This obviously isn't an issue with larger-sized M-F negs, so lens makers don't bother. Leica obsesses over lens resolution because Uncles Oskar und Max knew you had to greatly enlarge 'tiny' 35mm negatives to get decent prints. Another reason is that with a film area (at least) three times the size of 35mm, you don't typically need to enlarge so much. From an engineering standpoint, it is amazingly more difficult to maintain high performance over the larger image circles M-F lenses have to project (в€… 85mm for 6ењ†, whereas only 45mm for 135). You know those ferociously detailed negatives you got from your APO-Elmarits? Fuggetaboutit. You get a larger negative for sure, but the tradeoff is having to forgo the world beyond 90 lppm. So you cannot help wondering: 'What's the Leica equivalent in medium format?вЂ¦' M-F Issues Lens resolution adieu Yet we have been spoilt by exceptional Leica glass and silky smooth mechanical bodies. Also, owing to the DSLR juggernaut, many Pros have started dumping excellent-quality M-F gear at irrational, fire-sale prices. Dual-processor machines with plenty of RAM and reasonable quality MF scanners have become far more realistically priced (for example the Epson V700 or V750). So I was forced back into miniature format if I was going to scan, manipulate and upload my images without having to take out out a dozen mortgages. Unfortunately RAM and processing power was expensive, and MF scanners were laughably overpriced. Then a couple of years later Photoshop and the internet revolution came along. So I sold all my 135 equipment and concentrated on 6x7. This happened to me in the late 80's when I found 11x14 (darkroom) prints were too grainy and lacked the kind of definition + tonality only M-F could deliver. In every photographer's life there comes a time when 24x36mm doesn't cut it anymore. Medium format Leica equivalent? Size does matter

Bronica rf645 ken rockwell