Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: N80 on August 08, 2016, 08:11:22 am
-
I am an amateur photographer x 30 years. I shoot moderate to high end 35mm equipment. I recently switched from LR to Capture One and gained some exposure to Phase One's camera equipment which is very interesting particularly their new 100mp back.
I understand that this type of equipment is primarily used by professionals. I know a number of talented professionals (journalists, wedding, portrait, artists etc) and none of them used MF digital although some of them used MF film in the past.
So I'm wondering (genuinely, I'm not trolling here) what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera systems (over and above 35mm digital systems with 30-50mp sensors) and why. I posted this question on the Phase One forums but got no reply. Most of the discussion there was purely technical of course.
Any insight appreciated.
-
I am an amateur photographer x 30 years. I shoot moderate to high end 35mm equipment. I recently switched from LR to Capture One and gained some exposure to Phase One's camera equipment which is very interesting particularly their new 100mp back.
I understand that this type of equipment is primarily used by professionals. I know a number of talented professionals (journalists, wedding, portrait, artists etc) and none of them used MF digital although some of them used MF film in the past.
So I'm wondering (genuinely, I'm not trolling here) what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera systems (over and above 35mm digital systems with 30-50mp sensors) and why. I posted this question on the Phase One forums but got no reply. Most of the discussion there was purely technical of course.
Any insight appreciated.
"Requires" is an interesting word. The answer is probably "almost none". As I am cynical, I would say that much of the MF "requires" 100MP argument serves to justify inflated shooting budgets. It was not always so, but of late the small cameras have really caught up, and multi-shot is being implemented on several low cost japanese mirrorless dSLRs
On the other hand, many of the MF equipment owners are superb photographers, technically and artistically, and the images they show are extraordinary.
Edmund
-
I am not sure that pros represent the majority of MFDB owners, wealthy amateurs certainly seem to be very well represented too.
Our resident dealers have listed in the past the many objective reasons why shooting MF has some advantages over smaller formats. Some quick points:
- leaf shutter lenses,
- mountability on tech cams,
- different look resulting from the larger sensor
- excellent color profiles
- very good lense, especially wides and short teles
- ...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
Everything you say about leafshutterability, mountability, shiftability, profilability is true, but does not explain the point of paying 50K for 100MP when an 8K CMOS Hassy back will get you all of the same with 50MP, and an old Imacon tethered back will do,the same for 1K. As for the image quality, really most of it can be had with 35mm these days as the OP points out.
In the end I think "Ferrari" is the best concise reply. And there's nothing wrong with liking fast cars, but Mercedes is ok too for most of us :) My experience was that in the end the MF system is usually too much bother, which may be true also for people going shopping, although I know of one guy who got a Ferrari to pick up his kid at school because the other parents were looking down at his daily beater.
Edmund
I am not sure that pros represent the majority of MFDB owners, wealthy amateurs certainly seem to be very well represented too.
Our resident dealers have listed in the past the many objective reasons why shooting MF has some advantages over smaller formats. Some quick points:
- leaf shutter lenses,
- mountability on tech cams,
- different look resulting from the larger sensor
- excellent color profiles
- very good lense, especially wides and short teles
- ...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am an amateur photographer x 30 years. I shoot moderate to high end 35mm equipment. I recently switched from LR to Capture One and gained some exposure to Phase One's camera equipment which is very interesting particularly their new 100mp back.
I understand that this type of equipment is primarily used by professionals. I know a number of talented professionals (journalists, wedding, portrait, artists etc) and none of them used MF digital although some of them used MF film in the past.
So I'm wondering (genuinely, I'm not trolling here) what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera systems (over and above 35mm digital systems with 30-50mp sensors) and why. I posted this question on the Phase One forums but got no reply. Most of the discussion there was purely technical of course.
Any insight appreciated.
You can spend some time and go through the various video and written testimonials available online, that can provide a good picture of who uses what, what they use it for and how they use it:
Phase One User testimonials page (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/Testimonials.aspx)
Featured Photographers on Phase One's Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE9CB872E193B9C84)
Mamiya Leaf Testimonials (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/testimonials.html)
Mamiya Leaf Applications page (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/applications.html)
Mamiya Leaf customer videos (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/videos.html)
If you use social media there we regularly post more of these videos received from customers and we also send them as newsletters, which you can register to. I'm sure that the other MF manufacturers do the same.
Enjoy!
-
Guys what are you talking about? Pros are all about maximizing the potential of the tools they are using and using the best tool possible for a task... What would a pro have to gain out of an 100 or 50 or other Cmos modern chip?
His without microlenses older back (which cost him a fortune to buy) performs much better with his view camera and larger image circle lenses, his multishot back gives him an image that no single shot back can even dream of for all his stills and repro, all LL or action he needs he can do perfectly well with an old D700, all his studio fashion work can be done with either the DSLR or the MFDB (as it was for more than a decade now) and the resolution he has on hand is more than he'll ever need... Why then bother with amateurs and all their "discussions" and "comparisons" of nonsense? ...Being a pro has nothing to do with "playing the photographer" the way that amateurs think of it... Only problem is if the pro is a ...pro, or if he has advanced "playing the pro" from "playing the photographer"...
IMO, the only recent new coming in photography that would attract a pro, is the coming of mirrorless which can (to some extend) replace his MFDB's use for certain applications and save costs and portability by sharing the same as with his MF system lenses at the same time... The next "revolution" that may interest a pro is if there will be (or rather "when" there will be) multishot ability on a (or more) mirrorless camera... For mp count, it's about the last thing he'll ever be concerned on...
-
Easy, because if you walk back just a few years, there was no 35mm option. Medium format has been at 39MP since at least 2005, something that 35mm only hit with the 5Ds/R and A7rII only hit in 2015.
Those same advancements in 35mm CMOS tech applies to the much more profitable MF range, thus the 33x44 50MP Sony chip, and it's 100mp sibling. To go further, the high-MP 35mm cameras are greatly impacted older lenses, where you really have to have the latest glass to get the best results. Medium Format glass covers a larger area, allowing for larger photosites, and while the latest lenses really are needed with the 100mp chip, the quality of the Zeiss Hasselblad V-mount glass works great with the current 50/60MP digital backs.
There are trade offs, but everything is. My use cases are for images that are huge, where folks can get right up to it. I'd either have to stitch a lot of 35mm shots together, or do a single/few shots stitched in MF.
Now my question for you is did you shoot any MF film in those 30 years? Really, take the time and rent a RZ or Hasselblad V or even pick up a Bronica setup for a few hundred dollars. Shoot a few rolls of 120 and tell me it doesn't put a smile on your face when you look at the negatives for the first time.
-Joe
-
Hi,
100 MP is certainly beneficial when printing large. But, I am not sure it is necessary in order to print large. I made some experiments comparing 80 MP and 39 MP in reasonably sized prints 31"x47" and I would say it takes some very close viewing to see the difference.
Leaf shutters are an advantage when shooting flash in daylight if that matters depends on needs.
If we compare similar technology, a larger sensor can collect more light. So, at base ISO the larger sensor will give smoother midtones, but sensors are now so good so even an 4/3 sensor will give excellent midtones correctly exposed at base ISO.
MF images need less magnification, so they put less demands on lenses. At least some MFD lenses are very good. On the other hand, there are truly excellent lenses 24x36 mm, think Otus. How good is the Otus combined with a high resolution sensor?
MF lenses are often not very fast, but they may be usable fully open.
Personally, I have a Hasselblad V-system with a P45+. On a good day it can deliver images that may be better than my images from the A7rII I have, but it may be that the A7rII is so good that the P45+ will see little use. The A7rII does the job and it is much more flexible than the Hasselblad/P45+ combo.
Best regards
Erik
I am an amateur photographer x 30 years. I shoot moderate to high end 35mm equipment. I recently switched from LR to Capture One and gained some exposure to Phase One's camera equipment which is very interesting particularly their new 100mp back.
I understand that this type of equipment is primarily used by professionals. I know a number of talented professionals (journalists, wedding, portrait, artists etc) and none of them used MF digital although some of them used MF film in the past.
So I'm wondering (genuinely, I'm not trolling here) what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera systems (over and above 35mm digital systems with 30-50mp sensors) and why. I posted this question on the Phase One forums but got no reply. Most of the discussion there was purely technical of course.
Any insight appreciated.
-
Just to add.... Honestly you people (put your hand on your hart and then answer)... If Pentax ever decided to get an MF mirrorless out with the same sensor as the 645Z and the multishot ability of the K1 included... Do you think that there would be a pro ever buying something else? and more... (now really put your hand on your hart before you answer...) if they "split" the 645Z into back + body combination (for 3-4 platforms) and add K1's multishot ability to the back.... Do you honestly think that a PRO (some -few- amateurs might) would ever buy a back from one of the other makers of backs?
;D Even Yaya or Doug would buy that and even the CEO of P1... ;) then all discussions in Lula would be dominated to discuss the benefits of true color and Erik would be busy on explaining that MS on an FF chip should be of 200mp... :-X
P.S. I'm using MF from 1982 (Bronica ETRS with MC lenses, then ended up ETRSi with 10 PS lenses) and changed to Contax 645 back in 2005 and then MFDB on Contax from 2006... My first digital SLR was also in 2006 and my first FF 2008, Fuji GX-680 (digital) was only added on 2010, it was Sinar P2 with film up to then and now again back to it after converting it for mirrorless FF DSLR and MFDBs...)
-
Just to add.... Honestly you people (put your hand on your hart and then answer)... If Pentax ever decided to get an MF mirrorless out with the same sensor as the 645Z and the multishot ability of the K1 included... Do you think that there would be a pro ever buying something else? and more... (now really put your hand on your hart before you answer...) if they "split" the 645Z into back + body combination (for 3-4 platforms) and add K1's multishot ability to the back.... Do you honestly think that a PRO (some -few- amateurs might) would ever buy a back from one of the other makers of backs?
;D Even Yaya or Doug would buy that and even the CEO of P1... ;) then all discussions in Lula would be dominated to discuss the benefits of true color and Erik would be busy on explaining that MS on an FF chip should be of 200mp... :-X
P.S. I'm using MF from 1982 (Bronica ETRS with MC lenses, then ended up ETRSi with 10 PS lenses) and changed to Contax 645 back in 2005 and then MFDB on Contax from 2006... My first digital SLR was also in 2006 and my first FF 2008, Fuji GX-680 (digital) was only added on 2010, it was Sinar P2 with film up to then and now again back to it after converting it for mirrorless FF DSLR and MFDBs...)
Right.... in the world where everyone only agrees on one camera (probably the same world where everyone agrees they only want or need one type of car, or one type of house)... And where anyone who thinks or feels differently is apparently some sort of idiot. In your world, are professionals just idiots who get paid better?
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Display.
-
Right.... in the world where everyone only agrees on one camera (probably the same world where everyone agrees they only want or need one type of car, or one type of house)... And where anyone who thinks or feels differently is apparently some sort of idiot. In your world, are professionals just idiots who get paid better?
Steve Hendrix/CI
Who said that?
In my experience Steven, pros that are payed better are the ones that provide the best for their clients... That would make Pros that are using MF with film for weddings (mostly S/H with fast lenses), pros that are using tech cameras for architecture, pros that are using multishot backs for art repro and stills, pros that are using fast cameras with fast lenses for action, pros that are using large format sheet film for creating art... and then pros that are using all shorts, but above all their lighting skills for fashion... do you know different?
My proposal on the (hypothetical) back from Pentax, was A. Because it's feasible (since the have both the integrated camera and the multishot tech), B. Because it would be top for many of the tasks mentioned above, C. Because it would be cheap as to attract pros...
-
Who said that?
In my experience Steven, pros that are payed better are the ones that provide the best for their clients... That would make Pros that are using MF with film for weddings (mostly S/H with fast lenses), pros that are using tech cameras for architecture, pros that are using multishot backs for art repro and stills, pros that are using fast cameras with fast lenses for action, pros that are using large format sheet film for creating art... and then pros that are using all shorts, but above all their lighting skills for fashion... do you know different?
My proposal on the (hypothetical) back from Pentax, was A. Because it's feasible (since the have both the integrated camera and the multishot tech), B. Because it would be top for many of the tasks mentioned above, C. Because it would be cheap as to attract pros...
It sounds like you did, since you seem to indicate anyone who shoots with something besides your feasible camera would have to be nuts.
Your feasible camera would be a nice evolution of the product line. But don't be so absolute Theo, and propose that it is the only option anyone would choose.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
It sounds like you did, since you seem to indicate anyone who shoots with something besides your feasible camera would have to be nuts.
Your feasible camera would be a nice evolution of the product line. But don't be so absolute Theo, and propose that it is the only option anyone would choose.
Steve Hendrix/CI
No... it sounds like YOU are proposing that I did... wouldn't you buy one Steve? ;) Why not propose what is absolute? Isn't what is absolute what pays best? ...your words! Who makes "absolute" to be considered as "absolute" Steve? ...isn't it what the best paid pros use? ;) (your words once more)
-
So much anger in this thread... I guess according to Yoda you have already gotten past the fear-stage.
-
No... it sounds like YOU are proposing that I did... wouldn't you buy one Steve? ;) Why not propose what is absolute? Isn't what is absolute what pays best? ...your words! Who makes "absolute" to be considered as "absolute" Steve? ...isn't it what the best paid pros use? ;) (your words once more)
Never mind, Theo.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Never mind, Theo.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve -
The OP is looking for some "killer features". Give hime some and you might make a sale ...;)
Here, I will help you a bit: The large finder image of an MF camera is a pleasure to use.
Edmund
-
There are a lot of reasons. I'm a full-time pro and I shoot both Nikon & Hassy/Leaf. I got into it because I wanted better lenses, shallower dof and faster flash sync. What I didn't expect was the amazingly better color (like, way, way better) and other perks like the way the files respond in post compared to my Nikons. It's one of those things though, until you try it in the conditions you shoot in, it's tough to explain.
-Doug
-
There are a lot of reasons. I'm a full-time pro and I shoot both Nikon & Hassy/Leaf. I got into it because I wanted better lenses, shallower dof and faster flash sync. What I didn't expect was the amazingly better color (like, way, way better) and other perks like the way the files respond in post compared to my Nikons. It's one of those things though, until you try it in the conditions you shoot in, it's tough to explain.
-Doug
Actually thanks for posting this Doug... All this is true and it is there with MF from day 1.... Another reason why pros are slow to upgrade... add to this the much better compatibility of older backs with tech camera lenses... and the picture on why pros are slow to upgrade is complete! ...its all a matter to use equipment that pays for a pro... and what pays is what gets the best results...
-
Thanks for presenting the question in terms of "what sort of work requires..." and not "who requires..." :)
Now let's also remove the element of cost and focus only on the system...
So instead of asking: "what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera system"
Let's ask: "what sort of work and output requires a 80-100MP MFDB camera system"
The type of work that requires such equipment is the work done by the likes of Edward Burtynsky (documentary landscape), Thomas Struth (contemporary), Richard Misrach (contemporary landscape), Richard Avedon (Portraiture), Victoria Sambunaris (contemporary landscape), Brett Weston (abstract landscape), Ansel Adams (traditional landscape), Hiroshi Sugimoto (seascapes)... even Peter Lik (colorful landscape) and Rodney Lough (colorful landscape)... etc. etc.
Looking at printed works of these artists, in museums and/or galleries, makes it very clear that such work requires a different type camera system. I understand some of the names I mentioned passed away before the MFDBs even existed - but I am saying that is the 'kind of work' that requires MFDB equipment. So that's really my answer to your question.
Now, obviously not everyone "pro" or "wealthy amateur" [I hate that term], who owns such equipment is at the level of the esteemed names I mentioned, but many are interested in doing that 'kind of work' and in that pursuit, they choose such equipment.
-
Thanks for presenting the question in terms of "what sort of work requires..." and not "who requires..." :)
Now let's also remove the element of cost and focus only on the system...
So instead of asking: "what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera system"
Let's ask: "what sort of work and output requires a 80-100MP MFDB camera system"
The type of work that requires such equipment is the work done by the likes of Edward Burtynsky (documentary landscape), Thomas Struth (contemporary), Richard Misrach (contemporary landscape), Richard Avedon (Portraiture), Victoria Sambunaris (contemporary landscape), Brett Weston (abstract landscape), Ansel Adams (traditional landscape), Hiroshi Sugimoto (seascapes)... even Peter Lik (colorful landscape) and Rodney Lough (colorful landscape)... etc. etc.
Looking at printed works of these artists, in museums and/or galleries, makes it very clear that such work requires a different type camera system. I understand some of the names I mentioned passed away before the MFDBs even existed - but I am saying that is the 'kind of work' that requires MFDB equipment.
So that's really my answer to your question.
Now, obviously not everyone "pro" or "wealthy amateur" [I hate that term], who owns such equipment is at the level of the esteemed names I mentioned, but many are interested in doing that 'kind of work'. Many are inspired to do something more significant and in that pursuit, they choose such equipment.
Add to this Andreas Gursky...
I'm afraid though its not done like you think... Artists hardly use digital backs and if they do, the outcome is mostly out of lower res backs with techniques that are unique to them and very much different to "stitching" as known to PS... Some out of the most famous even use multiple cameras with different lenses on them as to get the results you see on museums and galleries...
You have no idea how far trolling can get in forums... I was present in a "conversation" here in Lula some years ago, where some trolls where posting all shorts of nonsense like "Gursky dropping film in favor of a ....P1 80mp back"! ....and his recent work being out of it! I guess if Andreas was using a digital back he would know it himself!
-
Hi,
The discussion may turn about some issues:
- Who needs 100MP
- Does MFD give some specific advantages beyond physics? Is there an MFD magic?
