Re: [photo-3d] 35mm versus MF

["don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I beg to disagree about depth of field as I acouple of thousand M F slides
and they are sharp from front to back with few exceptions as any one who has
seen them probably noticed- granted I take my time and do things right. As
most real photographers know depth of focus is determined by the aperature
used  and  ratio of reduction and not by the focal length of the lens proven
by the fact that at 1:1 the depth of focus is the same whether using a one
inch lens or a ten inch lens at the same aperature-sorry for being
redundant. Don
----- Original Message -----
From: <WKarb77953@xxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] 35mm versus MF


> There has been a significant amount of discussion concerning Medium Format
vs
> 35MM format.
> I believe it's a matter of taste and technical tradeoffs.
>
> Certainly a larger image area contributes to improving the image in many
> ways.  It's the old adage "There is no substitute for square inches" .
>
> HOWEVER, since the focal length of a MF camera lens is about twice as long
as
> a 35MM, there is a distinct difference in "acceptable" depth of field (all
> else being equal), that 35mm wins hands down.
>
> A sharp stereo image is typically what's desired, from foreground to
> infinity.  There is a better chance in obtaining this with 35mm format
than
> MF.   Even better with a veiwmaster format with its subsequent increases
in
> depth of feild.
>
>
>
>