Hello,
I am a film (35mm and large format) and digital APS-C shooter, and I am looking to upgrade (sidegrade?) to a full frame or preferably medium format digital system. There are various parts of the equation here, but what I am most interested in is lens performance normalized for the sensor size.
I am an engineer and I am driven by objective measurements. The problem is that I have not been able to find any good resource about medium format lenses on the internet. Everybody "knows" that MF lenses are sharper than Canon/Nikon lenses (are they?), and everybody "knows" that digital view camera lenses are the sharpest of all (are they really??), but I can't seem to find actual measurements that backs up this knowledge.
I am interested in tests done at landscape shooting apertures and varying distances. Wide open lens measurements are useless for the landscape photographer, and photographing flat subjects at a fixed distance is better than nothing, but ultimately not very illuminating either.
If this mythical website with all this information does not exist, I am mostly interested in how the Canon tilt-shifts mounted on GFX50 compare to other tilt-shift/view camera solutions in the 50Mpix range (sadly that's all I can afford), again, when normalized for the different sensor sizes. I am also intersted in the relative performance of the GFX and the (newish) Pentax MF lenses (including the zooms). Again, at landscape shooting shooting aperture.
Has anyone made such a comparison?
By the way, I hope to avoid subjective impressions about which lens is sharper, or other unquantifiable ideas such as all lenses being "sharp enough", or that all these MF/FF systems perform "the same" at usual print sizes, etc. The performance of the system is something you can measure, and I hope someone actually measured it!
Thanks!