Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?  (Read 6701 times)

hdomke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
    • www.henrydomke.com
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« on: June 23, 2008, 07:58:15 pm »

Is there anything besides the number of pixels that differentiates Medium Format DSLRs and 35mm DSLRs?

I gather that Medium Format (MF) DSLRs don't use an anti-alias filter, so they need less sharpening prior to output.

Is anything else different that can be seen in the Real World (i.e. a print)?

Related questions:
1. Is there anything to support the ideas that MF images are more "3D" than those created with 35mm?  
Could it be that the 3D effect that people refer to is simply that there is a narrower depth of focus at a given aperture for larger format cameras and that means that background is more likely to be out-of-focus. Is that what creates the sense of 3D?

2. Do prints made from MF DSLRs have the potential for a greater dynamic range?
Some MF DSLRs claim to create 16-bit files. Most 35mm DSLRs create 12 or 14-bit files.
Is there any benefit that might be seen on print from cameras that claim to be 16-bit instead of 14-bit?

3. What is the relationship between bit-depth and dynamic range in a print?

I'm very happy with my Canon 1Ds Mk3, but since I create huge prints (5 x 8 feet) on my Epson 11880 printer, I'm considering the jump to MF.

Note: I had a previous post called "Can Stitching 1DsMk3 files = Med Format Quality?" but it was getting a bit bloated, so I thought I would restart as a more focused question.

There is also a parallel discussion going on around this topic called "RAW files: 1Ds3 and Phase P30+"
Logged
Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www

Murray Fredericks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 295
    • http://www.murrayfredericks.com
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2008, 08:12:59 pm »

Henry,

I am currently making big prints (up to 5m long at 360dpi) and performing a lot of work on the files. I am not a scientist in this regard but i can give you my impressions... I work with the Sinar 33mpx 75LV and also a canon 1ds and make highest quality prints from both



Quote from: hdomke,Jun 24 2008, 10:58 AM
Is there anything besides the number of pixels that differentiates Medium Format DSLRs and 35mm DSLRs?


YES - dynamic range, pixel quality, native  sharpness, micro/local contrast, micro tonality...how far you can push the files before they break up...

I gather that Medium Format (MF) DSLRs don't use an anti-alias filter, so they need less sharpening prior to output.


This makes a huge difference - the overall look is sharper and it's a more natural, less 'digital', sharpness.



Is anything else different that can be seen in the Real World (i.e. a print)?

Related questions:
1. Is there anything to support the ideas that MF images are more "3D" than those created with 35mm?  
Could it be that the 3D effect that people refer to is simply that there is a narrower depth of focus at a given aperture for larger format cameras and that means that background is more likely to be out-of-focus. Is that what creates the sense of 3D?

The 3D effect has nothing to do with depth of field or depth of focus. I pretty much only shoot with everything in focus on both systems. The 3D effect is like comparing video with film in the cinema - one media just has more depth appearance as an inherent quality.. Because there is more colour information and more steps in the exposure scale, there is more differentiation between the various visual elements in the image therefore more depth/3d -call it what you want.

2. Do prints made from MF DSLRs have the potential for a greater dynamic range?
Some MF DSLRs claim to create 16-bit files. Most 35mm DSLRs create 12 or 14-bit files.
Is there any benefit that might be seen on print from cameras that claim to be 16-bit instead of 14-bit?

There is more DR in the file therefore more info to print in the tops and bottoms of the prints. I use Brumbaer to process my Sinar back files and it recovers the highlights where some of the channels are already blown...the DR far exceed 35mm and neg film for that matter.

The only place the MFDBs fall over is at the long exposure - over 1sec (maybe) and 10sec (definately)



Cheers

Murray
Logged
Exhibition Website   http://www.murrayfr

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2008, 08:14:37 pm »

Try reading the forum. These questions have all come up before.
Logged

Mort54

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 590
    • http://
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2008, 10:09:50 pm »

Quote
Is there anything besides the number of pixels that differentiates Medium Format DSLRs and 35mm DSLRs?
Henry, it seems this topic was beaten to death in your previous thread. I don't know what more can be gained by talking further on the subject. I think you need to borrow a system for a day or a weekend and do your own comparisons on your own monitor and in your own prints. Most of your questions are somewhat subjective and can only be answered by doing your own testing.

