Is the size of the sensor that determines digital MF? ...Or is the use of it?

[fotometria gr]

 In film days MF was delivering more to his user than just higher resolution and better quality, it was always considered as the path to real photography due to its flexibility, choice of film for the task at any time and compatibility with LF/view camera movements (nearly all LF users had at least one MF back). There were some MF cameras that where not offering interchangeable backs (Pentax, Exakta, etc), but this was only a small minority, the main demand from the users was because of the above mentioned "MF values". In these days however and while DSLR quality improves all the time and will continue to do so, there seems to be a tendency from manufacturers to only preserve the "improved quality" part of these MF values, which do improve quality indeed, but don't improve photography. Even the shallower DOF of MF is now easy to overcome by the faster DSLR lenses. I wonder if the path that some manufacturers follow, like Pentax or Leica, that can only benefit IQ, is of any point for the future or if the consumers will prefer to access the extra quality with DSLR advancement. I also wonder if these makers can be compared with the "interchangeable back" makers (p1/leaf, hass, sinar) or if they should be considered as Canon/Nikon/Sony competitors. I also wonder if the choice of the interchangeable back manufactures to design their bodies with LCDs and complex menus along with useless functions for the advanced photographer is the right choice. Especially for Hasselblad H though, I wonder if their choice to stop the production of the CF series of backs is to their benefit. Any other thoughts? Regards, Theodoros.   

[ced]

I would think that because sensors will increase in mpx and probably size too so without wanting to confuse the matter it should be the camera type that classes whether it is DSLR,MF or LF or whatever.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

One of the things I have always associated with medium format is the modularity of most (as you stated there are exceptions) systems which allow for you to use various backs, lenses, bodies, and viewfinders together to get what your looking for.....That said, I think it is largely determined by sensor size because so many things stem from this....Assuming that 35mm FF sensors will eventually catch up to or eventually gain an equivalent megapixel count at some point (some even beat some digital backs now)...its about the physical size of the sensor, how it has such a larger area, with bigger pixels which allow for the amazing dynamic range and all the other things you think of when you think of medium format digital cameras.

[Martin Kristiansen]

As we used to say in the old days. "There is nothing wrong with 35mm that a good 8X10 wont fix"

[Rob C]

As we used to say in the old days. "There is nothing wrong with 35mm that a good 8X10 wont fix"

Yep, you're right, they often did pull those old chestnuts out for the occasion, even then!

Trouble is, that was/is all a matter of simplistic thinking: there are always going to be specifically designed horses for courses, and nothing's gonna change that any time soon, if ever!

;-)

Rob C

[fotometria gr]

One of the things I have always associated with medium format is the modularity of most (as you stated there are exceptions) systems which allow for you to use various backs, lenses, bodies, and viewfinders together to get what your looking for.....That said, I think it is largely determined by sensor size because so many things stem from this....Assuming that 35mm FF sensors will eventually catch up to or eventually gain an equivalent megapixel count at some point (some even beat some digital backs now)...its about the physical size of the sensor, how it has such a larger area, with bigger pixels which allow for the amazing dynamic range and all the other things you think of when you think of medium format digital cameras.

As you can see Brian non of the up to now quoters consider resolution as such to be "MF value", in fact, I suspect, it's not the sensor's image area either (after all we are all referring to the early 24x36 backs as "MF backs", aren't we?), now what the 8x10 (or 4x5, or Fuji gx680... etc.) can do that a DSLR cannot do? The answer don't just rely in movements, that's only a part of it, in the mean time we had "multishot" and "true color" in the equation. Perhaps IQ as such, is the least of the factors that declare "MF values" and perhaps the choice of MF manufactures to ONLY CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS HIGH-END photography is SUICIDAL, because simply there are photographers left in this world (among gadget users), that NEED (don't want) MF photography. Regards, Theodoros. 

[cefthym]

It's definitely the use of it ... most of the MF solutions (and when i say most i mean up to 90%) are useless. I would like however, some MF "defenders" to deliver some good arguments on this...just to spice things up

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My view is there are some essential benefits to larger format. The benefits are mainly that a larger format collects more photons and a larger format will have better fine detail contrast than a smaller format.

Smaller formats now generally use CMOS sensors. CMOS has a couple of benefits. One benefit is that it can be read out multiple times, allowing for a technique called correlated double sampling which reduces noise. Another advantage of CMOS is that it makes on chip conversion possible, a technique that can reduce readout noise.

