Digital BW, The Print

There's a techie reason for this though, and it's not really a film vs 
digital argument!

Medium format lenses are designed to give good coverage over the full 
frame. 

Traditionally they don't have the same resolving power as 35mm lenses, 
because they don't need it and more resolution costs more money.

However along come digital backs for medium format cameras, and what size 
sensor do they have?

Not 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 or even 6x4.5.

Mostly just 2.4x3.6 cm up to 4x4 cm. Yep, 35mm sized!

So the lenses designed for medium format can't really cope with the 
digital backs because really you need the lens resolving power to match 
the much smaller sensor.

The same thing applies to the backs for 5x4 cameras, which use the same 
sensors. In that market though the manufacturers have started to make 
"digital" lenses that are designed for the sensor size, not the size of 
the film that the camera was designed for.

In article <bae4re+fpa6@...>, peter@... (Peter 
Nelson) wrote:

> But that's not what this thread ("Techies -vs- Artists")
> is about, is it?   Go back and reread the original.  What
> THIS thread is about is the claim by some MF shooters
> that digital has such high resolution that it forces
> them to buy new, sharper lenses.  And THAT's a statement
> where numbers **DO** tell the whole story.  That's a claim 
> that could only be made by an art major.