Neither question is really easy to answer. Some posters would argue that 12, 24 or 37 MP are quite enough to any size print, at least with viewing distance taken into account. My experiments sort of indicated that viewpoint making some sense. I was not able to observe meaningful differences between say 24 MP 24x36 and 39 MP P45+ in A2-size prints without a loupe, at least regarding detail.
On the other hand, I may have observed a weak advantage of the P45+ over say the A7rII at longer viewing distances. Very clearly, would I put two 80x120 cm prints side by side I would not be able to observe the difference. Flipping small crops at short distance, maybe…
If you compare present generation Sony sensors, like the one in the IQ350 and the IQ3-100MP with Sony's present generation of sensors, MFD sensors have the advantage of size.
This thread on GetDPI gives some perspective: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/59021-some-reflections-my-v-series-hasselblad-p45-kit.html
MFD fans may claim that MFD sensors provide better colour, which may or may not be the case. There are obviously differences in colour rendition between my P45+ using C1 and my Sony A7rII using Lightroom. Question is how much of that is profiles and how much is sensor dependent. My choice is to use home generated profiles with both the P45+ and the Sonys. What I may find is that there may be a colour difference beyond WB (which plays a major role) and colour profiles. But some guys more knowledgeable than me say that colour rendition is 90% profiling and 10% hardware.
This thread covers some of that issue, with a lot of good input from knowledgeable folks on both sides: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/59120-capture-one-lr6.html
Now, smaller formats are getting better all the time. Canon has been revamping it's lens line for high res sensors for a long time and we now have some very nice lenses from Zeiss like the Otus, Milvus and Batis lens lines. So, question is if it is better to spend a set of great 24x36 lenses and a good 24x36mm camera or spend much more on an MFD system.
MFD-backs have often been used with technical cameras or optical bench devices, but modern sensors don't play that well with large format lenses designed for film as sensors don't like oblique beam angles.
Quite a few users have switched from MFD backs on bellow type cameras to smaller systems using MF or Canon lenses with a high MP-count 24x36 body.
The question is of course where 24x36 mm is bound. APS-C seems to stopped around 24 MP right now, that is about 50-55 MP on 24x36 mm. Rumors used to say 70-75 MP for next generation 24x36, it is a bit more than what I would expect for Photokina this year.
Personally, I am pretty sure I am reducing P45+ usage, the Sony system delivers what I need and has a lot of flexibility. Around 40 MP seems to be plenty for my kind of work, the area where I think smaller pixels are beneficial is the reduction of aliasing, that is fake detail any sampling system produces when system resolution is below input resolution. Calculations show that something like 2.5 micron sensors are optimal with Otus-class lenses.
I would say that the original question is a good one that any photographer on a budget needs to ask himself/herself and the answer may be different depending on needs.
Just to mention, I use two Contax RTS era Zeiss zooms, 28-85/3.3-4 and 35-135/3.3-4.5. Both these lenses deliver very good results on the Sony A7rII. The reason I use them that they have manual aperture control.
Best regards
Erik
-
I am an amateur photographer x 30 years. I shoot moderate to high end 35mm equipment. I recently switched from LR to Capture One and gained some exposure to Phase One's camera equipment which is very interesting particularly their new 100mp back.
I understand that this type of equipment is primarily used by professionals. I know a number of talented professionals (journalists, wedding, portrait, artists etc) and none of them used MF digital although some of them used MF film in the past.
So I'm wondering (genuinely, I'm not trolling here) what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera systems (over and above 35mm digital systems with 30-50mp sensors) and why. I posted this question on the Phase One forums but got no reply. Most of the discussion there was purely technical of course.
Any insight appreciated.
High resolution digital backs are very popular for digitising museum collections and for aerial photography. And not always in the visible band. You may know some professional photographers, but there is a world beyond "journalists, wedding, portrait, artists...". Just saying.
-
Hi,
The discussion may turn about some issues:
- Who needs 100MP
- Does MFD give some specific advantages beyond physics? Is there an MFD magic?
Neither question is really easy to answer. Some posters would argue that 12, 24 or 37 MP are quite enough to any size print, at least with viewing distance taken into account. My experiments sort of indicated that viewpoint making some sense. I was not able to observe meaningful differences between say 24 MP 24x36 and 39 MP P45+ in A2-size prints without a loupe, at least regarding detail.
Your "experiments" involve different sensors of different technology, different age, different logic in their processors and different optics used.... Nobody ever said that (as far as I can remember) that 12 or 24 or 37 or any other pixel count is enough for any size of print...
What I have said, is that the quality of a pixel matters more than the quantity of them and then that if one has a butch of (near) "perfect" pixels, he can SAFELY print at 72ppi having a print that is (nearly) as sharp as it can be...
If I may repeat then, 72ppi means that the print will have nine pixels in one square mm included and then viewed from a distance of 27cm that is the minimum an eye can focus... It is EXACTLY THE SAME as one trying to discriminate between 9 squares of 30cm each packed in one square meter and then placed 270 meters away.... Can one see them? Now if printing resolution is for 16 pixels included in one square mm (which means nearly 90 ppi required) one would be required to be able to see and discriminate between 16 squares of 25cm each packed in a square meter and placed ...270 meters away....
That's why pros don't care on resolution of sensors but only on the "per pixel quality" of them... They know that its avoiding artifacts, having pixels of good definition and good glass that will provide the material for a great print and then they ensure that the printing technique followed is the one that will achieve the best results....
-
Hi,
Good point on both issues.
Best regards
Erik
High resolution digital backs are very popular for digitising museum collections and for aerial photography. And not always in the visible band. You may know some professional photographers, but there is a world beyond "journalists, wedding, portrait, artists...". Just saying.
-
High resolution digital backs are very popular for digitising museum collections and for aerial photography. And not always in the visible band. You may know some professional photographers, but there is a world beyond "journalists, wedding, portrait, artists...". Just saying.
If by "high resolution backs" you mean "high resolution single shot" backs, then it can be the case if (and only if) the museum director or the committee to decide are complete ignorants, or they just "want to direct" ;) the job to a specific contract maker that is a "friend"... All major work that is digitized in major museums, (Belvenderre, Louvre, Vatican, Florence ...etc) is done in absolute color profiles and by using "true colour" devices for capturing like multishot backs...
-
If by "high resolution backs" you mean "high resolution single shot" backs, then it can be the case if (and only if) the museum director or the committee to decide are complete ignorants, or they just "want to direct" ;) the job to a specific contract maker that is a "friend"... All major work that is digitized in major museums, (Belvenderre, Louvre, Vatican, Florence ...etc) is done in absolute color profiles and by using "true colour" devices for capturing like multishot backs...
And here I was thinking that the "culture" industry is all about friends. All those nice young people with art history degrees at those collections doubtless belong to working-class families?
Anyway, my feeling is that these days there are more second-tier and third-tier institutions with material to digitize, and they need solutions too. I have no doubt someone will in due course make something that works for the local librarian or archivist, or even antique dealer with an interest in photography but no budget.
Edmund
-
I got into it because I wanted ..., shallower dof ...
-Doug
Unfortunately digital medium format won't offer shallower DoF when compared against Canon/Nikon/Sony's 35mm cameras and lenses.
-
And here I was thinking that the "culture" industry is all about friends. All those nice young people with art history degrees at those collections doubtless belong to working-class families?
The thing is that with major stuff there is a technical report file submitted with the application which makes it difficult for whatever "relations" (or corruption) to overcome as one can then appeal to the courts against a "smelly" decision (lets not forget that the money involved aren't exactly the average photographer's income)...
Then there is past work results too which are used with the application... So it gets difficult for corruption to go against the institutions own interest as there is past experience to them with appeals filed in courts which can cause the career of a committee member... (and ultra high compensation to the victim and even high loss for the "friend"). I know things in the States aren't as "careful" as in Europe though... ;)
-
Clyde Butcher who spent most of his life shooting large format film, recently switched to the Sony A7Rii because he was having trouble carry the heavy film equipment. With the A7Rii, I saw some pretty spectacular large prints comparable to his film prints. Of course he stitches multiple shots and uses medium format lenses on this camera combined with a Cambo Aptus bellows. This allows tilts gaining him greater depth of field. I guess everyone does what they feel they need to do. Some people drive an SUV or a pickup and find them very useful. Others look at them and scratch their heads.
-
I'm the OP. Thanks for all the replies. They help. A couple of comments:
I was not trolling. Just curious. Did not intend to start any arguments.
Someone asked if I'd ever shot MF film. No. I've scanned some but never had the equipment. I've pretty much left film behind and no longer have my dark room equipment. Have come close to purchasing a low end large format rig and processing equipment again but have not pulled the trigger.
As for the Ferrari analogy, I get it. I'm a high performance driving instructor. I drive a 9 year old Nissan on the track. If I was wealthy enough to buy a Ferrari the same way I can buy a used Nissan, then I'd have one. The same goes for camera equipment. I understand that there are lots of reasons to buy camera equipment. Look, feel, nostalgia, price, tech specs, whatever floats your boat and makes you happy. Nothing wrong with any of that. For a very wealthy man a $50k camera system is nothing.
As for large print artists, I am a fan of Adams, Clyde Butcher and Sally Mann. I understand the appeal, capabilities and limitations of large format. I can also understand why a man Clyde's age (and size) might move to MF.
I can understand how a high end MFD system would be useful for really large prints. I would love to do large prints one day but that is a whole other cost constraint in itself.
yaya, thanks for the links. I've seen some of the videos. Afraid to look at more. My wife already has a hard time understanding my Nikon equipment.
Anyway, thanks for the replies. I have a better understanding now.
-
Now that the OP is happy we can change the topic :)
I'm just watching old Inspector Lewis episodes, and there are open shade and full sun mixed in frames, and no burnout - film was wonderful :)
Edmund
I'm the OP. Thanks for all the replies. They help. A couple of comments:
I was not trolling. Just curious. Did not intend to start any arguments.
Someone asked if I'd ever shot MF film. No. I've scanned some but never had the equipment. I've pretty much left film behind and no longer have my dark room equipment. Have come close to purchasing a low end large format rig and processing equipment again but have not pulled the trigger.
As for the Ferrari analogy, I get it. I'm a high performance driving instructor. I drive a 9 year old Nissan on the track. If I was wealthy enough to buy a Ferrari the same way I can buy a used Nissan, then I'd have one. The same goes for camera equipment. I understand that there are lots of reasons to buy camera equipment. Look, feel, nostalgia, price, tech specs, whatever floats your boat and makes you happy. Nothing wrong with any of that. For a very wealthy man a $50k camera system is nothing.
As for large print artists, I am a fan of Adams, Clyde Butcher and Sally Mann. I understand the appeal, capabilities and limitations of large format. I can also understand why a man Clyde's age (and size) might move to MF.
I can understand how a high end MFD system would be useful for really large prints. I would love to do large prints one day but that is a whole other cost constraint in itself.
yaya, thanks for the links. I've seen some of the videos. Afraid to look at more. My wife already has a hard time understanding my Nikon equipment.
Anyway, thanks for the replies. I have a better understanding now.
-
You have no idea how far trolling can get in forums...
LOL
-
LOL
Indeed, I have been laughing for a few hours on this one... :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Here are a couple of samples I shot on travel a few days ago with my P45+ and my Sony A7rII.
- Left side: P45+ processed in C, top with WB on white bird bottom with WB set to FLASH
- Right side:P45+ on top and A7rII at bottom. Both processed in Lightroom using profiles generated by DCamProf and WB on white bird
The A7rII image here is using tilt to get all gravestones in focus. The P45+ image has focus on the gravestone with name jack, it is a part of a series of images to be stitched. Images taken with a Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 at 135 mm and f/11 on the A7rII and a Sonnar 180/4 at f/11 on the Hasselblad. The lenses are probably equally old.
Raw images are here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p93qdzl4m8myk8e/_DSC6703.dng?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iut10y7w60xaev1/CF047249.dng?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hkzpvmsi1l0b0l7/CF047249.eip?dl=0
No great idea to compare sharpness, as the P45+ image has a single plane of focus while the A7rII has a tilted focus plane, I enclose a different crop where focus is near optimal on the A7rII. Both images are around 34 MP after crops.
A side note is that there is a water shortage on Gotland (Sweden) where this pictures were taken so irrigation is very limited, which may affect the colour of the grass.
Note that in C1 processing the flowers turn blue with WB sampled from image. Also note that ambition here was more to make similar processing than a really good one that may be hard to reproduce with another raw processor.
This doesn't say much about modern 100 MP backs and lenses, it is more about the existence of MFD magic or CCD magic.
Best regards
Erik
-
I'm a working professional, mostly shooting people.
I have and regularly use a Hasselblad H3D-31ii and a Sony A7Rii. I also have an assortment of Canons and a Panasonic GH4.
All are great cameras.
The Sony has a wider "shooting envelope"- available light at ISO800, F/1.8, 1/60th of a second with IBIS is a light level so low that the Hasselblad essentially cannot form a useful image for my particular shooting style. So my use of it is more demanding than my use of the Hasselblad, where I throw in a ton of light from flash before I get started, so I'm at 1/400th, ISO 80, F/8.
Nonetheless, I prefer the images from the Hasselblad even when using the Sony in similarly brightly-lit studio settings. The main reason is the colour rendition, which I find more pleasant from the Hasselblad plus Phocus than from the Sony plus Aperture or Capture One. The Hasselblad holds on to skin tones better in mixed lighting scenarios, in my experience, and generally gives better renditions of tricky colours like very saturated purples and indigos.
I don't know at what stage in the chain the critical differences come in- could be the colour arrays on the camera or could be the colour processing in software. Theoretically it would be nice to understand why, but pragmatically I don't care- I just know that my workflow is significantly faster on sets of Hasselblad images because I need to do a lot less tuning of colours in post than I do with the Sony.
I prefer the colours out of the Canons to those from the Sony- and the rendition is much closer to the Hasselblad's, not coincidentally. I really don't like the GH4's colours for skin tone in stills (but curiously find them fine in video).
That's personal for me, at this moment in time, with the workflow I currently have.
But it is a strong enough reason that I'll be looking to renew my Hasselblad in due course rather than sticking to the Sony.
For landscape photography, the story is different. The Sony is my top pick for landscapes because of the detail and dynamic range, and I tend to push the colours beyond what the eye sees for my landscape work so the Sony does just fine there. It's just not as critical for me personally as the rendition of pretty girls' skin tones is for my day-to-day work.
So there's my personal answer.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Hi,
Good points. Just some few observations:
- Hasselblad is known to have very good colour profiles in Phocus and they are said to keep colours similar across all Hasselblad cameras.
- Regarding issues with saturated purples I have seen that with Capture One and I would regard it more as a C1 problem than a sensor problem. I see the same issue with C1 on the P45+ and with C1 on my Sonys. LR using DCamProf generated profiles doesn't have that issue.
- The new Sony based MFDs should be very similar to the Sonys in msot respects, but profiting from larger sensor size.
The Hasselblad X1D is an interesting camera...
Best regards
Erik
I'm a working professional, mostly shooting people.
I have and regularly use a Hasselblad H3D-31ii and a Sony A7Rii. I also have an assortment of Canons and a Panasonic GH4.
All are great cameras.
The Sony has a wider "shooting envelope"- available light at ISO800, F/1.8, 1/60th of a second with IBIS is a light level so low that the Hasselblad essentially cannot form a useful image for my particular shooting style. So my use of it is more demanding than my use of the Hasselblad, where I throw in a ton of light from flash before I get started, so I'm at 1/400th, ISO 80, F/8.
Nonetheless, I prefer the images from the Hasselblad even when using the Sony in similarly brightly-lit studio settings. The main reason is the colour rendition, which I find more pleasant from the Hasselblad plus Phocus than from the Sony plus Aperture or Capture One. The Hasselblad holds on to skin tones better in mixed lighting scenarios, in my experience, and generally gives better renditions of tricky colours like very saturated purples and indigos.
I don't know at what stage in the chain the critical differences come in- could be the colour arrays on the camera or could be the colour processing in software. Theoretically it would be nice to understand why, but pragmatically I don't care- I just know that my workflow is significantly faster on sets of Hasselblad images because I need to do a lot less tuning of colours in post than I do with the Sony.
I prefer the colours out of the Canons to those from the Sony- and the rendition is much closer to the Hasselblad's, not coincidentally. I really don't like the GH4's colours for skin tone in stills (but curiously find them fine in video).
That's personal for me, at this moment in time, with the workflow I currently have.
But it is a strong enough reason that I'll be looking to renew my Hasselblad in due course rather than sticking to the Sony.
For landscape photography, the story is different. The Sony is my top pick for landscapes because of the detail and dynamic range, and I tend to push the colours beyond what the eye sees for my landscape work so the Sony does just fine there. It's just not as critical for me personally as the rendition of pretty girls' skin tones is for my day-to-day work.
So there's my personal answer.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Oh and P.S. I find the leaf shutters in the Hasselblad invaluable for certain shooting scenarios: outdoors in full sunlight, to give me control over the exposure and saturation of the sky whilst getting the models perfectly exposed.
High speed sync flash on the other systems doesn't do the job because the power needed in a HSS flash pulse is too great. With the Hasselblad and two battery powered Hensel Porty flash units I can overpower full daylight by at least two or three stops. That's essential for one of my common shooting scenarios.
I agree, the Hasselblad X1D is an interesting camera! :)
Cheers, Hywel
-
Unfortunately digital medium format won't offer shallower DoF when compared against Canon/Nikon/Sony's 35mm cameras and lenses.
They will offer shallower DOF if one shoots approx. the same FOV, because a longer focal length will be used to produce an image circle and FOV that covers the physically larger sensor array.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Plus, when I stitch panoramas at 2.8 with the 80mm, it gets way shallower way faster.
-
Why would a pro want MF?
