>>3349220>The Leica could really make a run for the money of the 67There seem to be many people that think a sharp lens in 35mm can match a meh lens in medium format.
In normal conditions it's not even close though.
There's no chance the system resolution (film + lens) of 35mm format can approach even a meh mid-low range medium format system.
After the '60's and '70's, most lenses have been well into the diminishing returns region.
A "really sharp" lens and a "meh" are in reality 15-20% apart at most, in terms of resolution.
Even 645 is almost 3 times the size of 35mm. Too big of a difference to gap.
The only scenario this would work, is with toy medium format cameras (Holgas, Dianas, etc.) or really old folders with simple triplet lenses, shot wide open. (And even those simple tessar designs sharpen considerably by f/11 and f/16).
If anyone considers buying a sharp lens for 600$ to get slightly better quality, I recommend they try a whole MF system for that money (or less) and then see what a jump in quality actually is.
>6x7 doesnt need even close to 21mm to be as wide, without distortion since again, it doesnt need to be 21mm.This one doesn't make sense.
It's not the focal distance in absolute value that it matters, but the lens design which is dictated by camera type (mirror reflex or not).
Most wideangles for MF SLRs have quite bad distortion, the Mamiya RB/RZ lenses, the bronica ones, everything. And on the same time you have 35mm or even half frame lenses with minimal distortion because they were not designed as a compromise to avoid hitting the mirror box.
