>> |
Anonymous
>>282430 Oh, I do spend plenty of time here, I just considered that you made it sound like what I said had no truth to it. I wanted to clear it up.
Now that I look more closely though, I'm a bit curious about what you're saying...
>The glass is bigger so you get more photons in, more photons per area on the sensor give a better er, limit, resolution so you can resolve more detail than you can with a 35mm sized lens.
>more photons per area, MF vs 35mm
I don't believe you're right. 80mm F2.8 and a 50mm 2.8 lens apply the same amount of light per area, wouldn't they? There -will- be a difference in the lens design, but the most important difference is probably the field of view for each format. An 80mm MF lens must yield a field of view of around 45 degrees, just like a 50mm would for 35mm. The MF lens will arguably allow more light past it, but it's also true that it must cover a larger area. Exposure time will be the same between both lenses in their respective formats.
Say you have 35mm and MF film, you make an equal exposure with both lenses/cameras, each yielding a very similar field of view, but a different image radius. Considering that they have the same film emulsion equipped, the only difference you'll have between the two pictures is that you're taking up a larger area to project the same field of view. Because both mediums have the same emulsion density, and both lenses project the same amount of light per area, the only difference will be that you're dedicating a larger area to a similar angle of view in the case of MF.
Additionally, due to the generally larger back focal lengths, MF lenses require different optical formulas, which might also result in better-performing lenses.
TLDR: MF and 35mm gather the same amount of light at the same aperture, the difference is that MF uses a larger area per angle of view, which yields more detail. It's like comparing two images, one that's shot at 1024x768 and another one at 640x480.
|