- Better colors by far
- Better optics by far
- Clean your own sensor perfectly and without having a fit
- No AA filter
- Super solid tethering
- Best results from C1 which is the best post processing software right now and in the foreseeable future
- And no Theodorus, I wouldn't buy a Pentax even if they made a camera out of bacon. They don't have C1, and their glass is still not there.
There are very many different types of photographers that can call themselves pros, they are certainly not all characterized by similar needs. I can see why Canon and Nikon would be perfect for many if not most of them. I do know my clients often ask about MF.
A different question is why you would need the latest back?
- High pixel count means you don't need to reposition the camera as much, and you can crop only some of the frame, still have all the pixels you need with less effort.
- You can include more than one item in one frame and the separate them, and still have some pixels to spare.
- Some clients demand 10000 pixels width or even more
If you are willing to work harder, then the earlier backs give you 99% same results for 20% of the cost.
-
Hi Bart,
Yes, right, but we have a bunch of 24x36 mm lenses with f/1.4 that are usable wide open.
Best regards
Erik
They will offer shallower DOF if one shoots approx. the same FOV, because a longer focal length will be used to produce an image circle and FOV that covers the physically larger sensor array.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why would a pro want MF?
- Better colors by far
- Better optics by far
- Clean your own sensor perfectly and without having a fit
- No AA filter
- Super solid tethering
- Best results from C1 which is the best post processing software right now and in the foreseeable future
- And no Theodorus, I wouldn't buy a Pentax even if they made a camera out of bacon. They don't have C1, and their glass is still not there.
There are very many different types of photographers that can call themselves pros, they are certainly not all characterized by similar needs. I can see why Canon and Nikon would be perfect for many if not most of them. I do know my clients often ask about MF.
A different question is why you would need the latest back?
- High pixel count means you don't need to reposition the camera as much, and you can crop only some of the frame, still have all the pixels you need with less effort.
- You can include more than one item in one frame and the separate them, and still have some pixels to spare.
- Some clients demand 10000 pixels width or even more
If you are willing to work harder, then the earlier backs give you 99% same results for 20% of the cost.
You don't seem to read what you are quoting on... Who ever suggested that you should buy a Pentax camera? There was a (hypothetical) back proposed and the Pentax name was only suggested because they have in production the technology to add the features that most of the current Cmos backs miss... Backs don't require the lenses out of a maker either... they are stand alone devices... C1 you can use with all DSLRs... Customers that require a specific high number of pixels (and not just set a minimum) are simply ignorants... If they do insist, I would propose one to deliver upsampled files.
I'm using Sinarback 54H & Hasselblad CF-39MS with my MF DSLR and then with my Fuji GX-680 and (modified) Sinar P2... I don't consider DOWNgrading to a CMOS back as it would only add functionality that my DSLRs already offer... MO is that professional equipment should be chosen as to cope with as many different tasks as possible, should be kept to a minimum and should provide long term efficiency...
Note that LV with my 54H on the Fuji GX-680 is of superb quality, especially if Sinar's LC shutter is added in front of the lens... and then the image quality out of the 54H shot in multishot mode, is of quality that an 100mp Cmos back of today can't even dream of.... One has to experience what complete absence of artifacts, absence of processor, having the Niquist limit quadrubled, having 48 bits of color depth captured and having real color calibration means as to have a reference of what ultimate quality means.
-
They will offer shallower DOF if one shoots approx. the same FOV, because a longer focal length will be used to produce an image circle and FOV that covers the physically larger sensor array.
Cheers,
Bart
Fullframe 645 + 80mm f2.8 = 35mm format + 50mm f1.8
How is it going to compete against Leica 50mm f0.95? It can't even compete against 50mm f1.4
-
Fullframe 645 + 80mm f2.8 = 35mm format + 50mm f1.8
How is it going to compete against Leica 50mm f0.95? It can't even compete against 50mm f1.4
Try Contax 80mm f2 and then 140mm f2.8....
-
Hi,
On the other hand:
- You can spend some time on making your own colour profiles
- I am not sure that MFD optics are better "by far" with all new Otuses, Batises and Sigma A-s.
- You may need to clean that sensor more often with that large mirror flipping around
- Lack of aliasing filter is great if you need aliasing. Sony A7rII, Nikon D810 and Canon 5DsR all lack AA-filter.
- Yes C1 is probably great, but I would rather spend some time learning LR than spending 10-20k$ on a camera that uses C1. MFD is by the way more than Team Phase One. There are cameras like Leica S, Pentax 645 and Hasselblad... and none of them is supported by C1. But C1 does support Canon, Nikon, Sony and other non MFD devices.
But, absolutely, if you need > 50 MP, love C1 and have the budget, the high MP Team Phase backs are an obvious choice.
Best regards
Erik
Why would a pro want MF?
- Better colors by far
- Better optics by far
- Clean your own sensor perfectly and without having a fit
- No AA filter
- Super solid tethering
- Best results from C1 which is the best post processing software right now and in the foreseeable future
- And no Theodorus, I wouldn't buy a Pentax even if they made a camera out of bacon. They don't have C1, and their glass is still not there.
There are very many different types of photographers that can call themselves pros, they are certainly not all characterized by similar needs. I can see why Canon and Nikon would be perfect for many if not most of them. I do know my clients often ask about MF.
A different question is why you would need the latest back?
- High pixel count means you don't need to reposition the camera as much, and you can crop only some of the frame, still have all the pixels you need with less effort.
- You can include more than one item in one frame and the separate them, and still have some pixels to spare.
- Some clients demand 10000 pixels width or even more
If you are willing to work harder, then the earlier backs give you 99% same results for 20% of the cost.
-
Unfortunately digital medium format won't offer shallower DoF when compared against Canon/Nikon/Sony's 35mm cameras and lenses.
Indeed. That is a myth to bust. MF would offer shallower DoF for the same perspective and aperture. In practice, because of the extremely fast lenses available for 24x36, that format has the thinner DoF.
-
Try Contax 80mm f2 and then 140mm f2.8....
IQ180 + Contax 80mm f2 = 35mm format 50mm f1.3 < 5DSR + 50mm f1.2 < Canon 50mm f1.0 < Leica 50mm f0.95
IQ180 + Contax 140mm f2.8 = 35mm format 90mm f1.8 < 5DSR + 85mm f1.2
Unless you get the Zeiss 1700mm f4, it's not possible to defeat 35mm format in terms of bokehliciousness.
-
The gear looks more expensive than it is. The professional is in an upgrade program. Compared to financing salaries camera gear cost is less of a problem. This means that even if there are relatively minor advantages it can still be worth it to the professional.
The MF companies have a long history of working with certain types of professional photography and have very streamlined workflows for that, it just works and delivers great quality without lots of tweaking. Planned photography in the studio is where MF shines. And then technical photography has been a small but strong niche for MF, mainly product photography and architecture in the professional world.
While not being exactly cheap stuff, legacy MF gear is quite accessible to the amateur. I'm myself using that, and the reason is to be able to use "large format technique" but without having to mess with film. Linhof Techno + a digital back is the best alternative out there. In this case I'd say it's more about desired workflow and shooting experience than anything else, just like some actually shoot large format film.
-
Because Spock does.
That, and I can focus manually for portrait and not miss the shot
-
I think O/P's question "Why MF" is put right, while many try to turn it to one of the thousands "comparison discussions" that have dominated the forums over the last 15 years or so...
I would agree once more that the use of MF is to supplement the smaller format and not to replace it... I would also agree that the supplementary use is more a matter that would concern a pro than an enthousiast amateur who has the money to spent...
I honestly don't see a reason why one (even a pro) should buy MF equipment if the tasks he is going to deal with can also be performed with a DSLR... After all, skills will always be on top of sensor ability and this has been taught to us through out recent past where the photographs made a decade ago have nothing to be jealous of the respective modern production...
I'd rather see people discuss what supplementary use is instead of arguing on the advantages or the disadvantages between formats for tasks where both are capable of...
One can't argue that color profiles and methods of calibration used with MF makers for fashion, skin tones and modelling where a world apart from DSLRs a few years ago and there is still quite a margin for DSLRs as to catch up (despite the improvement) no matter the profiling used with them...
Multishot is available with DSLRs now and surely its use is to expand among more FF makers, but it is still no where near good enough as to be used for reproduction work or is supported by dedicated software that is up to the task...
Definitely, the area that the gap has been significantly narrowed as for the smaller format to seriously threaten the domination of the area with MFDBs is the use of technical cameras with mirrorless cameras used as image areas... By coincidence, this is an area where modern backs are considerably worst than the past when combined with traditional lenses, thus making their appeal to pros even less tempting...
The question to me is rather with the future of MF rather than the abilities of it to improve on one's photography... If MF makers insist to offer products that are trying to compete with DSLRs and then at the field where DSLRs excel and then ask for a fortune as to provide little in addition, I don't see much future to them...
IMO, Leica/Sinar seems to be the most appealing firm to the pros currently as to supplement their DSLR work and then Hasselblad seems to have understand that there should be a new direction into the proposals made to the market and then that pricing policies have to be revised...
-
IQ180 + Contax 80mm f2 = 35mm format 50mm f1.3 < 5DSR + 50mm f1.2 < Canon 50mm f1.0 < Leica 50mm f0.95
IQ180 + Contax 140mm f2.8 = 35mm format 90mm f1.8 < 5DSR + 85mm f1.2
You are comparing apples and oranges. Obviously, if you also change the aperture number (as well as focal length) then you'll get yet another/different DOF (or even the same DOF if the specific aperture is available). But following that same 'logic', you can also have a different DOF with one camera when you change the aperture value.
Changing the aperture value can also require a different exposure time, which may not be possible due to other constraints.
Unless you get the Zeiss 1700mm f4, it's not possible to defeat 35mm format in terms of bokehliciousness.
Bokeh is more about the 'quality' of defocus blur than the amount of it, and it's usually different in front of the plane of best focus and behind that plane.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed. That is a myth to bust. MF would offer shallower DoF for the same perspective and aperture.
Exactly, for the same perspective (and FOV) and aperture. Changing the aperture will cause all sorts of changes, including in the amount of diffraction.
In practice, because of the extremely fast lenses available for 24x36, that format has the thinner DoF.
It can have thinner DOF, but only if much wider apertures are available, and exposure times may be different.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are comparing apples and oranges. Obviously, if you also change the aperture number (as well as focal length) then you'll get yet another/different DOF (or even the same DOF if the specific aperture is available). But following that same 'logic', you can also have a different DOF with one camera when you change the aperture value.
Cheers,
Bart
Let's make it simple:
You have the two following sets of gear:
a) IQ180 + Contax 645 + Contax 80mm f2
b) Leica M240 + Leica 50mm f0.95
These two sets of gear would offer you the same angle of view, hence if you shoot portrait you shoot at the same distance towards the model for the same framing (composition).
When you shoot wide open, you will find set b) offering a much stronger degree of background blur, and the main subject is obviously better separated from the background (aka DoF control).
Conclusion: medium format digital is no match against 35mm format in terms of DoF control.
Changing the aperture value can also require a different exposure time, which may not be possible due to other constraints.
When you shoot with a larger sensor you could bump the ISO higher to compensate the slower aperture and still gets the same SNR when you downsample the image to as if it were shot with a 35mm format. That's why the aperture divided by crop factor is also called the equivalent aperture for low-light SNR (in addition to equivalent aperture for background blur).
Bokeh is more about the 'quality' of defocus blur than the amount of it, and it's usually different in front of the plane of best focus and behind that plane.
I agree that bokeh quality includes CA, onion circles etc which contributes to the smoothness in the transition zones, but here I'm talking about the degree of background blur which is determined by the diameter of circle of confusion.
-
These two sets of gear would offer you the same angle of view, hence if you shoot portrait you shoot at the same distance towards the model for the same framing (composition).
Yes, more or less (aspect ratio differences aside).
When you shoot wide open, you will find set b) offering a much stronger degree of background blur, and the main subject is obviously better separated from the background (aka DoF control).
Yes, but only if you shoot at widely different apertures. Even if the Apertures are matched (wider for the shorter FL) for a similar DOF, there will be differences due to diffraction, and for exposure time.
Conclusion: medium format digital is no match against 35mm format in terms of DoF control.
ONLY if there is a wider aperture possible on the shorter FL lens, significantly wider than the crop factor would suggest for a matching DOF So your conclusion is not always correct, and if the same aperture value is used it is simply incorrect.
When you shoot with a larger sensor you could bump the ISO higher to compensate the slower aperture and still gets the same SNR when you downsample the image to as if it were shot with a 35mm format.
Way to simplistic. Bumping the ISO doesn't change the photon-shot noise component (actual exposure), and it may have different effects on the other noise sources between different sensor designs. Different downsampling methods will have different effects on the noise spectrum.
Cheers,
Bart
-
why MF?
because people leave me alone to get on with my shots :)
back when I used canon kit for exterior portraits or motorsport/wildlife etc, everyone had an opinion or comment on the kit I was using or had strapped to my side.
Now when I'm out with the Hassy, no-one says a word
just the way I like it
-
ONLY if there is a wider aperture possible on the shorter FL lens, significantly wider than the crop factor would suggest for a matching DOF So your conclusion is not always correct, and if the same aperture value is used it is simply incorrect.
For almost any medium format digital lens, I can find a 35mm format lens with a similar angle of view and with a much faster aperture to achieve a stronger degree of background blur. That's why I claim that medium format digital is a worse choice than 35mm format if one needs DoF control.
Way to simplistic. Bumping the ISO doesn't change the photon-shot noise component (actual exposure), and it may have different effects on the other noise sources between different sensor designs. Different downsampling methods will have different effects on the noise spectrum.
Here we are talking about sensors in different formats but with similar architecture and design, e.g. Nikon D7000 vs Nikon D800, Canon 80D vs Canon 1DXII etc. Check the "print" tab of the dxomark charts and you could see that the SNR of the 35mm format is generally about one-stop better than the corresponding APSC technology.
-
For almost any medium format digital lens, I can find a 35mm format lens with a similar angle of view and with a much faster aperture to achieve a stronger degree of background blur. That's why I claim that medium format digital is a worse choice than 35mm format if one needs DoF control.
Your original contention was:Unfortunately digital medium format won't offer shallower DoF when compared against Canon/Nikon/Sony's 35mm cameras and lenses.
You didn't mention more options to control DOF. You failed to mention that it is only the case, if one has a lens with significantly wider aperture number (even wider than what is needed to get equal DOF) and of otherwise equal optical performance. Such lenses may well be of worse optical performance when they can produce shallower DOF. The exceptional OTUS lens quality does come at a price as well, and I'm not always too convinced by their Bokeh (because they lack some pleasing effects of Spherical aberrations) for all types of images.
The objective truth is not that MF 'won't', but that MF 'might not' produce shallower DOF in case were such extremely wide aperture lenses are available. The objective truth is also that at equal aperture and exposure time but at longer focal length for the same FOV, MF systems do produce shallower DOF. So it depends on available options and shooting conditions whether one can produce more shallow DOF or not, with one system or the other. Budget may also be a factor.
Here we are talking about sensors in different formats but with similar architecture and design, e.g. Nikon D7000 vs Nikon D800, Canon 80D vs Canon 1DXII etc. Check the "print" tab of the dxomark charts and you could see that the SNR of the 35mm format is generally about one-stop better than the corresponding APSC technology.
Getting a bit off topic, but why only assume downsampled output, which is what the 'print' score is. And we're comparing with MF not with APS, and one should indeed assume similar generation of sensor design for a meaningful comparison, which is a moving target. The use of e.g. 16-bit ADC's adds a stop of DR and much improved SNR, in the 'Screen' scores (even more in case of the 'print' scores because it currently involves 100MP MF sensor designs).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Let's make it simple:
You have the two following sets of gear:
a) IQ180 + Contax 645 + Contax 80mm f2
b) Leica M240 + Leica 50mm f0.95
so as a retired portrait photographer, I would only add that I would never use either of those two focal lengths for shooting most portraits, especially more intimate individual studies. Probably minimum 100mm on the 35 format sensor, and 150 mm on the 645 format sensor will give me better facial perspective, and dropping the background out of focus at something like f/5.6 so I have a little DOF for the face and I won't get some size distortion on facial features.
-
Your original contention was:
You didn't mention more options to control DOF. You failed to mention that it is only the case, if one has a lens with significantly wider aperture number (even wider than what is needed to get equal DOF) and of otherwise equal optical performance. Such lenses may well be of worse optical performance when they can produce shallower DOF. The exceptional OTUS lens quality does come at a price as well, and I'm not always too convinced by their Bokeh (because they lack some pleasing effects of Spherical aberrations) for all types of images.
The objective truth is not that MF 'won't', but that MF 'might not' produce shallower DOF in case were such extremely wide aperture lenses are available. The objective truth is also that at equal aperture and exposure time but at longer focal length for the same FOV, MF systems do produce shallower DOF. So it depends on available options and shooting conditions whether one can produce more shallow DOF or not, with one system or the other. Budget may also be a factor.
The 35mm format has easy access towards a set of fast lenses for bokeh purposes, e.g. 35mm f1.2, 50mm f0.95, 85mm f1.2, 105mm f1.4, 135mm f1.8, 200mm f1.8, 500mm f2.8 etc. Every amateur would go for this kind of lenses when they first enter the digital camera world and aim to produce some "fancy" pictures with bokeh. It's trivial to satisfy your "only if" condition.
I have no doubt that these fast lenses are not optically better, but it's no news that f1.8 lenses could be sharper than f1.4 lenses.
Getting a bit off topic, but why only assume downsampled output, which is what the 'print' score is.
That's the measurement that matters when you make a printing at a specific size and at a certain DPI, or show fullscreen on the same 4k display etc.
