>The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it.

Please demonstrate how it "blows away" any digital camera with a 80 year old lens. This sounds to me like a completely made up claim without any data behind it. (data != one random image)

Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses. So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology than Sony A7 + 16-35mm wide lens. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th...

>Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses.

In what way? Smartphone sensors have the highest pixel density and they can still resolve an amazing amount of detail through their not-so-great tiny lenses. When it comes to ILCs, everytime there is a bump in sensor resolution, it is entirely possible to extract more detail from the same lens (provided its was a good lens to begin with). And ILCs are still not at the level of pixel density as smartphones, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement.

> So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology

Not exactly because larger sensors mean larger lenses because of the larger image circle, and then you have a manufacturing challenge of grinding and polishing an even larger amount of glass, so it doesn't scale linearly like that.

>. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th....

That image is very very nice from a compositional standpoint. I respect the work of AA, but I don't feel its rude to point out that it is not particularly sharp by modern standards - the point I assume you were trying to demonstrate? Here's one that even an total rank amateur like me can produce.. which is sharper, with an el-cheapo bargain-bin samyang lens on a non-pro camera body (6d) https://imgur.com/a/l4HBWyi

> In what way?

The lenses aren't good enough to resolve details on the new "full frame" 50+ megapixels sensors. The smaller the sensor the more the lens has to resolve. a 4x5" sheet of film is ridiculously big compared to a "full frame" sensor, hence the lens aren't as stressed [0]

> Smartphone sensors have the highest pixel density and they can still resolve an amazing amount of detail through their not-so-great tiny lenses.

No they don't, there are many algorithm tricks to make you think it resolves more details but when you look closely there isn't any details, look at these 64mp samples [1] [2] [3] [4], they don't even look like pictures anymore.

> Not exactly because larger sensors mean larger lenses because of the larger image circle ... larger amount of glass

LF lenses are much simpler than regular lenses, they don't need floating elements, they're not zooms, they don't even need moving parts because you focus through the bellow. There is more glass if you look at the weight, but less glass in term of groups/elements. If anything they're smaller than new "full frame" lenses [5], they only get big if you want something faster than f5.6-4

This is what LF gives you: http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/vel... or https://youtu.be/sqN7n9bXgtU?t=288

[0] https://www.quinnimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/sizec...

[1] https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

[2] https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

[3] https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

[4] https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

[5] https://galerie-photo.com/manuels/nikkor-lenses-for-large-fo...

>The smaller the sensor the more the lens has to resolve. a 4x5" sheet of film is ridiculously big compared to a "full frame" sensor, hence the lens aren't as stressed [0]

I can accept that as a general statement, but it depends on many factors. For e.g. The 4x5 example you linked to was scanned at 4000DPI. 4000 DPI across a 24x36mm sensor gives approximately 20 mega pixels - which is entry level full frame. So its not stressing the lens any more than your LF capture.

Now its true that, at 60+ mega pixels you're doing 6500+DPI, and 240MP (pixel shift) even more so, you're stressing the optics, but we've found that the optics is quite capable of delivering.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen...

https://www.albertdros.com/single-post/2019/09/02/Sony-A7RIV...

>No they don't, there are many algorithm tricks to make you think it resolves more details but when you look closely there isn't any details, look at these 64mp samples [1] [2] [3] [4], they don't even look like pictures anymore.

Those are JPEGS on which noise reduction and sharpening was added by the camera. We'll have to compare RAWs to see the pixel level sharpness.

But again, its not my position that smartphones, which don't have the best lenses, can compete with X,Y or Z format. I'm just pointing out that we're not at the limit of optics, as with every bump in MP we see more details, especially so in professional cameras with professional grade lenses.

>LF lenses are much simpler than regular lenses, they don't need floating elements, they're not zooms, they don't even need moving parts because you focus through the bellow. There is more glass if you look at the weight, but less glass in term of groups/elements. If anything they're smaller than new "full frame" lenses [5], they only get big if you want something faster than f5.6-4

>This is what LF gives you: http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/vel.... or https://youtu.be/sqN7n9bXgtU?t=288

We'll have to do a side by side with the same image to really compare. I don't think you'll come away with LF "blows away" 35mm digital as the poster I responded to claimed.