It may also be simpler to make highly corrected lenses for smaller formats.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible to build a CMOS based MF camera. There are probably a couple of reasons that it is not done yet. The main issue is probably scale of economics. The companies developing CMOS technology may not be interested in MF, probably due to low volumes. The other issue may be that CMOS sensors may need other electronic interfaces than CCDs. All DSLR vendors have specific ASIC for controlling the cameras called DIGIC, Bionz or Expeed. Small vendors may be less able to develop specifics ASICs.

Best regards
Erik

In film days MF was delivering more to his user than just higher resolution and better quality, it was always considered as the path to real photography due to its flexibility, choice of film for the task at any time and compatibility with LF/view camera movements (nearly all LF users had at least one MF back). There were some MF cameras that where not offering interchangeable backs (Pentax, Exakta, etc), but this was only a small minority, the main demand from the users was because of the above mentioned "MF values". In these days however and while DSLR quality improves all the time and will continue to do so, there seems to be a tendency from manufacturers to only preserve the "improved quality" part of these MF values, which do improve quality indeed, but don't improve photography. Even the shallower DOF of MF is now easy to overcome by the faster DSLR lenses. I wonder if the path that some manufacturers follow, like Pentax or Leica, that can only benefit IQ, is of any point for the future or if the consumers will prefer to access the extra quality with DSLR advancement. I also wonder if these makers can be compared with the "interchangeable back" makers (p1/leaf, hass, sinar) or if they should be considered as Canon/Nikon/Sony competitors. I also wonder if the choice of the interchangeable back manufactures to design their bodies with LCDs and complex menus along with useless functions for the advanced photographer is the right choice. Especially for Hasselblad H though, I wonder if their choice to stop the production of the CF series of backs is to their benefit. Any other thoughts? Regards, Theodoros.   

[hjulenissen]

All DSLR vendors have specific ASIC for controlling the cameras called DIGIC, Bionz or Expeed. Small vendors may be less able to develop specifics ASICs.

The small-scale alternative to ASICs tends to be fpga. A lot more expensive and power-hungry, but that may not be a problem in a large expensive MF.

-h

[fotometria gr]

Yep, you're right, they often did pull those old chestnuts out for the occasion, even then!

Trouble is, that was/is all a matter of simplistic thinking: there are always going to be specifically designed horses for courses, and nothing's gonna change that any time soon, if ever!

;-)

Rob C

I am not sure it will be like this in the future Rob, Not now that Hasselblad stopped making the CFs. They even not allow A Hass owner to change from V to H and keep his back! The interchangeable mounts of the CFs could solve many problems and would give access to a Hasselblad DB for owners of other cameras. The difference with the old days is that nobody would force you to change the film that suits you to work with! Regards, Theodoros.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My guess is that Hasselblad makes a lot of money on the backs. I would also assume that their antics don't affect enough people for Hasselblad to loose customers.

Best regards
Erik

I am not sure it will be like this in the future Rob, Not now that Hasselblad stopped making the CFs. They even not allow A Hass owner to change from V to H and keep his back! The interchangeable mounts of the CFs could solve many problems and would give access to a Hasselblad DB for owners of other cameras. The difference with the old days is that nobody would force you to change the film that suits you to work with! Regards, Theodoros.

[fotometria gr]

Hi,

My guess is that Hasselblad makes a lot of money on the backs. I would also assume that their antics don't affect enough people for Hasselblad to loose customers.

Best regards
Erik

But they do loose customers Erik, they don't allow users of other cameras to have access to their backs AND they obstruct superb technologies like "MICROSTEP" to be widely spread! What's even worst they now treat their own V-system customers as unwanted customers. Regards, Theodoros.

[uaiomex]

Exactly. I looked with dismay how Hasselblad turned their efforts to the H system, and that was even before digital gets positioned as the main trend. After decades of claiming the superior convenience of the square and the obsolecence-free quality of the V system, they slowly abandoned it to near zero. It is sad to look back at my perfect V system inside a dark drawer. Since this system is neglected, I don't see any bargains on used backs. On the opposite side, there are hundreds of good offers on used H backs. Too bad. I never liked the concept of the 645 medium format used at eye level at all times. For that, a dslr is unbeatable, especially since digital. I'm awaiting with big expectations the new FF cameras coming this year. Quite possibly a moment of true for the whole industry. Will these megapixel dslr cameras deliver yet better quality for fine-art and world-class offset printing? Or will they show that the limit of the FF sensor has been reached?
I can barely wait!
Eduardo

What's even worst they now treat their own V-system customers as unwanted customers. Regards, Theodoros.

[uaiomex]

It's official. Nikon D800 with 36.3 megapixels!
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Nikon-D800-2.jpg
Eduardo

[Barkeeper]

More information (german):
http://probis.de/images/stories/PDF/prospekt_nikond800_probis.pdf

only 2.430 Euro (ex VAT)...

Barkeeper

[Terence h]

Wow good price , Canon is going to have to think quickly , and the E version might start challenging
MFDB in resolution , we shall see soon enough.

[paratom]

In film days MF was delivering more to his user than just higher resolution and better quality, it was always considered as the path to real photography due to its flexibility, choice of film for the task at any time and compatibility with LF/view camera movements (nearly all LF users had at least one MF back). There were some MF cameras that where not offering interchangeable backs (Pentax, Exakta, etc), but this was only a small minority, the main demand from the users was because of the above mentioned "MF values". In these days however and while DSLR quality improves all the time and will continue to do so, there seems to be a tendency from manufacturers to only preserve the "improved quality" part of these MF values, which do improve quality indeed, but don't improve photography. Even the shallower DOF of MF is now easy to overcome by the faster DSLR lenses. I wonder if the path that some manufacturers follow, like Pentax or Leica, that can only benefit IQ, is of any point for the future or if the consumers will prefer to access the extra quality with DSLR advancement. I also wonder if these makers can be compared with the "interchangeable back" makers (p1/leaf, hass, sinar) or if they should be considered as Canon/Nikon/Sony competitors. I also wonder if the choice of the interchangeable back manufactures to design their bodies with LCDs and complex menus along with useless functions for the advanced photographer is the right choice. Especially for Hasselblad H though, I wonder if their choice to stop the production of the CF series of backs is to their benefit. Any other thoughts? Regards, Theodoros.   

I see it like this:
One of the flexibility factors of the past were film magazines. We dont need this any more, we have a display so we dont need to shoot polaroids first, we can change ISO, and we can convert color to S/W images. So nearly every digital camera has this flöexibilitx today.

The second flexibility factor I see are viewfinders. The camera being most flexible here is the Hy6, its the only actual camera IMO which offers a nice WLF, or a good45 degree finder. I dont see this flexibility in Phase and only for some part in the H-system (the H-WLF is ugly IMO).
I think interchangable finder is a nice to have but makes-on the other side-the camera bigger and makes it less resistant to dirt and humidity.

The main (and maybe only) flexibility factor of a seperation of back and body I see is the ability to use the digital back on a tech camera. This can be a big argument to have movements.

IMO it doesnt make sense to put cameras in categories, you have to figur out what YOU need and want and then find your solution.

For example in my case a weatherproof camera, which is good for handholding, which has fast lenses being good wide open, and a reliable accurate AF means more flexibility than an interchangable viewfinder. For someone else a WLF might be a preference and therefore a must.

If we talk about the S2 IQ is an important factor for me, but there are other things why I prefer it over my Nikon as long as I dont have to shoot in dim light or fast action. One important is the size of the viewfinder, another important the quality of the lenses (I dont know a 50mm FOV AF-lens for which shows the same bokeh and quality like the 70mm S lens), the user interface.
What do I miss most? to be able to use a tech-camera here and then or in other words-a good T/S lens.
By the way I think my "dream" would have been a 35mm-sized Leica S camera which accepts Leica-R lenses but also some new Leica-AF lenses.
All this with the user interface of the S2 and with a sensor of the same character (CCD, non AA), maybe with same pixel density like the S2.

[markymarkrb]

I like the def off of wikipedia:

Medium format has traditionally referred to a film format in still photography and the related cameras and equipment that use that film. Generally, the term applies to film and digital cameras that record images on media larger than 24 by 36 mm (full-frame) (used in 35 mm photography), but smaller than 4 by 5 inches (which is considered to be large-format photography).

In digital photography, medium format refers either to cameras adapted from medium format film photography uses, or to cameras making use of sensors larger than that of a 35 mm film frame.