And we're comparing with MF not with APS, and one should indeed assume similar generation of sensor design for a meaningful comparison, which is a moving target. The use of e.g. 16-bit ADC's adds a stop of DR and much improved SNR, in the 'Screen' scores (even more in case of the 'print' scores because it currently involves 100MP MF sensor designs).
The Olympus EM-5 is M43 format and the Sony A6300 is APSC format, and the latter is also about one-stop better than the former.
16-bit ADC is of course a different design, but the gain over the 44x33 format is mostly from the sensor size as well as downsampling to 50MP.
-
Hi Wayne,
Thanks for good info.
Regarding the original posting, I don't think we can draw generic conclusions regarding the bokeh thing. We need to look at individual lenses. There are some lens designs optimised for pleasant bokeh.
The older large aperture lenses were not very sharp fully open. That has changed with some of the new designs. Many lenses, including MF-lenses, need to be stopped down a bit to eliminate axial chroma that shows up as magenta/green fringing in OOF areas. I don't have the slightest idea about lenses for technical cameras, but very few large aperture lenses are fully corrected for axial chroma. Zeiss superachromats and Apo-lenses, the three Otuses, Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2, some of the Voigtlander APO Lantars.
Regarding my Hasselblad V-series lenses, they all have axial chroma and it is not fully corrected at f/8, but apart from that they are decently sharp at full aperture.
Best regards
Erik
so as a retired portrait photographer, I would only add that I would never use either of those two focal lengths for shooting most portraits, especially more intimate individual studies. Probably minimum 100mm on the 35 format sensor, and 150 mm on the 645 format sensor will give me better facial perspective, and dropping the background out of focus at something like f/5.6 so I have a little DOF for the face and I won't get some size distortion on facial features.
-
so as a retired portrait photographer, I would only add that I would never use either of those two focal lengths for shooting most portraits, especially more intimate individual studies. Probably minimum 100mm on the 35 format sensor, and 150 mm on the 645 format sensor will give me better facial perspective, and dropping the background out of focus at something like f/5.6 so I have a little DOF for the face and I won't get some size distortion on facial features.
Hi, a Nikon 105mm f1.4 is equivalent as 163mm f2.2 in the 645 format. I don't think there's a lens in the 645 format near that angle of view with a stronger degree of background blur.
It's interesting to know that the western people prefer longer focal lengths to avoid perspective distortion of faces. In Asian, girls would pretty much prefer an angle of view of 28-35mm in 35mm format shooting downwards to make their faces look thin (slim), taking advantages of the perspective distortion from wide angles, because anything longer than 50mm in 35mm format may make their faces look fat.
-
To add to the OP question,
I think subject with very high detail and need of macro is another area where a MFD makes good sense. Maybe the A7r2 does as well, but for DOF and workflow and processing in C1 a MF makes better sense. Only thing is that you certainly don't need 100mpix to get "the job" done(of course there maybe even further exceptions in usage needs). I think the fine arts and "specialty vision" needs fit this area of high MP DB more, along with deep pockets.
Any magazine work I did was more than adequate with 22mp MF, nice lens on a 4x5. Then its processing/production.
Something about CCD transition and color is special
Something about the sensor size/format to lens ratio that breathes differently is a little special
Some uses of leaf shutter maybe special
Something about how you force to view your subject methodically is special. The viewfinder.
So to help with OP, I would get a used older setup to at least see the possible from a private seller. Or rent one for a shoot you have in mind.
Then use your 35mm setup to do the same shoot, or along side. See what you like, and your way of working and pace.
Then if you like and can afford a new system, and are willing to pay for such a system, give the local dealer a call.
But there is very little NEED. The need portion is your vision.
A $40 Quartz Japanese movement tells the same time, if not more accurately than a $30K-500K tourbillon Swiss movement. But how it does it is very different. Not better or worse, but different. And in some needs, one of the differing options is preferred.
-
Pretty much a pro approach....
However Phil, that part with "artists and high resolution and deep pockets"... most of it I know, at least the serious stuff is LF film... (and then many times more than one sheet of film involved)... do you know different? ...I know some that are using MFDB, but not the most important ones, nor they do captures in the way people think of them in forum discussions...
-
You're right most, not all, use film.
One of them, who taught me a lot early on with 8x10/4x5, Per Volquartz used film.
Neil Snape(member) and mentor, who also taught me a lot, and encouraged me over 10 years back used film, and now is exclusively digital.
Others also, just not at the tip of my mind.
-
Artists hardly use digital backs
Seems acceptance of digital varies significantly among highly respected artists... Sugimoto rejects it, Struth employs digital only for post processing, Misrach & Burtynsky use it extensively.
Misrach: http://spot.hcponline.org/pages/richard_misrach_with_peter_brown_488.asp
“...I had to consider alternatives to the 8x10. I started testing a medium format camera with a digital back. And that was that. I haven't shot film in 3 years (I've been accused of going over to the dark side!).”
Burtynsky: http://aphotoeditor.com/2011/11/30/edward-burtynsky-interview/
“EB: They are now shot digitally.
JB: They are…
EB: Yes. I’ve tried every way I can, and film isn’t capable of that quality in aerial work. ”
Burtynsky: http://v-e-n-u-e.com/Primary-Landscapes-An-Interview-with-Edward-Burtynsky
“It would be almost impossible with film to splice those images together so well and not have it look weirdly distorted or problematic. With Photoshop, and with digital files, you’ve got contrast control, the removal of haze, color filtration, and all of that, so I’m able to do things that, again, were not even conceivable five years ago.”
Gursky: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20151106-andreas-gursky-the-bigger-the-better
“He also began to employ digital manipulation, first sparingly, then wildly. Gursky embraced digital manipulation early”
Struth http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elena-cue/interview-with-thomas-str_b_7869912.html
“Well, I do use minimally invasive digital corrections, but I’m not inventing anything. The digital process allows me to deal with partial contrast and colour changes or adjustments in a much more finely tuned way than in the darkroom. The more recent pictures are mainly photographs taken with large format and sheet film, scanned into a file and then we work from the file.”
Sugimoto: http://www.domusweb.it/en/art/2015/03/20/hiroshi_sugimoto_stop_time.html
“with the arrival of digital photography, you can make all the changes you wish, just as in painting. But I am not interested in this development. My photography, the traditional one, has existed for 180 years and I see myself as the last genuine photographer. I am very happy to have worked at the end of what we can call the true photographic era.”
-
Seems acceptance of digital varies significantly among highly respected artists...
For some reason you forgot me on your list... I use digital. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For some reason you forgot me on your list... I use digital. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
My apologies. Grossly negligent indeed. :)
-
Bart, your comments about DOF vs diffraction and shutter speed confuse me.
Firstly, to get equal FOV and DOF in a smaller format, one adjusts both focal length and aperture ratio in proportion to (linear) format size, which is to say keeping equal effective aperture diameter. That gives circles of confusion smaller in the same proportion as the image formed by the lens is smaller, so equally large on prints (or any other display medium) that have the image appearing equally large. From the examples given, this seems possible in 35mm format in comparison to most if not all MF lenses.
Secondly, the lower aperture ratio used in the smaller format to get equal DOF also gives equal diffraction effects on equal sized prints: like he circles of confusion, the diffraction spot sizes are also smaller in proportion to the size of the image formed at the focal plane, so come out the same size on same-sized prints.
Thirdly, as to shutter speed: this could be kept the same if the ISO speed can be reduced enough (in proportion to image area) which would also lead to roughly equal photon counts and do equal S/N ratio as far as photon shot noise goes. In cases where the ISO speed cannot be reduced enough, the consequence is only that the smaller format might have to use a higher shutter speed, which is usually not a problem. In the rare cases that this higher shutter speed is undesirable, an ND filter can be used – however that would leave the larger format with the advantage of higher photon counts and so potentially better IQ through higher S/N ratios and such.
I can see that lenses could sometimes give an IQ advantage to the larger format, due to factors like getting the desired DOF at a higher aperture ratio, where aberrations can be better controlled, but I do not know how such comparisons work out in practice.
-
Hi, a Nikon 105mm f1.4 is equivalent as 163mm f2.2 in the 645 format. I don't think there's a lens in the 645 format near that angle of view with a stronger degree of background blur.
It's interesting to know that the western people prefer longer focal lengths to avoid perspective distortion of faces. In Asian, girls would pretty much prefer an angle of view of 28-35mm in 35mm format shooting downwards to make their faces look thin (slim), taking advantages of the perspective distortion from wide angles, because anything longer than 50mm in 35mm format may make their faces look fat.
Personally I would rarely shoot a portrait at f/1.4 even it was available ... while it might do wonders with the background I think the DOF would be too narrow on the face, and most of the face would be soft. Yes for some occasional effect that might be nice.
Interesting perspective about the difference in Japanese and western portraiture, thx for that ...
-
Hi, a Nikon 105mm f1.4 is equivalent as 163mm f2.2 in the 645 format. I don't think there's a lens in the 645 format near that angle of view with a stronger degree of background blur.
It's interesting to know that the western people prefer longer focal lengths to avoid perspective distortion of faces. In Asian, girls would pretty much prefer an angle of view of 28-35mm in 35mm format shooting downwards to make their faces look thin (slim), taking advantages of the perspective distortion from wide angles, because anything longer than 50mm in 35mm format may make their faces look fat.
Of course there are exceptions to confirm the rule - I think my antique Canon 200/1.8 is an old korean "marriage photo" lens.
Anyway, here is an interesting focal length study/animation:
http://petapixel.com/2016/07/28/camera-adds-10-pounds/
Edmund
-
Hi,
One obvious advantage of medium format is high resolution. Now, present day medium format covers ground from the Leica S (37.5 MP) to 100 MP, with the cropped sensor 50 MP Sony sensor in the middle.
Some posters find 37.5 MP good enough for all purposes, personally I much doubt that, much because 37.5 MP is not enough to significantly suppress aliasing at medium apertures.
One application where high MP count is beneficial is printing large. That said, I looked into this a bit, and it was a sobering experience: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=111892.msg925446#msg925446
In short, I by and large fail to see advantages of high MP in decent size prints:
- Cannot observe difference between 24 MP and 39 MP in A2-size (16"x23") prints without a loupe.
- Can observe difference between 39MP and 85MP at A0-size (31"x47") at close view (around 50 cm) but not really at 80 cm.
Smaller pixels and high resolution may be helpful in reducing aliasing artefacts, see the attached screen dump. The image at the bottom, shot on the Pentax 645Z has a lot of aliasing on the green label, while IQ3-100MP image has absolutely clean rendition. In this case, I would think that the sensor ouresolves the subject than resolution being limited by lens.
Would be nice if some folks doing large size printing would elaborate on this.
Best regards
Erik
-
It's interesting to know that the western people prefer longer focal lengths to avoid perspective distortion of faces. In Asian, girls would pretty much prefer an angle of view of 28-35mm in 35mm format shooting downwards to make their faces look thin (slim), taking advantages of the perspective distortion from wide angles, because anything longer than 50mm in 35mm format may make their faces look fat.
Very interesting!
Thank you for your post. It explained a few things I noticed in the Asian Social media but was unable to understand. Now it makes sense.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
...
Anyway, here is an interesting focal length study/animation:
http://petapixel.com/2016/07/28/camera-adds-10-pounds/
Edmund
Very nice indeed :)
-
Seems acceptance of digital varies significantly among highly respected artists... Sugimoto rejects it, Struth employs digital only for post processing, Misrach & Burtynsky use it extensively.
That's a good discussion.
Most artists use film for capturing, most artists use digital for post processing, what would be interesting to know, is if the ones that use digital for capturing use it in a way that has any relevance with the way enthousiasts with money to spend use their high resolution digital capturing devices...
I mean do they just put their camera on a tripod and then say: "Hey, that's a nice looking scene, I'll capture this..." or do they visualize a print, then design the process as to achieve the print visualized with all the elements included in the design (lighting, DR, detail, above all the looks), then decide on the right use of tools that will satisfy the process and then go to execute it by shooting some ...200GB of files out of which they choose the elements as to include in the final print of 3-4GB of size...???
Also... is the print the result out of using one lens only for the whole process?
Are the elements used all with the same settings on the camera? same exposure, same DOF, same focusing, same tilts, same swings, same shifts?
I only brought up the subject because there are members that insist on the importance of using (ultra) high resolution backs, while many pros on the other hand (like Phil mentioned above) are still happy with their ...22mp backs and are providing awesome results of the highest possible detail for many years now, without "upgrading" (perhaps because it would be a "DOWNgrading"?) ever crossing their minds...
I'm sure that there are members here, that would be happy as to ADVISE Misrach, or Burtynsky, or Gursky, or Struth or Sugimoto or even other kinds than artists out the of working pros, ...on what they should be doing as to do it right!
-
You're right most, not all, use film.
Hi Phil,
The more interesting question then becomes, Why?
Is is out of habit, do they see something in Film that they cannot do without to express their creative intent, is it just lack of skill in digital, or ... ?
Otherwise, it all reminds me a bit too much of those who worship Black and White photography, because their early encounters with photographic work was from photographers who shot in Black and White (because there was hardly any color available). But then Ansel Adams didn't have the same color material choices that we do, and he probably would have loved digital photography for its ability to additionally control lighting in Postprocessing, but it simply wasn't around yet.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The more interesting question then becomes, Why?
Indeed. Another possibility is that it is a form of discipline, which imposes a certain way of working... rather like writing poetry in a specific meter.
I don't think the lack of skill argument flies, since by scanning the film they have in any case to jump most of the technical hurdles of digital.
Otherwise, it all reminds me a bit too much of those who worship Black and White photography, because their early encounters with photographic work was from photographers who shot in Black and White
I don't know that I worship B&W... I simply prefer it. It's a different medium, just as charcoal drawing is different to watercolour is different to oils. Or from photography. There is a greater element of abstraction, usually. Doubtless others see it differently and some may indeed have an ideological vision.
-
Hi Phil,
The more interesting question then becomes, Why?
Is is out of habit, do they see something in Film that they cannot do without to express their creative intent, is it just lack of skill in digital, or ... ?
That's the easy part to answer... because they prefer the "looks"? Because the find the looks of film more communicative? ...Just like vinyl sounds out of a good triode tube single ended stereo with material also recorded in analog?
Communication result out of the product is the first thing an artist (of any kind of art) is after....
Otherwise, it all reminds me a bit too much of those who worship Black and White photography, because their early encounters with photographic work was from photographers who shot in Black and White (because there was hardly any color available). But then Ansel Adams didn't have the same color material choices that we do, and he probably would have loved digital photography for its ability to additionally control lighting in Post processing, but it simply wasn't around yet.
Cheers,
Bart
I'm afraid there is no such thing as "black and white photography"... In a composition (any composition out of any art) the elements that are destructive as to make the subject more communicative must be removed... other wise they distract attention from being concentrated to the subject itself... Bob Dylan and Neil Young where superb in this... They could have in the same an album a composition with only a harmonica and a guitar used and then, in the very next song use an orchestra with some ...70 instruments involved!! It's all a matter on how a composition works best... If the destructive element is color, then it must be removed... if the destructive element is a particular color (or colors) then it must be removed or replaced with one it works...
-
I mean do they just put their camera on a tripod and then say: "Hey, that's a nice looking scene, I'll capture this..." or do they visualize a print, then design the process as to achieve the print visualized with all the elements included ...
Obviously artists at that level have individual artistic visions and thought process & methods to achieve their vision. Since most here are not personal acquaintances of such respected artists (at least I'm not) the only way to understand their work and methods is to study their work, read their books and read/watch interviews where their thought process and work is discussed.
Richard Avedon's "In the American West" shows what it took to create that body of work. Victoria Sambunaris's "Taxonomy of a Landscape" and accompanying contact sheets show behind the scenes and a glimpse of the effort. Video interviews with Struth are very revealing of his way of conceiving and his thought process etc. etc.
Everyone starts at "Hey, that's a nice looking scene, I'll capture this..." but then the process of evolving as a practitioner begins.
How far we get depends on talent, work ethic, desire, vision, passion, commitment and did I mention talent :)
-
Bart, your comments about DOF vs diffraction and shutter speed confuse me.
Hi, it was not my intention. Maybe it's due to the confusing responses that denied the generally shallower DOF of MF, unless one starts to change apertures to (over-)compensate. Apertures change DOF, which should be no surprise.
Firstly, to get equal FOV and DOF in a smaller format, one adjusts both focal length and aperture ratio in proportion to (linear) format size, which is to say keeping equal effective aperture diameter. That gives circles of confusion smaller in the same proportion as the image formed by the lens is smaller, so equally large on prints (or any other display medium) that have the image appearing equally large. From the examples given, this seems possible in 35mm format in comparison to most if not all MF lenses.
Yes, it it possible to compensate for the differences in DOF that are caused by the different focal lengths needed to adjust the FOV. No disagreement on that, as far as I'm concerned.
But one will have to adjust the Aperture to achieve that, and that also requires a change in exposure time to compensate. There may be constraints (e.g. too long an exposure time to avoid a certain level of motion blur on the MF gear).
Secondly, the lower aperture ratio used in the smaller format to get equal DOF also gives equal diffraction effects on equal sized prints: like he circles of confusion, the diffraction spot sizes are also smaller in proportion to the size of the image formed at the focal plane, so come out the same size on same-sized prints.
The aperture number (which determines the angular aperture or Numerical Aperture) determines the diameter of the Airy Diffraction pattern. So regardless of the focal length, the same f-number will produce the same amount of diffraction on the sensor plane. With the required (usually) smaller output magnification of MF, the diffaction in output will be less. Obviously, if we had compensated the DOF with changed apertures, things like diffraction would also be equal. One exception, if the required narrower aperture number for the MF exceeds the diffraction cut-off frequency of the sensor, there will be a total loss of resolution, while there might still be some marginal resolution on the wider aperture for the smaller format.
Thirdly, as to shutter speed: this could be kept the same if the ISO speed can be reduced enough (in proportion to image area) which would also lead to roughly equal photon counts and do equal S/N ratio as far as photon shot noise goes.
A lot can happen when ISO is changed (depends on the sensor technology and supporting electronics), but it doesn't change the number of photons that a given aperture number allows to pass (per unit time). The physically larger aperture of the longer MF focal length lets in more photons, but they are spread over a larger sensor area, so total exposure per pixel remains the same, until we change the aperture numbers between formats to compensate for DOF differences. Changing aperture numbers will also need to be compensated for by adjusting exposure time or flash intensity, because different numbers of photons will be let in. ISO does not change that.
In cases where the ISO speed cannot be reduced enough, the consequence is only that the smaller format might have to use a higher shutter speed, which is usually not a problem.
Or the larger format has to use a slower shutter speed, which might get to be an issue at large magnifications (although MF usually requires less output magnification).
In the rare cases that this higher shutter speed is undesirable, an ND filter can be used – however that would leave the larger format with the advantage of higher photon counts and so potentially better IQ through higher S/N ratios and such.
Higher photon counts, but also spread over a larger surface! Local exposure of larger magnified detail is where the S/N ratio counts, and where MF has opportunities (in addition to higher MTF due to lower spatial frequencies of the more magnified projected scene), especially in postprocessing it will give more quality to work on. Unfortunately aliasing artifacts may prevent exploiting some of the advantages.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Obviously artists at that level have individual artistic visions and thought process & methods to achieve their vision. Since most here are not personal acquaintances of such respected artists (at least I'm not) the only way to understand their work and methods is to study their work, read their books and read/watch interviews where their thought process and work is discussed.
Richard Avedon's "In the American West" shows what it took to create that body of work. Victoria Sambunaris's "Taxonomy of a Landscape" and accompanying contact sheets show behind the scenes and a glimpse of the effort. Video interviews with Struth are very revealing of his way of conceiving and his thought process etc. etc.
Everyone starts at "Hey, that's a nice looking scene, I'll capture this..." but then the process of evolving as a practitioner begins.
How far we get depends on talent, work ethic, desire, vision, passion and did I mention talent :)
Spot on...
That's why the answer to the OP on "Why MF ?" should be...
1. Because the use of tools depends on the needs of the photographer as these advance with the tasks... and
2. Because its wrong to compare different tools aimed for different tasks having in mind and comparing on the limited tasks that another format is already good at....
-
Aloha,
I'd never use a 35mm system again, I fucking hated 35mm digital.
From the minute I bought my first 35mm digital camera, I was saving money for medium format.
There is a lot of talk about 35mm "catching up", "closing the gap" but MF makers have not been sitting around either...
the attached image was shot with a Pentax 645Z and a 645 400mm f5.6 FA gimbal mounted.
tragically, my polarizer was on my old 400mm and didn't make it into the bag that night, after a few hours of 50 foot waves the air is thick with mist, a CPL cuts through a lot of that, otherwise I would stand that up to anything the white lenses were shooting that day.
The latest MF gear is very flexible and when it flexes out to the IQ side, its pretty impressive, much more so than 35mm
-
Hi,
Looking at prints of great masters you realise that they or their printers are masters of printing.
Ansel Adams is known for his large format work but in later part of his life he was actually shooting Hasselblad, on film naturally. But Ansel Adams was almost and perhaps foremost a great printer. But, Ansel Adams also knew his math. He developed the Zone system, found out which set of chemicals gave the gradation curves he needed for a scene, chose developers for edge enhancement when needed.
Making the print he used an enlarger with locally variable light source of his own construction, used burn in and dodging and used locally adapted bleaching on prints.
Ansel Adams is a great example that knowledge matters more than tools.
Some of the greatest printers used the dye transfer process with it's infinite amount of variation. Interestingly quite a few have progressed from dye transfer to digital printing. Part of that of course is that Kodak stopped making dye transfer materials.
This interview with Ctein is quite interesting: https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/conversation-ctein/conversation-ctein/
And so is this video with Charlie Cramer: https://player.vimeo.com/video/124162553
Charlie Cramer used to be a 4x5 film shooter, and had a drum scanner of his own but converted to medium format when MFD delivered quality that was good enough:
https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/luminous-landscape-video-journal-issue-16/interview-charles-cramer/
A small point, at that time LuLa has posted a test of digital vs. MFD systems:
https://luminous-landscape.com/measuring-megabytes/ There was some critique the comparison did 4x5" no justice as the scans Charlie Cramer did was just 2000 PPI.
It can be argued that higher resolution scans like 6000 PPI can extract more and better detail from Velvia than 2000 PPI scans. But I guess that 2000 PPI from 4x5" was considered pretty optimal or good enough. So when digital has matched Velvia 4x5" in resolution many former 4x5" shooters jumped train and swithched to digital, at a very considerable cost.
Tim Parkin offers a different insight: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
That said, I did my part of 3200 PPI scanning of 67 film, and I would never go back to film.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for presenting the question in terms of "what sort of work requires..." and not "who requires..." :)
Now let's also remove the element of cost and focus only on the system...
So instead of asking: "what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera system"
Let's ask: "what sort of work and output requires a 80-100MP MFDB camera system"
The type of work that requires such equipment is the work done by the likes of Edward Burtynsky (documentary landscape), Thomas Struth (contemporary), Richard Misrach (contemporary landscape), Richard Avedon (Portraiture), Victoria Sambunaris (contemporary landscape), Brett Weston (abstract landscape), Ansel Adams (traditional landscape), Hiroshi Sugimoto (seascapes)... even Peter Lik (colorful landscape) and Rodney Lough (colorful landscape)... etc. etc.
Looking at printed works of these artists, in museums and/or galleries, makes it very clear that such work requires a different type camera system. I understand some of the names I mentioned passed away before the MFDBs even existed - but I am saying that is the 'kind of work' that requires MFDB equipment. So that's really my answer to your question.
Now, obviously not everyone "pro" or "wealthy amateur" [I hate that term], who owns such equipment is at the level of the esteemed names I mentioned, but many are interested in doing that 'kind of work' and in that pursuit, they choose such equipment.
-
It does start to sound like the arguments for 24bit 192kHz sampled audio, which employ extraordinary contorsions of logic to escape the fact that no adult human can distinguish the sound from properly implemented 16 bit 44kHz...
Similarly that the special and unique analogue signatures of vinyl and triode amps are distortions, as can be shown by including an A/D/A step in the chain.
All of which is fine and everyone should have the right, within their financial capacities, to shoot what they like. Hell, I just saw some photos of me as a model, shot on 6x7 Portra. They look great (euh, not because of me), I look like I had died two days earlier and had started to decompose, just the effect the photographer wanted :)
However the original question was, I thought, a valid one: for those who work in the commercial field with pragmatic quality requirements regarding resolution, colour fidelity and so on, does MFD bring sufficient, useful added quality to justify the added costs?
-
It does start to sound like the arguments for 24bit 192kHz sampled audio, which employ extraordinary contorsions of logic to escape the fact that no adult human can distinguish the sound from properly implemented 16 bit 44kHz...
for those who work in the commercial field with pragmatic quality requirements regarding resolution, colour fidelity and so on, does MFD bring sufficient, useful added quality to justify the added costs?
For professional audio people, 24 bit and 192kHz capture adds negligible cost, and thus it is standard procedure to record at the highest possible quality setting, even if this probably does not affect the audible quality.
For a photographer/employer who spends a lot on travels, lights, models, etc, perhaps the price differential of a good 35mm camera to a MFD camera is negligible in comparision and worth it for even minute quality differences?
What are the alternatives if you want leaf shutter, camera/lens movements, high quality single-shot results?
Being an amateur, I try to keep expenses in check. If I did this for a living, having tools that I could operate well, with predictable results, good ergonomy, using lenses that I preferred, shutters/flash, day in and day out would mean a lot to me.
-h
-
Nice image.
When it works it really works.
Edmund
Aloha,
I'd never use a 35mm system again, I fucking hated 35mm digital.
From the minute I bought my first 35mm digital camera, I was saving money for medium format.
There is a lot of talk about 35mm "catching up", "closing the gap" but MF makers have not been sitting around either...
the attached image was shot with a Pentax 645Z and a 645 400mm f5.6 FA gimbal mounted.
tragically, my polarizer was on my old 400mm and didn't make it into the bag that night, after a few hours of 50 foot waves the air is thick with mist, a CPL cuts through a lot of that, otherwise I would stand that up to anything the white lenses were shooting that day.
The latest MF gear is very flexible and when it flexes out to the IQ side, its pretty impressive, much more so than 35mm
-
This has been an enlightening discussion and I appreciate all the responses to my original question. My question was primarily one of curiosity and not to find out if MFD was something I needed or even wanted. And given this discussion MF does not make sense for me. I'm not a pro. I do not work in a studio. I rarely make prints larger than A3. Most of my 'artistic' work is in B&W. I often carry my equipment long distances. The current range of quality lenses for 35mm is now simply amazing and more affordable than ever (Sigma's Art line comes to mind), so not much need to compromise on quality glass. I do a fair amount of action photography (equestrian and motorsports). I do want to do more high end B&W landscape and make larger prints. For this slower, more thoughtful type of photography large format would likely be cheaper than MFD and I've been toying with the idea of getting a basic LF rig for years anyway. (I can process the negatives myself and scan and then print via high end inkjet). Not sure I'll ever do it.
Thanks again.
-
For a photographer/employer who spends a lot on travels, lights, models, etc, perhaps the price differential of a good 35mm camera to a MFD camera is negligible in comparision and worth it for even minute quality differences?
Maybe some of my ignorance starts here. Where are the types of images you are talking about (high end fashion/marketing) ending up? Again, I think about magazine pages, which equate to tiny prints. I understand the importance of proper color and sharpness in this regard. But what benefit is 50 or 100mp for what ends up being an 8x10? (Again, not trolling, just asking.)
-
If you ever get to South Florida, a visit to Clyde Butcher's showroom situated along the old Alligator Alley is very eye opening considering some of his B&W prints are in the 6x12 feet range if I recall, with many in the 4x8 feet range. He also has a showroom around Venice, FL, but the one along Alligator Alley is stunning to see as it is IN the Everglades. He mainly uses LF, but it is the printing that impressed me most.
-
Hi,
Bcooter (James Russel) used to have some comments from the commercial side. He was happy with P25, Canons of different size and Panasonic GH3. Now I think he mostly shoots Leica S2 (37.5 MP CCD).
One reason for 100 MP is actually that CMOS sensors are made in two sizes, full frame 645 (100MP) and 1.3X crop 44x33 (50 MP) mm. Most MFD systems are optimised for full frame 645, so the 50 MP CMOS sensors are bound to 1.3X crop.
So, if you need full frame CMOS, the only choice is 100 MP. CCD based backs come in different varieties, so there are 60MP and 80MP full frame sensors from DALSA, for instance.
Why doesn't Sony make a 50 MP full frame sensor? Because it would need a lot of R&D work to develop such a sensor and the market is probably to small. It would probably be more expensive than the 100 MP sensor as it would need a new pixel design, while the 100MP sensor probably leans a bit on current designs.
Personally, I have been using a P45+ for three years, but now I feel like it is going into retirement. It still can make great images, of course, but the Sony A7rII is a better tool for my needs.(*)
Regarding film, I don't think it is great fun to scan.
Best regards
Erik
(*) I am not really advocating Sony A7rII, at least not for everyone, but I have P45+ and A7rII, so it is quite natural I compare the two systems I have. For me at least, there is a great advantage with the A7rII, I can put almost any lens on it and the lenses I use can be used with a T&S adapter. Cost plays a major role, of course. Those 100MP bodies are beyond my reach.
Maybe some of my ignorance starts here. Where are the types of images you are talking about (high end fashion/marketing) ending up? Again, I think about magazine pages, which equate to tiny prints. I understand the importance of proper color and sharpness in this regard. But what benefit is 50 or 100mp for what ends up being an 8x10? (Again, not trolling, just asking.)
-
Very interesting!
Thank you for your post. It explained a few things I noticed in the Asian Social media but was unable to understand. Now it makes sense.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
In China, photography gear is a kind of luxury consumption. You just need the right gear to fit into the right group. A large amount of medium format digital sales goes into that category.
-
Those photos from China are mind boggling! Often if I see anyone else on a backcountry landscape shoot it seems crowded.
-
Those photos from China are mind boggling! Often if I see anyone else on a backcountry landscape shoot it seems crowded.
+1
Mind boggling and crazy.
I can't imagine seeing this many MF cameras in one place, even at a DT/Phase One event.
-
I find this thread somewhat amusing. We all know the answer is fairly simple – it depends on what works for you. Need is a very loaded word because it’s often a projection of what we think others want or what we can rationalize. Although, I’m sure for some professionals there are clients that demand it. I’m not a professional in that I do not earn my living with photography. But I do indulge my desire to have the best equipment available when truly I don’t need it. A couple of year ago I had an exhibit at the Federal Reserve Board in DC of my costal images. Most of these images were in the 40 x 60 range and all were shot with a Nikon 800. The opening was attended by a couple of curators of photography museums and by Joel Meyerowitz. Not one person asked about what equipment I was using or whether the images were sharp enough. My guess the people that visited the exhibit didn’t care about the equipment I was using. I also happen to be a collector of photography with images from Adams, Callahan, Davidson, Newman, Arbus, Lange, Kertesz, Smith as well as many others. What you notice is that most of these images were not shot with cameras that have the resolving power of my Nikon. They are about content, design and representing a place in time. It wasn’t until I became more obsessed with pixels and sharpness that I really noticed the softness. If all of this is true then why would I possibly own a XF100! One reason is because I can afford it and I love gear! Totally irrational – right? I do try to rationalize it because I print large images, it gives me more flexibility in post processing and it does slow me down some in the field. It’s a thin rationalization but it works for me!! To each their own.
-
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-have-we-reached-peak-digital-photography
-
Another reason for large 100mp LF would be production. I was just shooting some products, and thought I might be able to be faster if I can take the images with the products next to them along with the other product and chop up in production. So the extra resolution affords me that. But these are rare.
The China images are funny. That is a oddly large amount of forrest pattern LensCoats!
Also, I should have said MANY artists use film, certainly not most.
You also have to consider something overlooked often.
Using film is also someone marketable to those that are less informed, or value nostalgia.
If you are a artist who uses film, you somehow marketed yourself as a more "authentic" artist to some folks.
So this becomes a thing for gallery reps, and they may push such artists more. Hence you think most "artists" are using film. There are plenty top artists, maybe not so well repped and popular, but just as strong, and use digital.
In the Fine Art, film is more marketable.
...Something to consider.
I have to add, great points Erik. I too was one of those people using a scanner and 4x5 and reading Michaels materials(although my original member-username got lost-changed), But I too was looking over Kodak, then Phase, etc....Its 10 years since I switched to digital, and never looked back, just for fun, and still have a full size fridge full of lots of film I haven't even looked at in years. I am nmore interested in making images, while I enjoy the process, it is a tool to the end product.
-
I didn't even see bcooters post and just now read the title :-) hehe...I'm guessing my post has some overlap.
-
Totally irrational – right?
OP here. Not irrational at all. Except that I don't think anyone who is spending his own money (and isn't impoverished because of it) has any requirement to rationalize anything, least of all an amateur. Probably 99% of what we own is because we want it and the 1% of things we need could be of a lesser variety. If someone else, like an employer, is purchasing your equipment, then yes, you might have to justify it. As mentioned before, a very wealthy man could buy a top end medium format system like it was candy and never take a decent picture in his life. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Also keep in mind its more the "artists process" that justifies the tool. As Erik pointed out a number of great key importances, although his reasons we can leave aside for taking the A7R2 as a preferred tool for his image making, but Erik is a super critical guy when it comes to IQ, and maybe I'd ask him to refocus some past tests shots he has taken, but certainly it should give you a hint to how close the IQ gap has come between the platforms.
Viewfinder, lens characteristics, and color aside, when you are making images, and not taking them, sure the meat of the MF file is "thicker" and you can feel how it takes more effort before things start cracking, but you really aren't always at the limits of things when you work in a methodical, or even not so methodical approach with some of the cameras and their DR and such.
But I must say, with a AA filter that makes images milky and fuzzy, there is some step in clarity that people claim can be had with some sharpening and such, but you really don't get that 3D effect, maybe less difference with a shallow DOF, but there is a quality, even discussed here at least a couple other times in depth.
So I don't know how the Canon "negates" the AA effect, but the Sony doesn't have it, nor the Olympus.
Some test showing the oly with multishot being even clearer than some other camera I forgot it was up against, maybe the Nik810, but it had the edge for THAT particular setup of usage....
So those are very good tools for IQ. But say your an journalist/event/Corp shooter by day (75% of your work) and Stills or Fine artist by night and you want the right tool. I wouldn't put all my eggs into a A7r2 body to withstand the beatings I give it in the field. Years back I would have a 1Ds body, and a prosumer Canon body as backup. I do the backup from time to time, but with a A7r2, I would surely need to have 2 bodies, and bunch of batteries from what I hear.
Anyway, you are correct that you really DON'T need it, as much as you need a Ferrari to get to work faster in the mornings.
-
Also keep in mind its more the "artists process" that justifies the tool.
...
Anyway, you are correct that you really DON'T need it, as much as you need a Ferrari to get to work faster in the mornings.
I think that it makes sense to distinguish between the tools of a creative person, and the luxury items of a consumer (note that a camera can be both).
A consumer can buy just about anything that makes her happy. He or she may argue that they make their choices because of this or that, but there is ample evidence that our purchasing behaviour is a complex, partially subconcious process.
A creative person use tools to produce some output. Even if camera A is not measurably "better" than camera B, if the creative person is, for whatever reason, able to make better output, then it may be worth something. An author using an old type-writer may be using a "bad" tool, but if that is what is getting his creative juices flowing, I'd say "go for it". After all, using the "bad" typewriter may (in this case) mean producing a better novel, even if the kind of text it is able to produce is just the same as a modern laptop.
-h
-
A creative person use tools to produce some output.
Yes, a camera is a tool, it's an enabler. But some tools make life easier, faster to achieve results, less distracting to the creative process, or less follow-up work required (leaving more time to add a creative touch).
There may also be other attributes that make some tools more enabling than others, like ruggedness or longevity, ease of handling, fewer exposures (fewer scene movement issues), etc.
And it is usually nicer to work with well designed tools than to struggle with poorly designed stuff. And for some the esthetics of the tools already start with the capture process, and can have a positive influence on the rest of the creative process. Some even use the deficiencies of the tool as a statement/style (e.g. Lomography, Polaroid, etc.).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Some even use the deficiencies of the tool as a statement/style (e.g. Lomography, Polaroid, etc.).
Cheers,
Bart
Sally Mann comes to mind in this regard.
-
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-have-we-reached-peak-digital-photography
I've chased "IQ", sharpness, dynamic range, etc... for a lot of years. It ain't all it's cracked up to be.
-
Hi,
It all depends on needs or wants, perceived or real…
Some folks make their living making large size prints. With large print size the demands on image quality raise, but large prints are often viewed at some distance. On the other hand, some prints need to be viewed close and good detail may be a part of the attraction of a print.
Astronomers know that the most important thing in imaging is the diameter of the inlet pupil. That is the reason astronomical telescopes are always measured by diameter.
A larger physical aperture means more photons and less diffraction. MF lenses have a larger aperture. But, they also have a longer focal length at same field of view, so you need to stop them down more. Stopping down reduces the advantage, you get less photons and more diffraction.
A larger sensor can collect more photons. There has probably been some development in full well capacity with modern sensors, but if we assume similar technology like the modern Sony sensors in Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax and Nikon cameras we can assume that the larger format sensors can collect 1.7-2.7x times more light (photons). So the larger formats will have 30-60% advantage in Signal Noise Ratio (SNR) at similar exposure.
On the other hand, SNR on sensors is pretty good today. But:
- With MFD you can underexpose one stop to protect highlights
- Or shoot at 170(44x33) ISO or 270 (full frame 645) ISO and have similar image quality to 24x36 at 100 ISO
MFD lenses are often well corrected, but for the price of a normal MFD lens you can buy a top quality 24x36 lens. Sigma Art, Zeiss (Batis, Milvus, Otus) lenses are usually great performers and camera makers also have great lens options, once you are spending a bit more.
For a major photographic operation camera gear doesn't mean a large part of the operating costs. A small operation may need to consider each penny on other hand.
So, yes there are advantages of large formates. But, most of the time the smaller formats are good enough. That applies all the time you go down the format stairs. MFD may be good enough, 24x36 mm may be good enough, APS-C may be good enough, 4/3 may be good enough, 1" is often good enough and so on.
You can probably make excellent A2 size (16" x 23") prints from 4/3, at least Ctein says so.
Best regards
Erik
I've chased "IQ", sharpness, dynamic range, etc... for a lot of years. It ain't all it's cracked up to be.
-
There is a difference between good enough and maximum quality. Don't be confused as to what is acceptable to you today, and what is acceptable to a client in a year or two. Raw files get better, but native resolution is native resolution.
-
There is a difference between good enough and maximum quality. Don't be confused as to what is acceptable to you today, and what is acceptable to a client in a year or two. Raw files get better, but native resolution is native resolution.
IMO, good enough means that it is ...good enough! I've not seen any customer ever re-doing his 10 years old order as to do it better... I could even argue if there's anything a "modern tool" could add as to make it better... If skills are 99% and tooling only 1%, then skills will always win... Tools are only there to "help" skills... it's not to the user (or "reviewer") of some tool to say what is a better tool, it's up to the creator of the (commonly acceptable) great image to use the tool that suits him...
-
Hi,
My starting point is this interview with Ctein: https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/conversation-ctein/conversation-ctein/
I also fall back on my experience walking up trough formats from 2004 onwards today, not least a few recent tests including 80x120 cm prints.
Another small point is that maximum resolution can only be achieved in a single plane of absolute focus, you can tilt it, or it may be a curved plane as many lenses have curvature of field. You can stop down but than diffraction will take its toll.
Now, what is good enough varies from person to person. But, about 12 MP is needed to match human vision in A2 print viewed at 50 cm. You can of course look closer, but 50 cm is pretty close.
On the other hand, I have been told that there is an observable difference between 16-18 MP and 36 MP in A2 size prints, at least on glossy papers and with certain subjects.
I can mention two cases, one was a landscape shoot. It was a windy evening and I was concerned about to much motion in the leaves. At that time I was shooting with a Sony A900 a 24 MP camera, but I also had a Sony A55, 16 MP APS-C. The APS-C camera had live view, so I could achieve more accurate focus. Sensor on the APS-C was a newer generation so I could crank up ISO to 400 instead of 200. With APS-C I could you use another lens that was sharper over the APS-C area. In that case the APS-C image went on the wall.
The other was a recent comparison where I was shooting my Hasselblad 555/ELD with the Distagon 40/4FLE and my P45+ on one hand and my Sony A7rII with my Canon 16-35/4 on the other. Pixel peeping gave at hand that the two systems were about the same near center, with the P45+ having a lot of colour aliasing artefacts. Moving of center to midfield the Distagon broke down. At the extreme corners both lenses were bad but the Distagon 40/4 FLE fared better.
I printed a 50% crop at A2 size. That corresponds to 33"x49" for the full image. Looking at around 50 cm the midfield part didn't look that great on that Distagon with the Canon zoom being clearly better, moving back to 100 cm viewing distance the weakness of the Distagon 40 FLE was masked by the increased viewing distance.
This is an 1:1 sample from the Distagon 40/4 off axis (midfield):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/WA/wa_border_20150227-CF047094.jpg)
And this one was from Canon 16-35/4 off axis (mid field):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/WA/wa_border_20160227-_DSC4378.jpg)
So, in this case the Canon 16-35/4 is significantly better in this subject area and this was absolutely evident looking at the 33"x49" print at 50 cm, moving back to 100 cm, there was no visible difference and I would probably give the Distagon/P45+ the nod. Now, a person with better vision than 20/20 would probably consider Sony A7rII Canon combo sharper at 100 cm.
If you see a difference between the two images, try to walk back a bit and see what happens. Viewing the image at 80-100 cm on a 100PPI screen would correspond looking at my 33"x45" print at 50 cm.
But, would you hang those prints side by side and the observer would walk between the two the differences would be even less noticeable. Would the observer do a close scrutiny he would observe two differences:
- The P45+ image has significant alising at the center.
- The P45+ / Distagon combo is not sharp enough for that print size at close viewing
Here are a set of actual pixel crops from that test:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/WA/
I am not doing a lot of those tests, but I just got my Canon 16-35/4L and have done a lot of shooting those day to find out it's limitations. I found very few, except extreme corners.
Regarding the Distagon 40/4 FLE, it is just a single sample, but I also had the Distagon 50/4 and have the Distagon 60/3.5 and all had a weakness off axis. Zeiss made a Distagon 40/4 IF which is much better. It is quite rare and expensive. I have also seen quite a few postings indicating similar weaknesses with the Distagons and that is of course also consistent with measured MTF at Zeiss and Hasselblad.
It used to be said that around 180 PPI is needed for a great print and 180 PPI is a good match for the resolution of human vision (20/20) at 50 cm viewing distance. That would be 180x33 -> 5940 pixels vertically for my 33"x45" print, and that is what both the P45+ and the Sony A7rII deliver. So, watching at 50 cm you see the same as pixel peeping on the screen. But backing of to 100 cm the issue with the Distagon / P45+ is not very visible.
Best regards
Erik
There is a difference between good enough and maximum quality. Don't be confused as to what is acceptable to you today, and what is acceptable to a client in a year or two. Raw files get better, but native resolution is native resolution.
-
Everyone is getting too caught up on sharpness and resolution. I literally could care nothing about it.
There is just simply a different look to medium format images. It's not even bokeh related. Just a different look I have not been able to get on smaller formats. I make my entire income doing stock photography, and I totally believe a large part of my success is entirely due to the medium format look imparting a small advantage when people look at a page full of thumbnails to buy. That is what does it for me.
-
Everyone is getting too caught up on sharpness and resolution. I literally could care nothing about it.
There is just simply a different look to medium format images. It's not even bokeh related. Just a different look I have not been able to get on smaller formats. I make my entire income doing stock photography, and I totally believe a large part of my success is entirely due to the medium format look imparting a small advantage when people look at a page full of thumbnails to buy. That is what does it for me.
Finally an interesting remark. My experience as a part-time artist was exactly the opposite: Prints sold well, but never my MF work. Maybe I was just better with the Canon - the MF images were technically hugely better, although it took me much more effort to make the MF thing yield a keeper.
Whatever works is the right equipment.
Edmund
-
Everyone is getting too caught up on sharpness and resolution. I literally could care nothing about it.
There is just simply a different look to medium format images. It's not even bokeh related. Just a different look I have not been able to get on smaller formats. I make my entire income doing stock photography, and I totally believe a large part of my success is entirely due to the medium format look imparting a small advantage when people look at a page full of thumbnails to buy. That is what does it for me.
No one talks about look, it's what the numbers add up to that counts these days. The last exhibition I went to was a Bresson. I can't think the pictures would of been better if the technical side had been nailed. The picture doesn't count anymore, the nembers is where it's at, put a meter on it if you want to know if it's good.
-
Hi,
That is really good news, if nobody cares about technical quality than we don't need anything more than a simple camera. Art thrives and photo industry dies…
Just consider this: great art has been made with analogue 135 cameras with or without mirrors for many years. They were considered to be around 6MP, 17-th May 2000 Canon introduced the EOS D30, that only had 3.1 MP but could still compete head on with film. The main reason for that was that the digital image was low noise and it didn't require intermediate steps, like scanning or printing.
The question the original poster raised is quite relevant, what applications need medium format? You can ask the very same question for any format or camera. Who needs 24x36, or who needs APS-C, 4/3, 1", etc. Most images today are probably shot on cell phone cameras and those images can be quite OK, probably better than many images shot on Tri-X pushed to 1600 ISO in the seventies.
Just keep in mind, technology sells. Would that not be the case, the photo industry would be stone dead. After all, most people who can afford a camera already have at least one that is perfectly good enough.
Another way to see it, you can analyse your needs. For instance, I mostly print 16"x23" (A2) and I have essentially found that 12 MP yields adequate prints. Going to 24 MP may have visible benefits. Going to around 40 MP, I have seen little benefits at A2 sized prints.
On the other hand, those 40 MP are almost free. For sure, the 42 MP camera I have is a bit more expensive than the 24 MP version, but lenses and stuff are the same.
Opting for a smaller system can save you a lot of money and weight. So, if you don't need the image quality you can buy an APS-C system like the Fuji XT, still very high quality but much less weight.
A bridge camera won't give the image quality of full frame or APS-C, but a camera like the Sony RX-10 will give image quality that is quite OK for A2 and offer a tremendous flexibility.
So, estimating needs and buying stuff that meets those requirements may be smart way of optimising system choice.
Best regards
Erik
No one talks about look, it's what the numbers add up to that counts these days. The last exhibition I went to was a Bresson. I can't think the pictures would of been better if the technical side had been nailed. The picture doesn't count anymore, the nembers is where it's at, put a meter on it if you want to know if it's good.
-
No one talks about look, it's what the numbers add up to that counts these days. The last exhibition I went to was a Bresson. I can't think the pictures would of been better if the technical side had been nailed. The picture doesn't count anymore, the nembers is where it's at, put a meter on it if you want to know if it's good.
A few decades back, an excellent British songwriter (Billy Bragg), made an album (on an independent label of course) called "Talking with the taxman about poetry"... I only have to add to your (excellent in its sarcasm) post that its sad to see people in forums commenting in "image quality", while at the same time their understanding of "image quality" has nothing to do with what is taught in photographic schools as being "the art of photography"... Billy was spot-on in his album's title....
-
A few decades back, an excellent British songwriter (Billy Bragg), made an album (on an independent label of course) called "Talking with the taxman about poetry"... I only have to add to your (excellent in its sarcasm) post that its sad to see people in forums commenting in "image quality", while at the same time their understanding of "image quality" has nothing to do with what is taught in photographic schools as being "the art of photography"... Billy was spot-on in his album's title....
I get your point but it sounds, for lack of a better word, a bit snobbish. Or maybe elitist is a better word. Don't get me wrong, I agree that one needs to know what one is looking at. But at the same time I'm not sure that requires a photography school education or even higher education. Much of the world's great art and literature comes from talents that were neither born in nor honed in academia. And to be honest, and maybe indirectly more elitist, I'm not sure that being taught how to look at something in photography school is the measure of one's eye.
-
I get your point but it sounds, for lack of a better word, a bit snobbish. Or maybe elitist is a better word. Don't get me wrong, I agree that one needs to know what one is looking at. But at the same time I'm not sure that requires a photography school education or even higher education. Much of the world's great art and literature comes from talents that were neither born in nor honed in academia. And to be honest, and maybe indirectly more elitist, I'm not sure that being taught how to look at something in photography school is the measure of one's eye.
What is taught in photography schools is many different things... One only though is the fundamental behind all of them... and that is what photo-graphy is/should be... Same is with theater, music, ...all arts... One doesn't have to attend a theater school to become a great actor, but this doesn't mean that he can become a great actor unless if he is fully aware of how great acting should be...
-
What is taught in photography schools is many different things... One only though is the fundamental behind all of them... and that is what photo-graphy is/should be...
That would already be a feat, to agree on that. You can learn mathematical theorems and be pretty sure that it is based in objective reality, but once one starts talking about what X "should" be, it's by defintion subjective. It's hence neither right nor wrong, but may be predictive of how other people will react: you could argue that art schools currently function to
create a pool of people who agree on what art should be, but that choice is arbitrary. If you don't like it, it's that you're not qualified (and if you're still a student, your chances of getting qualified may be seriously compromised). It may be that in 50 years no one will have any respect for it other than as a historical oddity. Or not.
-
That would already be a feat, to agree on that. You can learn mathematical theorems and be pretty sure that it is based in objective reality, but once one starts talking about what X "should" be, it's by defintion subjective. It's hence neither right nor wrong, but may be predictive of how other people will react: you could argue that art schools currently function to
create a pool of people who agree on what art should be, but that choice is arbitrary. If you don't like it, it's that you're not qualified (and if you're still a student, your chances of getting qualified may be seriously compromised). It may be that in 50 years no one will have any respect for it other than as a historical oddity. Or not.
There's also the possibility that contemporary 'art' validity is being promulgated by those making money from the pushing of particular styles and personalities. Art schools? I don't know - I'd have liked to spend a few years in one, but it wasn't to be for all manner of reasons mostly beyond my power to do a heap about. What would I have gained that I have not picked up on my own? Hard to tell since one can't walk two roads at the same time; however, it would have been very nice to have been able to get a better grasp on painting techniques, graphic design and, above all, typography which I see as the fundamental skill to making almost any form of advertising material. Photography 'lessons'? As there was no Photoshop to learn in those years, I don't see it would have given me anything I didn't already have.
There's a division here, of course, between gallery art and commercial art; it really depends which of the two one is discussing. For most of the art school kids I actually knew, all it brought was a teaching job and some medium luck in selling the odd painting here and there (the latter most often if coming from wealthy families). Some found employment in ad agency studios...
In all cases, there would have been the valuable thing called connection; being plugged in, enchufado.
Exceptions abound, of course, and we have some right here on LuLa.
Rob
-
Hi,
I am involved right now in an interesting experiment. We are going to decorate a lot of wall space at our offices (something like 300 square meters) and I was asked to provide pictures. The images I have proposed are a wide variety, from APS-C to P45+ and ranging from 12 MP to 42 MP. Will be interesting to see which pictures the panel picks.
Best regards
Erik
-
I do not know the biographies of many great photographers so I can't say what the correlation is between specific art education and output or appreciation for great art. I can speak in terms of writers. Two of my favorites: Flannery O'Conner and Fred Chappell. Both university trained in English and writing. Both are amazing to me. Both technically precise. But in my opinion, William Faulkner eclipses them both, and again, in my opinion, eclipses all modern writers. He had virtually no training at all. Certainly not in writing. Technically, Faulkner is a mess to the point of abandoning punctuation. I doubt that anything Faulkner ever wrote would be presented to a student as a "how-to" example.
But on a more personal level, I have a great appreciation for photographic art. I know what I like and why I like it. That is not something that can be compared or quantified and I'm not pitting my taste, style, sensibility or sense of fashion against anyone else, but still feel qualified to recognize good work. I'm educated. But not in the arts.
-
however, it would have been very nice to have been able to get a better grasp on painting techniques, graphic design and, above all, typography which I see as the fundamental skill to making almost any form of advertising material.
I'm a bit jaundiced by the French approach : one of my friends has just dropped out of the fine arts course at the Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble) in disgust: very little practical content, huge dependence on theory, teaching via workshops which turned out to be unstructured chaos and evaluation based on parroting of the official line.
I doubt Fourier would have approved.
-
And didn't French Impressionism pretty much stem from a break with the academy?
And then there's this:
When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well.
—Jackson Pollock, My Painting, 1956
How does one approach that sort of art as a viewer or a critic? Think of that approach applied to photography.
-
That's why I'm so nervous about any attempt to say "this is all crap." Standing in front of a Pollock I feel something. Standing in front of a lot of more recent conceptual art, including photography, I don't. But how can I be sure someone else doesn't?
Anyway, we seem to have strayed far from the topic, and I'll be interested to read the results of Eric's experiment. My guess is that the difference between MFD and and micro 4/3 up to A2 will only be due to psychological effects... but that those might be important :)
-
Well, I used both MF and 135 formats in my pro life, and I can still remember myself thinking, at the time: do you want it sharp, or do you want it good?
After I let go the Rollei TLR and went into Hasselblad, 120 became a tripod-based exercise. Why? Mirror bounce, far worse than I had imagined.
I often had to come up with 60 x 40 inch prints for fashion show stands, and had absolutely no fear of using the Nikon to get there in black/white. Colour was something else, and then I went square. Why? At the time, Kodachrome didn't exist in 120 in the UK; Ektachrome didn't have the fineness of grain needed for 135, and using Kodachrome meant sending the material off to southern England and hoping for the best. The only realistic way out was 120 Ektachrome processed locally.
So even back then, life was a trade-off between formats. But, even if grain sometimes came into the equation, it didn't offend as do pixels.
Rob
-
Hi,
I don't have micro 4/3, just APS-C and up to MFD. What is interesting that we have a group that will choose the images to print and hang and those making the choice are not aware of what equipment was used. So, it is a blind test.
Best regards
Erik
That's why I'm so nervous about any attempt to say "this is all crap." Standing in front of a Pollock I feel something. Standing in front of a lot of more recent conceptual art, including photography, I don't. But how can I be sure someone else doesn't?
Anyway, we seem to have strayed far from the topic, and I'll be interested to read the results of Eric's experiment. My guess is that the difference between MFD and and micro 4/3 up to A2 will only be due to psychological effects... but that those might be important :)
-
That's why I'm so nervous about any attempt to say "this is all crap." Standing in front of a Pollock I feel something. Standing in front of a lot of more recent conceptual art, including photography, I don't. But how can I be sure someone else doesn't?
Anyway, we seem to have strayed far from the topic, and I'll be interested to read the results of Eric's experiment. My guess is that the difference between MFD and and micro 4/3 up to A2 will only be due to psychological effects... but that those might be important :)
It's not "away from the topic"... in fact I believe it is THE topic.... Tools are tools and art is art... Tools are tools as to serve the technique... Jackson (Pollock) had his own and used his own tools (much different to others) as to fully develop the technique behind HIS visualization of his art... But nobody ever questioned if it was painting what he was doing... No one ever questioned Gursky's work if it is photo-graphy or not... Nobody ever questioned their tools either (LF film digitized in the case of Gursky) as being the tooling behind his work... Nobody questioned Ctein's choice to use ultra compact sensors either... It's people in forums insisting that their "findings" are the tooling one should go for that is the problem and then their relation (or knowledge) on if what they are using their "toys" for, or the results they find, has any relevance with photo-graphy at all.... Most people forget that a photo-graph is the only thing that MAY be a photo-graph...
Photo-graphs, can be relevant to resolution or not, depending on the artist's aim to include resolution (or not - or how much of it), or color, or DR, or grain, or anything else as a parameter of his photo-graph...
A photo-grapher, will choose the best tool he can get as to achieve the LOOK he want on his photo-graphs.... then, he will develop a "style" of presentation that retains the same look, this is what makes his LOOKs recognizable from other styles that other photo-graphers with different LOOKs at their photo-graphs have aimed for....
Fundamental behind photo-graphy (as A.Adams describes in his very first chapter on his very first book) is visualization... Visualization is the principal behind all art... In photo-graphy, it means that one has to visualize the final photo-graph (meaning the print - with all its looks) before he ever captures any of the information he will include into it... Tooling is just what he will use as to make the photo-graph...
-
Why MF then? ....because it provides a different tool for those that need it as to achieve the looks they want in their photo-graphs is one thing, one tries a tool, then decides if it is what he is looking for... There are (EDIT: other) reasons too, (or the opposite - "why not MF") but hardly related to photo-graphy.... like people comparing different tools on tasks that are not compatible for one of the tools, or some times, on tasks that are for a third tool...
It's like if one compares a bicycle wheel with a car wheel on a bicycle, or even (sometimes) if one tries to compare track wheels with bicycle wheels on a car... and then, if one compares car wheels with other car wheels, it is necessary to make sure that "slik" race tyres don't work on snow and that "winter" tyres can't race... By the way, one has to remember that "all weather" are good only for conservative transportation and not for the purpose of "active driving"...
-
That's why I'm so nervous about any attempt to say "this is all crap." Standing in front of a Pollock I feel something. Standing in front of a lot of more recent conceptual art, including photography, I don't. But how can I be sure someone else doesn't?
I don't think that the measure of art is whether or not it makes me feel something, especially when that feeling is vague or undefinable. Almost any experience or object can make us feel something.
I think it is undeniable that art will always be interpreted different ways by different people. There is a subjectivity that cannot be overcome. However, I think it is the weakest form or art and the weakest type of artist who says "I will do this and that and let everyone find their own meaning." Who needs that sort of art? I think it is lazy and exposes lack of meaning rather than breadth of meaning. I most respect art that has something very specific to say and says it very effectively whether or not people bring their own subjective impression of not. With this level of art, which I consider the highest plain, there are objectively right and wrong ways to interpret and experience it. To misinterpret is not a crime or a moral or ethical issue, it is just off base.
In this regard I find Pollock's work to be meaningless. Now 'meaninglessness' is the point of some modernist and postmodern art. I find meaningless art designed to express meaninglessness as pathetic. So then we have to ask why Pollock is so famous? Why his work sells for millions. I think knowing his history helps. He was a character. He captivated a certain group of people who made his work stylish, more because of who they were and who he was than what he did. I am also moved by his work, but it has much more to do with the history of it that the work alone. I do not feel that his work, taken completely alone, has any merit. I would not say the same of Caulder or Picasso.
I would agree that there is another realm of art which is that which produces pretty objects, sentiments or sounds. I think this type of art borders on craft (which is not derogatory).
Of course, in my mind, art that is beautiful AND effectively conveys meaning is the grand slam.
Yes, this is off topic, but as the OP I feel my original question has been well answered.
-
I don't think that the measure of art is whether or not it makes me feel something, especially when that feeling is vague or undefinable. Almost any experience or object can make us feel something.
I think it is undeniable that art will always be interpreted different ways by different people. There is a subjectivity that cannot be overcome. However, I think it is the weakest form or art and the weakest type of artist who says "I will do this and that and let everyone find their own meaning." Who needs that sort of art? I think it is lazy and exposes lack of meaning rather than breadth of meaning. I most respect art that has something very specific to say and says it very effectively whether or not people bring their own subjective impression of not. With this level of art, which I consider the highest plain, there are objectively right and wrong ways to interpret and experience it. To misinterpret is not a crime or a moral or ethical issue, it is just off base.
In this regard I find Pollock's work to be meaningless. Now 'meaninglessness' is the point of some modernist and postmodern art. I find meaningless art designed to express meaninglessness as pathetic. So then we have to ask why Pollock is so famous? Why his work sells for millions. I think knowing his history helps. He was a character. He captivated a certain group of people who made his work stylish, more because of who they were and who he was than what he did. I am also moved by his work, but it has much more to do with the history of it that the work alone. I do not feel that his work, taken completely alone, has any merit. I would not say the same of Caulder or Picasso.
I would agree that there is another realm of art which is that which produces pretty objects, sentiments or sounds. I think this type of art borders on craft (which is not derogatory).
Of course, in my mind, art that is beautiful AND effectively conveys meaning is the grand slam.
One has to remember that among the reasoning for "like" and "dislike" of a piece of art, one of the reasonings can always be that one may luck the codes of communication that the artist is using... Therefore words like "meaningless" have to be avoided as one can turn to like something that he previously disliked as soon as he develops his "approaching codes" (it has happened to all of us I believe).
Yes, this is off topic, but as the OP I feel my original question has been well answered.
Indeed.... in an unusual to forums and very detailed extend too I believe... I really enjoyed participating, thanks!
-
One has to remember that among the reasoning for "like" and "dislike" of a piece of art, one of the reasonings can always be that one may luck the codes of communication that the artist is using... (it has happened to all of us I believe)
Agreed. And yes it has happened to me many times.
Therefore words like "meaningless" have to be avoided as one can turn to like something that he previously disliked as soon as he develops his "approaching codes" .
I agree in that we can find meaning, even if just internally, in almost anything. So maybe I should have said "meaningful". In this regard, in my opinion, there is plenty of what passes as art that while we might project meaning onto it, remains far less than "meaningful".
-
I don't think that the measure of art is whether or not it makes me feel something,
I mean this in a kind way . . . but this is the only thing you have written that means anything to me out of 2700 posts.
I like this forum but post less and less because it's all words and no images.
Honestly I love Chris, he moderates well, very much miss Michael because he loved to show beautiful photographs, but for this to continue, people posting should produce something to prove their point or just write something no one cares about like I LOVE the Sony DR. What does DR mean? In reality Michael didn't give a shit. He cared for what he produced and honestly didn't care about his critics.
Good on him.
-
"I like this forum but post less and less because it's all words and no images.
Honestly I love Chris, he moderates well, very much miss Michael because he loved to show beautiful photographs, but for this to continue, people posting should produce something to prove their point or just write something no one cares about like I LOVE the Sony DR. What does DR mean? In reality Michael didn't give a shit. He cared for what he produced and honestly didn't care about his critics."
Hi BC,
There's the problem: Michael could walk the walk, and earned his living walking for quite a few years before, as I understand it, going off in a different direction.
You can't hope for the same attitude from people who have no actual working experience of the pro photographic lifestyle at a decent level. You can be the best amateur in the world, do all the workshops, all the trips, but until you have put in a series of invoices over the years, depended on them getting paid for you to survive, that you will know what makes that particular little world tick. Yep, I've been away from it for quite a few years now, and don't imagine it to be as it was on the day I took down my shingle. But insofar as the balance between work and tools goes, you are as 100% right today as you would have been in my time: the end result is what pays the bill, and the pair of scissors you used to cut the cloth matters bugger all to the client in his brand new suit.
This is carried through, or should I say reflected in the point of view that refuses to understand that taking away the sterility of digital perfection can often improve an image because it makes it more than a clean window through which you are observing a moment in time: it is the attaining of a mood, the injecting of some personality into the ordinariness of the scene before the camera. I guess it's called the character of an image, and marrying the right character and subject is an art in itself.
I guess it's the same psychology as moved the Impressionists off their butts: there had to be more than the obvious.
Keep on truckin' and don't stop posting pix!
Rob C
-
I mean this in a kind way . . . but this is the only thing you have written that means anything to me out of 2700 posts.
You quoted me, N80. I have 70 posts here. Not sure how you could mean that in a kind way, regardless of who you were replying to.
-
Hi,
I feel that the discussion sidetracked a bit. These threads always do…
One issue I see is that the discussion suddenly turned into one of those professional discussions, that is OK but it is a bit out of context.
Many MFD users are amateurs, wealthy or not. Nothing on this thread says anything about professional and those amateurs actually buy a lot of gear. Not sure MFD would be around without the amateur/enthusiast market.
Any picture you can show on LuLa could be shot with an early Digital Ixus. It will be a bit difficult to explain how a web size image can illustrate the advantage of 20/40/60/80/100 MP medium format. It seems that there is a lot of ecstasy when a new 80 or 100 MP sensor is released, but those developments are more incremental. Going from 60 MP to 80 MP is a 15% improvement, probably observable, but nut much than that.
The 100 MP sensor is a new game, if you want CMOS. It offers good live view, high dynamic range and good high ISO capability. But, the big news is that it is full frame 645 CMOS, without the crop factor.
I don't think that a larger sensor makes anyone a better artist. For amateurs a new system may offer some new incentive to explore, for true professionals it is more of a tool.
Clearly, some tools are more suited to some tasks, like leaf shutters working with high speed flash sync. But, it seems that demand for leaf shutters is not that high, else we would have a lot leaf shutter systems in the smaller formats.
Another side of the coin is that professional can mean many things. The way it is mostly used it means earning a substantial part of total income by photography. Some operations are large, like Russel Ratherford and some are small. Regardless size of the operation investments need to make financial sense.
Just to make some noise, it may be interesting to check out the meaning of professional on say wikipedia:
A professional is a member of a profession or any person who earns their living from a specified professional activity. The term also describes the standards of education and training that prepare members of the profession with the particular knowledge and skills necessary to perform their specific role within that profession. In addition, most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct, enshrining rigorous ethical and moral obligations.[1] Professional standards of practice and ethics for a particular field are typically agreed upon and maintained through widely recognized professional associations, such as the IEEE.[2] Some definitions of "professional" limit this term to those professions that serve some important aspect of public interest [3] and the general good of society.[4][5]
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
I feel that the discussion sidetracked a bit. These threads always do…
One issue I see is that the discussion suddenly turned into one of those professional discussions, that is OK but it is a bit out of context.
Many MFD users are amateurs, wealthy or not. Nothing on this thread says anything about professional and those amateurs actually buy a lot of gear. Not sure MFD would be around without the amateur/enthusiast market.
Any picture you can show on LuLa could be shot with an early Digital Ixus. It will be a bit difficult to explain how a web size image can illustrate the advantage of 20/40/60/80/100 MP medium format. It seems that there is a lot of ecstasy when a new 80 or 100 MP sensor is released, but those developments are more incremental. Going from 60 MP to 80 MP is a 15% improvement, probably observable, but nut much than that.
The 100 MP sensor is a new game, if you want CMOS. It offers good live view, high dynamic range and good high ISO capability. But, the big news is that it is full frame 645 CMOS, without the crop factor.
I don't think that a larger sensor makes anyone a better artist. For amateurs a new system may offer some new incentive to explore, for true professionals it is more of a tool.
Clearly, some tools are more suited to some tasks, like leaf shutters working with high speed flash sync. But, it seems that demand for leaf shutters is not that high, else we would have a lot leaf shutter systems in the smaller formats.
Another side of the coin is that professional can mean many things. The way it is mostly used it means earning a substantial part of total income by photography. Some operations are large, like Russel Ratherford and some are small. Regardless size of the operation investments need to make financial sense.
Just to make some noise, it may be interesting to check out the meaning of professional on say wikipedia:
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
It's called the human part. Of course things get moved a bit sideways now and again - how predictably dull did they not!
But anyway, Cooter is entitled to his opinion as I to mine and you, of course, to yours.
"Many MFD users are amateurs, wealthy or not. Nothing on this thread says anything about professional and those amateurs actually buy a lot of gear. Not sure MFD would be around without the amateur/enthusiast market."
Probably not, after its original flush of receptive enthusiasm, and in reality, would it make photography any the better or worse if digital MF didn't exist? Personally, I think it wouldn't make much difference at all beyond to the pockets of the makers and the minds of those who can afford the products. In an age where less and less ends up viewed on paper, where motion seems to be taking over, ultra-high 'quality' seems pretty redundant when small cameras already provide overkill, and people complain about the size of the files they have to handle. I'd suggest that it just points out another difference between film and electronic capture. At least with an 8x10 transparency your held in your hand something that took your breath away. With digital, you really hold nothing but maths you can't even see. And a pile of additional processing steps you really wish you didn't have to face.
My conclusion? Great for those who make them, great for those who crave and can afford them, redundant for the rest of the population. I care neither way - neither part of my lust nor of my need.
Which has little to do with Cooter's point, which was about the dearth of interesting images here. Instead, we get page after page of almost unreadable tech-talk. Which is also fine, but doesn't dispute Cooter's point, and don't forget, he already knows what there is to know about most of that stuff and a helluva lot more. It's not like he speaks from ignorance (which for all I know I may do) but from the understandable wish that the eyes could get some gratification too, even if from the super-cameras, but they don't: we just get more large images of not a lot that didn't get snapped on Kodachrome to equally good effect. One Haas or Riaan wave beats every MF digital shot of similar material I've even seen.
Do you see? Techical possibilites have moved on, but photography has not. One without the other is pointless.
Rob
-
Just look at 135 and Medium Format and you see the difference. It comes from a combination of things but the larger sensor size generally makes things smoother and less choppy. 135 is catching up, sure, but Medium Format has the physiological head start and modern iterations will always have more to offer, at least for some time, over 135 formats. Then there is the extended argument for 135 formats though. It's only photographers that see the difference and the average person couldn't care less, let alone even see it. Does it matter? Well that's up to you. I swing in between two answers. Some times it matters sometimes it doesn't. One thing is for sure, I'm very interested in seeing a well executed 60MP 35mm camera. 60MP, for me, has been the sweet spot, serviced by Phase One in my use. But a 35mm camera us undeniably very usable and could easily take it's place.
-
Hi Rob,
My posting was more of response to the thread.On the other hand I often feel that the threads are a bit kidnapped by pro talk and there is no way these threads are reserved for 'pros'.
The other side of the coin is that I don't think small images add any, for sure some folks say that there is an obvious look to MFD that is visible at all sizes. It is just that it is clearly not my experience.
Good images are good images and it doesn't matter if you shoot them on 6x7 film, a P45+, APS-c or 4/3". I wouldn't be able to tell which is which.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-West/i-NLq7XxG/0/X3/20140612-CF045214-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-West/i-W4LPN4P/0/X2/20140612-_DSC4611-X3.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
It's called the human part. Of course things get moved a bit sideways now and again - how predictably dull did they not!
But anyway, Cooter is entitled to his opinion as I to mine and you, of course, to yours.
"Many MFD users are amateurs, wealthy or not. Nothing on this thread says anything about professional and those amateurs actually buy a lot of gear. Not sure MFD would be around without the amateur/enthusiast market."
