Derrick L. wrote in message <34726ee3.4140794@news.pacbell.net>...
[.....]

>> I know there is a big difference between the two formats, but
>>shouldnt a 4x6 print be quite sharp???? Have I become spoiled? Is my
>>choice of lens in the 35-105 wrong? Is my choice of nikon wrong? I
>>guess HOW SHARP should sharp be?

>It's hard to believe, but the entity that limits sharpness in 35mm is
>actually the lens, which yield about 100 line pairs/mm for an
>exceptional model. This limited resolution image is then projected
>upon a tiny 35mm negative.
>In comparison, medium format lenses don't resolve that much better
>than 35mm. . .however, they project their image onto a larger
>negative! Thus, a MF setup with cheap lenses has the potential to
>easily outperform a 35mm w/expensive lenses. This is, of course,
>assuming that the film quality is the same. However, most decent
>medium speed 35mm films can resolve greater than 100lp/mm anyway, and
>I would assume the same for MF.


Hmmm, where does one begin....;-) (Though the conclusion may actually
be correct...;-)
First, the original poster was probably switching from a reasonably-high quality medium-format system (with a few good prime lenses focused manually) to a much smaller-format 35mm camera with a very good slow short zoom, and an excellent-but-long-and-slow-enough-to-be-difficult-to-use-in-even-very-good-light tele zoom (assuming good samples of these lenses - zoom sample quality varies more than it does with primes) - used with auto-focus (a definitely UN-perfected technology...!). The body selected has a notably soft finder for those of us into manually focusing with 35mm. Successfully hand-holding a given angle-of-view at the same shutter speed with the two formats can go either way, and is not automatically easier with 35mm. And, it is easier to get carried away with 35mm with using longer (and therefore much harder to use successfully...) focal-length lenses. Lenses made for the 35mm format tend to have higher unit-area resolution than equivalent-quality lenses for larger formats, but the effect is subtle, and the much greater film area will win out, all other things being equal (the above poster's comments on film and lens resolutions are not correct - the aerial resolution of most good lenses can reach far higher numbers than indicated, the film resolution rarely exceeds 100 lpmm by much, and the resultant on-film resolution is an interactive thing, and will be less than the resolution of either the film or the lens [but using EITHER a sharper film AND/OR a sharper lens WILL increase the on-film resolution!]). As to the original poster's poor 4x6 prints, I suspect that the above contributed some to the disappointment, but that poor printing probably contributed much more. Much as I rant-and-rail against the practice of buying poor lenses (for whatever reason!), the truth is that even the worst lens I have seen will make a decent 4x6 print, if the negative and print were made well. The best Nikkors (most...;-) will put more detail on the negative (if the negative was made well...), than will show in a well-made 8x10 print - but this does not mean that tones will be as smoothly and nicely rendered as they might be, given a larger format camera and equal care... Try almost any Nikkor prime (or the best of the Nikkor zooms [see my lens evaluations on my web page, under "I babble"]), carefully used (not on AE or AF!), with high-quality lab work, and in 4x6 prints it should be hard to see much difference between the formats (with big prints, it is another matter...). Larger-format permits one to be a bit sloppier throughout for the same quality end product...
Hope This Helps
David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether