Why Medium Format Digital?

[dreed]

Or perhaps "Why not"? Unaffordable.

When I can get a complete MF digital solution for the same price as a D800 digital solution, then it will be of interest to myself (and I suspect many others.)

[E.J. Peiker]

"medium format will never meet the expectations of those who are looking for 35mm-like autofocus performance. It won’t happen. "

Have you tried a Pentax 645z...

[Jim Pascoe]

Interesting article and very logical.  But, is it really 'necessary' to have such high resolution - even for huge prints for interior design.  One is not going to stand up against a 40 inch print and view it.  Well I suppose you would if you could......

We each have our own desires and justifications for the gear we use and so perhaps it is just interesting to see what drives others.  For myself I am moving evermore towards smaller cameras - even for my professional work.  But then I'm not producing 40 inch prints!

Not knocking Andy though - if I could I probably would have a MF camera knocking around to play with....

Jim

[yslee]

Different people have different thresholds of what is "good enough". For me I was happy with the D300's 12mp files at 20x30. Even 30x45 was possible but it required a lot of care, starting from capture all the way to print. I'll bet Andy would have seen my prints and cringed on the spot though.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess that high end digital makes a lot of sense, if you can afford it. Lower end digital makes also a lot of sense if used by leaf shutters (for high shutter speeds using flash outside) or on technical cameras.

But whatever the camera, you still need to make best use of it.

Best regards
Erik

[Joe S]

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/

Big Sony camera announcement 3-4 months AFTER Photokina. New high resolution sensor cameras coming!

This may add to the discussion.

[Garry Sarre]

You are right when you say no one is going to stand up next to a forty foot print. (Except maybe some of us here). In any case, big outdoor posters are lo res, sometimes only 3 or 4 meg.

It's mostly not about the megapixels for me.... As far as I know, no other portrait photographer in my town, can be bothered with Medium format, it's too hard/expensive. But...as a professional, I believe I have to have superior gear. The best available.

I use MF for the following reasons in our portrait studio....and this includes corporate portrait headshots for web images... often displayed at only 100pxls on web pages, and 40" prints.

1. I can see the subjects subtle expression changes of the person through the view finder. It's big and clear on the H5D. It's practically 3D compared to a full frame dslr, let alone a 2/3 size sensor.

2. Because of the big and bright viewfinder, I can focus manually when I want. It's quicker than auto focus in the studio. I don't miss the shot because the autofocus is searching.

3. It's been said many times...  It slows me down and I get the shot in 3 rather 10 images.

4. Even though 90% of my work is Black and White, when I do colour, it's more accurate. It looks 'more right' from the start.

5. I can start work in 16bit 270meg files with gorgeous skin tones and smooth gradations. The images are more real and less electronic/artifacty. There's real detail to be seen.

6. The Bokeh is beautiful...even on mid range focal length lens. 80 - 120

6. Cropping into an image doesn't compromise quality much.

7. I will never be shooting someone who has a better camera than me:) It's damned impressive which means less reluctance with the credit card.

I used to shoot MF film for portrait. I recall printing some 8x10 negs and being amazed at the silky skin tones they reproduced compared to my 'small' Blad negs.

That's my slant on it.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Sort of a good point. We don't actually know about the great news in January (?), said to be 46 MP sensor.

With new lenses from Sigma (Art) and Zeiss (Otus and Loxia) next generation of DSLRs will be competitive with low end MFD.

Best regards
Erik

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/

Big Sony camera announcement 3-4 months AFTER Photokina. New high resolution sensor cameras coming!

This may add to the discussion.

[Jim Pascoe]

You are right when you say no one is going to stand up next to a forty foot print. (Except maybe some of us here). In any case, big outdoor posters are lo res, sometimes only 3 or 4 meg.

It's mostly not about the megapixels for me.... As far as I know, no other portrait photographer in my town, can be bothered with Medium format, it's too hard/expensive. But...as a professional, I believe I have to have superior gear. The best available.

I use MF for the following reasons in our portrait studio....and this includes corporate portrait headshots for web images... often displayed at only 100pxls on web pages, and 40" prints.

1. I can see the subjects subtle expression changes of the person through the view finder. It's big and clear on the H5D. It's practically 3D compared to a full frame dslr, let alone a 2/3 size sensor.

2. Because of the big and bright viewfinder, I can focus manually when I want. It's quicker than auto focus in the studio. I don't miss the shot because the autofocus is searching.

3. It's been said many times...  It slows me down and I get the shot in 3 rather 10 images.

4. Even though 90% of my work is Black and White, when I do colour, it's more accurate. It looks 'more right' from the start.

5. I can start work in 16bit 270meg files with gorgeous skin tones and smooth gradations. The images are more real and less electronic/artifacty. There's real detail to be seen.

6. The Bokeh is beautiful...even on mid range focal length lens. 80 - 120

6. Cropping into an image doesn't compromise quality much.

7. I will never be shooting someone who has a better camera than me:) It's damned impressive which means less reluctance with the credit card.

I used to shoot MF film for portrait. I recall printing some 8x10 negs and being amazed at the silky skin tones they reproduced compared to my 'small' Blad negs.

That's my slant on it.

All very valid points - though it has to be said most of this appeals to you/us as a photographer rather than what the client needs/wants.  I agree a camera needs to be enjoyable to use - I remember fondly film medium format.
I personally don't worry about point 7 though - I get a perverse pleasure from producing good pictures from a small camera!  I've never felt customers pay me based on my gear - only on my skill.  How lucky we are to have such an amazing choice of gear now.

Jim

[jerome_m]

But, is it really 'necessary' to have such high resolution - even for huge prints for interior design.  One is not going to stand up against a 40 inch print and view it.

Do yourself a favour and go to an art gallery or a museum exhibiting large prints. A large photographic print that is sharp viewed up close is a stunning experience.

Let us take this picture from the article as an example:




Even in web size, it is a very nice picture. Now, imagine it wall size and imagine yourself being able to make out individual grass stems and details in the girafes' hair.

[JohnBrew]

I hope Andy will answer this question and modify his post. I would like to know the f-stop used for all the images in the article. This is important to me because I would like to consider MF, but the narrower DOF concerns me for landscape photography. And yes, I have perused many other photographers images, but the ones I like are shot with a technical camera body. But any article extolling virtues of something without the f-stop used are worthless to me.

[Jim Pascoe]

Do yourself a favour and go to an art gallery or a museum exhibiting large prints. A large photographic print that is sharp viewed up close is a stunning experience.

Let us take this picture from the article as an example:




Even in web size, it is a very nice picture. Now, imagine it wall size and imagine yourself being able to make out individual grass stems and details in the girafes' hair.

I have seen big prints and in my first post I did admit it might actually be worth MF to get up close.  We are of course talking about a very small number of photographers who would get the most out of such a system.

Jim

[BernardLanguillier]

With new lenses from Sigma (Art) and Zeiss (Otus and Loxia) next generation of DSLRs will be competitive with low end MFD.

In my view, the current generation already is Erik. Moving from 36mp to 46mp (+28%) would make very little practical difference. Even less than a move from 22mp with AA filter to 36mp without AA filter (+64%) for instance.

In my view a D810 + Otus is equal or superior to the 39-40MP backs mounted on SLR cameras with most MF lenses along most key metrics. It is less obvious if you mount those backs on technical cameras. That's if you don't consider stitching. If you stitch the D810 is far superior across the board for obvious reasons well described in the past.

The giraffe picture is very nice and very high resolution must help make it special, no doubt.

Would stitching have been applicable? Not having been there it is difficult to figure out whether it could have been achieved by stitching, but it would for sure have been a more stressful shooting experience in terms of timing of the giraffe position/neck direction. On the other hand stitching would have enabled to decouple the giraffes movement which might have made it easier to get nice and well matched positions faster in fact. That would have required a planned approach to image capture that is often difficult to execute in the heat of the moment.

The following image of a pretty crowded street in Kanazawa Japan, shows a good example of how stitching can help build images by optimizing the timing of each sub-frame (here by chosing moments where there is nobody in each part of the street).



Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Goldhammer]

The following image of a pretty crowded street in Kanazawa Japan, shows a good example of how stitching can help build images by optimizing the timing of each sub-frame (here by chosing moments where there is nobody in each part of the street).



Cheers,
Bernard

I really like this one.  How many images did you capture to make it.

Alan

[BernardLanguillier]

I really like this one.  How many images did you capture to make it.

Alan,

From the top of my head, probably 5 handheld. This is D800 + 85mm f1.4 G (probably around f6.3/7.1, possibly with adjusted focus point from frame to frame).

Cheers,
Bernard

[jerome_m]

If you stitch the D810 is far superior across the board for obvious reasons well described in the past.

There certainly are other solutions than MF cameras to produce high resolution pictures. Stitching is one, sheet film would be another.

The giraffe picture is very nice and very high resolution must help make it special, no doubt.

Would stitching have been applicable? Not having been there it is difficult to figure out whether it could have been achieved by stitching, but it would for sure have been a more stressful shooting experience in terms of timing of the giraffe position/neck direction. On the other hand stitching would have enabled to decouple the giraffes movement which might have made it easier to get nice and well matched positions faster in fact. That would have required a planned approach to image capture that is often difficult to execute in the heat of the moment.

With that particular picture, I would venture that stitching would be impossible. If there is a bit of wind, the grass will move and it will be impossible to join the halves together.

[BernardLanguillier]

With that particular picture, I would venture that stitching would be impossible. If there is a bit of wind, the grass will move and it will be impossible to join the halves together.

Yes, that may be, but I don't think that would be a big problem. One reason being that the close ones where issues would be most visible doesn't seem to be in the plane of focus.

It is nearly always possible to deal with this, most often fully automatically, worst case through manual masking. Most small stitching issues are in fact invisible.

Cheers,
Bernard

[barryfitzgerald]

There are valid reasons for some to use and require medium format or even larger formats.
However larger formats were, and remain a relatively niche area and are largely irrelevant to the needs of most users.

Nice to have a choice, I honestly don't see any kind of larger format (than 35mm FF) dominating the market in the future.
Doesn't diminish the needs of others, just not mainstream.

[ndevlin]

Because I like it.

Because I can.

Because it makes me happy.

Because it makes beautiful pictures.

- N.

[Telecaster]

When I shot 4x5" film it wasn't 'cuz I wanted to make big prints. In fact I rarely printed larger than 8x10". It was the procedures & discipline needed to use the camera & lens that I wanted to master. It was fun. I use the Pentax (645D) now, not 'cuz there's much to "master" relative to other current gear, but because my other gear is small & light & handheld & I take a freewheeling approach with it while the Pentax is bigger & heavier & tripod mounted & I take a careful approach. I also rarely print big with it…9x12" or so. No point. I don't have the wall space for big prints, and most folks I know would rather have a 2048x1536 JPEG they can display on various screens than even a 9x12. Most of the time, frankly, so would I.

-Dave-