Probably not, after its original flush of receptive enthusiasm, and in reality, would it make photography any the better or worse if digital MF didn't exist? Personally, I think it wouldn't make much difference at all beyond to the pockets of the makers and the minds of those who can afford the products. In an age where less and less ends up viewed on paper, where motion seems to be taking over, ultra-high 'quality' seems pretty redundant when small cameras already provide overkill, and people complain about the size of the files they have to handle. I'd suggest that it just points out another difference between film and electronic capture. At least with an 8x10 transparency your held in your hand something that took your breath away. With digital, you really hold nothing but maths you can't even see. And a pile of additional processing steps you really wish you didn't have to face.
My conclusion? Great for those who make them, great for those who crave and can afford them, redundant for the rest of the population. I care neither way - neither part of my lust nor of my need.
Which has little to do with Cooter's point, which was about the dearth of interesting images here. Instead, we get page after page of almost unreadable tech-talk. Which is also fine, but doesn't dispute Cooter's point, and don't forget, he already knows what there is to know about most of that stuff and a helluva lot more. It's not like he speaks from ignorance (which for all I know I may do) but from the understandable wish that the eyes could get some gratification too, even if from the super-cameras, but they don't: we just get more large images of not a lot that didn't get snapped on Kodachrome to equally good effect. One Haas or Riaan wave beats every MF digital shot of similar material I've even seen.
Do you see? Techical possibilites have moved on, but photography has not. One without the other is pointless.
Rob
-
An amusing thought occurred to me when people were discussing viewing distances: they may depend on subject matter. Given a bus-stop size print of a landscape, I wouldn't be surprised to see people almost press their noses against the display... whether that is relevant to the photographer's intent or not. They will presumably also back away to take in the whole image.
If however the image is a nude, my guess is that at least in public, few people would approach to the same extent :)
-
An amusing thought occurred to me when people were discussing viewing distances: they may depend on subject matter. Given a bus-stop size print of a landscape, I wouldn't be surprised to see people almost press their noses against the display... whether that is relevant to the photographer's intent or not. They will presumably also back away to take in the whole image.
If however the image is a nude, my guess is that at least in public, few people would approach to the same extent :)
Have you seen the humorous photograph of the two "Majas" in the Prado? the audience splits into two: a woman gazes at the dressed version whilst a little group of men gathers in reverence before the nude; there's no way of knowing where the viewing woman's eyes are actually looking!
Devils, details... eye of beholder.
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
Found on google…
As you can see, there is a cordon that limits pixel peeping, sorry pen stroke peeping.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCt2dhLUUAA6Lg3.jpg:large)
Best regards
Erik
Have you seen the humorous photograph of the two "Majas" in the Prado? the audience splits into two: a woman gazes at the dressed version whilst a little group of men gathers in reverence before the nude; there's no way of knowing where the viewing woman's eyes are actually looking!
Devils, details... eye of beholder.
Rob
-
That's the one, Erik!
Hadn't noticed the design victim closest the camera before, though.
Maybe sexist I didn't get the message right first time: perhaps he was the point of the snap all along!
;-)
Rob
-
Note the difference in minimum distance.
(I'm a statistician, it's déformation professionnelle)
-
It's a shot of film by the way...
I also believe that it's a directed shot, the reasoning backing up my believe, is that the group of men dressing suggests that they have nothing common with each other on their social background other than their sex.
Note the difference in minimum distance.
(I'm a statistician, it's déformation professionnelle)
Viewing distance is relevant to the number of people watching. Usually, when a subject in an exhibition attracts a group of people, watchers tend (out of politeness) to give room to others, when one senses that he is the only watcher, then he tends to move closer...
-
Serveral of the males couldn't see much of the painting anyway: they block each other's view. Possibly it was a directed shot after all, which would be a big disappointment.
Rob
-
Serveral of the males couldn't see much of the painting anyway: they block each other's view. Possibly it was a directed shot after all, which would be a big disappointment.
Rob
disappointment? ....I think you have the wrong idea about image making!
-
Funny, Nice catch, as it might be staged.
The painting with clothes on is the one the female is looking at, the men are looking at the nude.
-
disappointment? ....I think you have the wrong idea about image making!
Of course disappointment, Theo; one would like to believe in decisive moments for ever. Makes that PJ's Photoshopping away of background crap look positively benign.
Soon we shall learn that there are really no lottery big-winners at all - just false news items claiming that they exist!
Rob C
-
I think journalists have been prone to doing a little 'gardening' since the invention of the camera. Not that he could ever be spontaneous with the type of equipment he had available but Matthew Brady was notorious for staging things. A lot of still and video from WWII was staged to some extent. I seem to recall that the flag raising on Iwo Jima was shot several times..........but I can't substantiate that.
Sure, there is a certain charm to the entirely candid shot. But I have to say, it never occurred to me that the image we are discussing was candid. It looks totally staged.
-
Of course disappointment, Theo; one would like to belive in decisive moments for ever. Makes that PJ's Photoshopping away of background crap look positively benign.
Soon we shall learn that there are really no lottery big-winners at all - just false news items claiming that they exist!
Rob C
I can ensure you that most of the amazing shots out of old or modern masters of photography (this one is out of Elliott Erwitt http://www.elliotterwitt.com/lang/en/index.html ) are a product of the visualization/pre-design/direct/execute process... I'm afraid that visualization (which includes the rest of the process by definition) is the fundamental behind all art... Superb shot by the way... (as most out of Elliott), it's the result that counts...
-
Long-time lurker, but I have to chime in... for those saying there are no DOF advantages to medium format, I think you're wrong. I've seen the differences many times and it's not about nuking a background into oblivion, it's more like creating layers and subtle separation from in-focus to out-of-focus. I especially notice it in wider environmental portraits, where the subject is sharp and the background is blurred, but details are still somewhat discernible.
Here are a few examples I found (some better than others):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=27561.msg227988#msg227988
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=28709.msg278412#msg278412
http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Jonathan-Bielaski0004.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lkbkspro/lkbks-trumanagement/ml_5554c540-e964-4821-9347-3d530a771fd0.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4M-uGshOEJA/T0SsaoOBp_I/AAAAAAAAA94/EZiYCEd2Uyw/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-02-22+at+08.42.25.png
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mnfR7eW48Hw/T0IKqQRxxyI/AAAAAAAAA9w/0UdLydC3kc8/s1600/allan_wells+3493.jpg
Call me full of it, but I've seen this "look" over and over again.
-
Hi,
I would say that both sides are sort of right.
In theory you can shoot 80 mm at f/2.8 on MFD or 50 mm at f/1.8 on 24x36 and you would get identical results. But there are some buts…
Older 24x36mm 1.7/50 and 1.4/50 designs were not so great at full apertures. Now we have quite a few new 50 (or so) lenses where lens count has been jacked up to say 10-12 elements, a typical example being the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 and the Sigma 1.4/50 Art. Zeiss upgraded their "normal" 1.4/50 design to a more advanced Distagon type device with 10 elements.
An Otus 1.4/55 on a high MP 24x36 camera would probably give a very good bokeh at full aperture at least as good as a Planar 80/2.8.
One other issue is that most lenses have issues with correction of axial-chroma, giving magenta/green fringing in out of focus areas. This applies to both MFD and 24x36 mm lenses but it is often masked by stopping down. The Otus corrects this fully, no fringing on that lens. The Milvus 14.4/50 is half the price but has not corrected axial-chroma as well.
So, yes 24x36mm can do it, but needs a very well corrected large aperture lens and those are expensive.
Best regards
Erik
Long-time lurker, but I have to chime in... for those saying there are no DOF advantages to medium format, I think you're wrong. I've seen the differences many times and it's not about nuking a background into oblivion, it's more like creating layers and subtle separation from in-focus to out-of-focus. I especially notice it in wider environmental portraits, where the subject is sharp and the background is blurred, but details are still somewhat discernible.
Here are a few examples I found (some better than others):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=27561.msg227988#msg227988
http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Jonathan-Bielaski0004.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lkbkspro/lkbks-trumanagement/ml_5554c540-e964-4821-9347-3d530a771fd0.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4M-uGshOEJA/T0SsaoOBp_I/AAAAAAAAA94/EZiYCEd2Uyw/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-02-22+at+08.42.25.png
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mnfR7eW48Hw/T0IKqQRxxyI/AAAAAAAAA9w/0UdLydC3kc8/s1600/allan_wells+3493.jpg
Call me full of it, but I've seen this "look" over and over again.
-
Expensive. And heavy.
-
Hi,
I have been asked to supply some images for decorating two very long corridors at office. I presented something like 85 images covering much of my digital camera usage.
| Camera | Proposed | Accepted | Percentage |
| 24 MP full frame | 46 | 5 | 11% |
| 42 MP full frame | 25 | 4 | 16% |
| P45+ | 25 | 2 | 8% |
| APS-C | 8 | 0 | 0% |
This was a screen based evaluation, so pictures were selected on looks and not image quality and the statistics are not great. Doesn't proof anything, of course, but also sort of indicates that MFD images don't stand out from others.
All images were shot on tripod.
The proposed images are here:
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Spice/
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
I would say that both sides are sort of right.
In theory you can shoot 80 mm at f/2.8 on MFD or 50 mm at f/1.8 on 24x36 and you would get identical results. But there are some buts…
Older 24x36mm 1.7/50 and 1.4/50 designs were not so great at full apertures. Now we have quite a few new 50 (or so) lenses where lens count has been jacked up to say 10-12 elements, a typical example being the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 and the Sigma 1.4/50 Art. Zeiss upgraded their "normal" 1.4/50 design to a more advanced Distagon type device with 10 elements.
An Otus 1.4/55 on a high MP 24x36 camera would probably give a very good bokeh at full aperture at least as good as a Planar 80/2.8.
One other issue is that most lenses have issues with correction of axial-chroma, giving magenta/green fringing in out of focus areas. This applies to both MFD and 24x36 mm lenses but it is often masked by stopping down. The Otus corrects this fully, no fringing on that lens. The Milvus 14.4/50 is half the price but has not corrected axial-chroma as well.
So, yes 24x36mm can do it, but needs a very well corrected large aperture lens and those are expensive.
Best regards
Erik
In a general comparison this is sort of true but it is not identical. The degree of difference is alway subjective but for me it's an obvious difference that I can't look past. Focal and tonal transition is one of the biggest differences, medium format being far greater, smoother and less choppy.
-
In a general comparison this is sort of true but it is not identical. The degree of difference is alway subjective but for me it's an obvious difference that I can't look past. Focal and tonal transition is one of the biggest differences, medium format being far greater, smoother and less choppy.
At what print size or monitor zoom would it take to see this if the difference is, in fact, "far greater"? (Not challenging your assertion, just asking.)
-
N80,
A lot of still and video from WWII was staged to some extent. I seem to recall that the flag raising on Iwo Jima was shot several times..........but I can't substantiate that.
Shot twice. Not staged. Refer here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/business/media/22rosenthalcnd.html?_r=0).
Credit: Isaac (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102125.msg838334#msg838334)
-
Eric. Viewers aren't pixel peepers or DR specialists. They care less if they were shot digitally or on film, or if it's medium format or 35mm, or whatever. People pick pictures they like based on content, style, lighting and personal preferences. Could you tell us which 11 they selected so we can tell if there was a common preference. And your pictures are all very nice. They have a bright appeal and they're not overdone like many landscape pictures.
-
I have been asked to supply some images for decorating two very long corridors at office. I presented something like 85 images covering much of my digital camera usage.
For how many images did you have room?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
We don't know yet. This time we have just selected 11 image but we will need many more.
Best regards
Erik
For how many images did you have room?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Alan,
To begin with, I really appreciate the kind words.
Back to the issue, some folks say that they can recognise an MFD image in small print at say 15 feet or that MFD images stand out on web size images. I don't think that things work that way. I used to say that images don't care about the way they have been taken.
The nice thing here is that the panel consisted of folks seriously interested in photography but not being gearheads.
It can also be said that I am a middle road of shooter and I shoot the same way using MFD or mirrorless. The three years I was shooting MFD it was one of my mostly used systems. But, I use any system the same way. Tripod, mirror lock up, careful focusing, medium apertures. Also I seldom use flash outdoors.
Since I got the A7rII I have not used the P45+, essentially. In part this is a result of "the latest gear is most fun" syndrome, but also because the Sony does a good job on pretty much everything.
A small point is that pixel peeping you peep pixels. If we pixel peep on the P45+ we see pixels. There are 39000000 millions of them, but we see just a few. If we pixel peep on say my Sony Alpha 700, we still see a few pixels, but there are only 12000000 of them. To really see the benefits of pixel and pixel size we need to make large prints.
But, I really think that we have all the pixels we need now. Still see a lot of advantage of small pixels, but it is more about proper rendition of small detail.
Here are the images that were selected by the panel: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/
Best regards
Erik
Eric. Viewers aren't pixel peepers or DR specialists. They care less if they were shot digitally or on film, or if it's medium format or 35mm, or whatever. People pick pictures they like based on content, style, lighting and personal preferences. Could you tell us which 11 they selected so we can tell if there was a common preference. And your pictures are all very nice. They have a bright appeal and they're not overdone like many landscape pictures.
-
........... But, I really think that we have all the pixels we need now. Still see a lot of advantage of small pixels, but it is more about proper rendition of small detail.....
Best regards
Erik
It was about time...
There is no "proper rendition of small detail" with (ultra) small pixels, it's only hiding artifacts (that still exist...), "proper rendition" will only exist when there will be no interpolation (and the technical solutions related with it - call me Bayer pattern) involved... Then people will "beg" for larger pixels.
-
Making noise again old friend?
It was about time...
There is no "proper rendition of small detail" with (ultra) small pixels, it's only hiding artifacts (that still exist...), "proper rendition" will only exist when there will be no interpolation (and the technical solutions related with it - call me Bayer pattern) involved... Then people will "beg" for larger pixels.
-
Noise?
I'm just glad that you finally realized that we have "all resolution we need" and explain to you that...
"There is no "proper rendition of small detail" with (ultra) small pixels, it's only hiding artifacts (that still exist...), "proper rendition" will only exist when there will be no interpolation (and the technical solutions related with it - call me Bayer pattern) involved... Then people will "beg" for (the benefits of) larger pixels."
If you disagree anywhere on the above, you may comment on where you disagree....
-
Hi,
Technically, I would say that proper rendition requires that MTF at Nyquist is near zero.
Best regards
Erik
Noise?
I'm just glad that you finally realized that we have "all resolution we need" and explain to you that...
"There is no "proper rendition of small detail" with (ultra) small pixels, it's only hiding artifacts (that still exist...), "proper rendition" will only exist when there will be no interpolation (and the technical solutions related with it - call me Bayer pattern) involved... Then people will "beg" for (the benefits of) larger pixels."
If you disagree anywhere on the above, you may comment on where you disagree....
-
Hi,
Technically, I would say that proper rendition requires that MTF at Nyquist is near zero.
Best regards
Erik
That would be what theory suggests for maximum resolution, if and only if, pixels are free of artifacts... That would mean either a B&W sensor, or a "true" color sensor... and then it concerns resolution only, for which -may I remind you- "we already have all we need".... ;)
-
Hi Theodoros,
This may be a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
Best regards
Erik
That would be what theory suggests for maximum resolution, if and only if, pixels are free of artifacts... That would mean either a B&W sensor, or a "true" color sensor... and then it concerns resolution only, for which -may I remind you- "we already have all we need".... ;)
-
Hi Theodoros,
This may be a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
Best regards
Erik
Actually it by no means is... what should be refreshing for you, is the fact that you was first taught in school... which is that "Theory is Physics and engineering is ...(well) engineering..."
In other words physics presumes that there is ideal behavior of the rest of the parameters involved, while in engineering, you have to take into account (after testing) the magnitude of non ideal behavior of the peripherals...
What all the above (proven and confirmed from engineers) means as far as sensors are concerned, is that no photon rays enter all pixels directly or in the same way as another pixel and there is no "Nyquist" limit that takes into account artifacts produced by interpolation or the presence of Bayer pattern or of micro lenses... If you know such a theory, you may as well present it to the sensor makers as to suggest to them the size of the pixels they should design for their sensors...
Providing a "link" of "links" that says nothing, doesn't make theory that presumes an ideal operation of the peripherals applicable to an enviroment full of "error creators" that are not taken into account...
-
Here are the images that were selected by the panel: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
The images that the panel chose for exhibition in your office are lovely. I particularly like the light and atmosphere that you've captured in the 5th photo in the series.
Best regards,
John
-
John,
Thanks for the kind words.
The image you mention was shot in early morning light on Hans Kruse's Dolomites West 2014 workshop.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
The images that the panel chose for exhibition in your office are lovely. I particularly like the light and atmosphere that you've captured in the 5th photo in the series.
Best regards,
John
-
Hi,
It was a bit interesting to follow the discussions of the panel. We used a very rational process in Lightroom, looked at each image and decided to keep or ignore. We ended up with eleven images.
Quite a few of my personal favourites falled away. With the P45+ images, both images chosen barely made it. With the other images it was much more affirmative. Why? I don't know, but a selection like this is not just about the image but also about context.
Viewing the images on in a conference room made no justice to vertically cropped images.
We have a lot of wall space and need a lot of images, so this selection is just a starting point. We didn't discuss technical quality at all.
There was considerable interest for grouping smaller prints
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I have been asked to supply some images for decorating two very long corridors at office. I presented something like 85 images covering much of my digital camera usage.
| Camera | Proposed | Accepted | Percentage |
| 24 MP full frame | 46 | 5 | 11% |
| 42 MP full frame | 25 | 4 | 16% |
| P45+ | 25 | 2 | 8% |
| APS-C | 8 | 0 | 0% |
This was a screen based evaluation, so pictures were selected on looks and not image quality and the statistics are not great. Doesn't proof anything, of course, but also sort of indicates that MFD images don't stand out from others.
All images were shot on tripod.
The proposed images are here:
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Spice/
Best regards
Erik