Call Steve Moeckel at Schiller's in St. Louis. He should be able to get you a Phase One back and a Mamiya 645 II (maybe even the new Phase AFD III body) to evaluate. He might even be able to get you a Hasselblad system, tho I'm not sure on this. He was able to get me a Phase/Mamiya system to use for a long weekend, and I'm sure he could do the same for you.

I personally feel the major difference between the latest 14-bit DSLRs and a MFDB is the number of MP, and the lack of an AA filter (that difference should not be underestimated, however - it's not something that you can easily make up for by stitching, as you suggested in your previous thread). However, I only use my MFDB for natural light landscapes. I don't know if my observations hold in other circumstances (for example, I might have a totally different opinion if I shot in a studio). Also, since I'm shooting with Mamiya lenses, which aren't the sharpest, I might be doing the back a disservice. I'm sure there's better glass you can put in front of a MFDB, for instance, that would yield sharper images and better micro-contrast, and might therefore reveal even greater benefits over DSLRs.

Do yourself a favor and get your hands on a demo system from Steve.
Logged
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My

rethmeier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
    • http://www.willemrethmeier.com
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2008, 11:06:20 pm »

I second that Mort54!

Just go and test!

At the end of the day you still might need 2 systems.

I use a DSLR and a MF DB system and they both have their places,as has been discussed a thousand times.

Cheers and Good Luck!

Willem.
Logged
Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2008, 11:49:16 pm »

Hi!

Some differences:

- MFDBs normally are CCD based while DSLRs more often use CMOS.
- MFDBs have generally larger pixels than DSLRs. This may not be true for some comparisons.
- MFDBs lack AntiAliasing filter (exeption Mamiya, where its is option)
- MFDBs normally lack microlenses (with some exceptions)
- MFDBs are individually calibrated to a greater extent than DSLRs, partly because of sample variations of the sensors themselves.
- MFDBs normally are used with fixed focus or low range zooms. This may result in higher contrast, because of fewer elements in the lens.
- MFDBs are used by better photographers, to some extent :-)

One issue is that modern DSLR technology stresses the limits of optical design. High resolution sensors demand very highly corrected lenses. The high level of correction required of a small format lens may result in poor bokeh. This has a lot to do market economics to, would you pay a lot of money for a 90/2.8 for a DSLR? No? So you buy an 85/1.4 which needs a lot more aggressive correction to be anything like usable at full aperture.


Best regards
Erik


Quote
Is there anything besides the number of pixels that differentiates Medium Format DSLRs and 35mm DSLRs?

I gather that Medium Format (MF) DSLRs don't use an anti-alias filter, so they need less sharpening prior to output.

Is anything else different that can be seen in the Real World (i.e. a print)?

Related questions:
1. Is there anything to support the ideas that MF images are more "3D" than those created with 35mm? 
Could it be that the 3D effect that people refer to is simply that there is a narrower depth of focus at a given aperture for larger format cameras and that means that background is more likely to be out-of-focus. Is that what creates the sense of 3D?

2. Do prints made from MF DSLRs have the potential for a greater dynamic range?
Some MF DSLRs claim to create 16-bit files. Most 35mm DSLRs create 12 or 14-bit files.
Is there any benefit that might be seen on print from cameras that claim to be 16-bit instead of 14-bit?

3. What is the relationship between bit-depth and dynamic range in a print?

I'm very happy with my Canon 1Ds Mk3, but since I create huge prints (5 x 8 feet) on my Epson 11880 printer, I'm considering the jump to MF.

Note: I had a previous post called "Can Stitching 1DsMk3 files = Med Format Quality?" but it was getting a bit bloated, so I thought I would restart as a more focused question.

There is also a parallel discussion going on around this topic called "RAW files: 1Ds3 and Phase P30+"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2008, 01:45:20 am »

Quote
Is there anything besides the number of pixels that differentiates Medium Format DSLRs and 35mm DSLRs?


1. Is there anything to support the ideas that MF images are more "3D" than those created with 35mm?  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the 3d effect is related to narrow DOF yes.

