small formats the squareness of lens mounts and flatness/alignment of recording media (sensor for digital) is controlled to a precision impossible for most large format camera designs, many are wood with adjustment for movements with removable film holders. I've heard some large format photogs say  'a lens, is a lens, is a lens' simply because of diffraction and the low enlargement for big prints.

[Telecaster]

I've read quite a few times about the latest generation of DSLRs, etc. such as the Nikon D810, Canon 5DSR, Sony A7R II, etc needing absolutely the best lenses, absolutely the best tripods, absolutely the best technique, etc. to get the best results that the sensors are capable of.

IMO this is a backwards way of approaching it. Sensors, and cameras, are now commodity items. I base my systems around my favorite lenses. A higher quality sensor gets more out of every lens. Note that I'm not a sharpness über alles guy…for my needs a camera like the A7rii makes every decent lens more than sharp enough. I care about tonal delineation, how the lens renders transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus, how consistent the image is across the frame. Absolute sharpness is somewhere down the list from all this.

-Dave-

[adias]

IMO this is a backwards way of approaching it. Sensors, and cameras, are now commodity items. I base my systems around my favorite lenses. A higher quality sensor gets more out of every lens. Note that I'm not a sharpness über alles guy…for my needs a camera like the A7rii makes every decent lens more than sharp enough. I care about tonal delineation, how the lens renders transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus, how consistent the image is across the frame. Absolute sharpness is somewhere down the list from all this.

-Dave-

Well reasoned.

[Theodoros]

I've read quite a few times about the latest generation of DSLRs, etc. such as the Nikon D810, Canon 5DSR, Sony A7R II, etc needing absolutely the best lenses, absolutely the best tripods, absolutely the best technique, etc. to get the best results that the sensors are capable of. I've never read discussions of large format film cameras talking in the same way. Presumably the same thing applies?
Anthony

Actually with LF film cameras, there are only good lenses & even better lenses... so there is no need for one to puzzle "with the best". However, mind you that the lenses provide a huge image circle and thus their analysis per length of light sensitive image area is less than smaller image circle lenses (or MFDBs used on LF cameras with these lenses)...  A better discussion would be to compare MF 120 film and MF sensor on an MF camera with the same lenses where image area of sensor is close (or almost equal) to the one of film... If one does that, he would find that the better lenses appear to be better on both film or digital... Same applies with the better lenses on a Nikon D800E or the same lens used on an F100... Tripod quality or technique are depended on the shutter speed used, the better the tripod (or hand held technique) the lower the shutter speed that can be used... with film or digital...