Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 136922" data-attributes="member: 12496">Two factors:A larger negative does not have to be enlarged as much to print the same size print.So by definition, smaller Circle of Confusion.&nbsp; We don't see the problems as well when not enlarged as much.&nbsp; This is the advantage of larger film sizes.But also, larger film used longer lens.&nbsp; F/number = focal length / diameter. So if F/number is assumed the same on a longer lens, then the diameter is larger too, in same proportion.&nbsp; A larger lens diameter is a smaller Airy Disk, and is less diffraction.But the only contribution of the film was the use of the longer lens.This would hold between FX and DX too, same view on FX uses a 1.5x longer lens,&nbsp; but the sensor size difference is greatly smaller than it was with film, hardly significant now (speaking FX/DX, and excepting tiny compact cameras maybe).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 136922, member: 12496"] Two factors: A larger negative does not have to be enlarged as much to print the same size print. So by definition, smaller Circle of Confusion. We don't see the problems as well when not enlarged as much. This is the advantage of larger film sizes. But also, larger film used longer lens. F/number = focal length / diameter. So if F/number is assumed the same on a longer lens, then the diameter is larger too, in same proportion. A larger lens diameter is a smaller Airy Disk, and is less diffraction. But the only contribution of the film was the use of the longer lens. This would hold between FX and DX too, same view on FX uses a 1.5x longer lens, but the sensor size difference is greatly smaller than it was with film, hardly significant now (speaking FX/DX, and excepting tiny compact cameras maybe). [/QUOTE]

Verification