---------

There are things that make MF attractive that have nothing to do with the digital side of the technology

Large bright viewfinder

Easy clean chip

Useable on view cameras for tilt and shift and easy super stitching

High flash synchs with leaf lenses

Also 25 or 50 ISO which can be great in the sun !

The difference on a bright day with my D3 restriced to 250th and 200 ISO Vs 800th and 25 ISO (on the blad) is 5 stops of light control

none of these things may matter to you of course
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Dinarius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2008, 05:51:45 am »

Yawn!

As someone who owns both a Hasselblad H3Dll 39Mp MS and a Canon 1Ds M3, I can tell you that the Hasselblad is on another planet.

D.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2008, 08:37:21 am »

Hi,

I just hope that you have air, water and electricity on that planet.... ;-)

Erik

Quote
Yawn!

As someone who owns both a Hasselblad H3Dll 39Mp MS and a Canon 1Ds M3, I can tell you that the Hasselblad is on another planet.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2008, 08:50:16 am »

Bored.

Yet another of the same.
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

ixpressraf

  • Guest
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2008, 09:27:26 am »

Why do we keep on giving reply to that old same silly question that appears again and again and is always started by people who do not want to understand. I feel no need to explain to myself why i have chosen MF above dslr. If you are in the business of making money, buying a MF back is not a problem when needed to do the job wright. A MF back is just a tool, such as there are fillips screwdrivers and thorque drivers, but there also exist a powerdriver and even one on compressed air. I have never heard these discussions at such a ridiculous level between carpenters or other skilled handcrafters: they just use the tool that fits the job!
 
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2008, 10:20:12 am »

Moderator: please lock or delete these theads. Nothing good ever comes from them.
Logged

ternst

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2008, 10:37:23 am »

Hey guys, if you are so bored, and know so much, and are such great photographers with the perfect equipment, why do you bother reading and posting to threads like this in the first place? YOU are the ones who must make an effort to actually click on and read them - no one forces you to do so. While I agree it is amusing to try to find specific answers to questions that may not have them, it can also be educational, and what is the harm? Aren't these public forums here to allow a free and open exchange of ideas? Chill out, let Henry ask all the questions he wants to. Good god guys, get a life - read the posts you want to and ignore the rest and don't fault others for trying to find answers - exactly like you have been doing here too, duh...
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2008, 10:48:13 am »

Quote
Aren't these public forums here to allow a free and open exchange of ideas? Chill out, let Henry ask all the questions he wants to.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually no! Not on any subject you please. Each forum is dedicated to ONE SUBJECT which is clearly indicated. If anyone wants to learn about Canon cameras, there are a thousand forums on that particular subject.

Posting threads like this is like going to a BMW forum and posting "hey, why don't you guys buy Audis instead?" It's off-topic, shows a lack of etiquette and respect and is doubly poor behaviour when you consider that the topic of the thread is a repeat of a repeat of a repeat.

If you still don't get it:
[a href=\"http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting[/url]
« Last Edit: June 24, 2008, 10:48:25 am by foto-z »
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2008, 11:24:21 am »

Everyone, please chill.

Michael
Logged

ternst

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2008, 11:48:33 am »

Hey Graham, I didn't say any subject you please - those are your words. I think asking about a MFB in the MFB forum is pretty much exactly right on target and what this forum is all about, don't you think? Yes Michael, I agree, and repeat, chill...
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2008, 12:55:48 pm »

Quote
Hey Graham, I didn't say any subject you please - those are your words. I think asking about a MFB in the MFB forum is pretty much exactly right on target and what this forum is all about, don't you think? Yes Michael, I agree, and repeat, chill...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your last post was just full of assumption. Michael did not indicate who his comments were aimed at, but you now try to seek the moral high ground by passing off an inference that it was aimed at Graham.

That piece of behaviour is far beneath what I've come to expect on this forum, and I'm disappointed.
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Medium Format vs 35mm - Just More Pixels?
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2008, 01:30:11 pm »

Quote
Hey Graham, I didn't say any subject you please - those are your words.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, they are yours: "a free and open exchange of ideas"
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up