Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: madlantern on October 25, 2016, 02:16:58 am
-
I had been under the impression of what gives medium format pictures their unique "look" was that their large crop factor (e.g. 0.7) allow them to use longer lenses for the same field of view. e.g. a 24mm being equivalent to a 16mm on a 35mm sensor
This would allow them to compress the subject more because of the longer focal length. However, I then I read this article: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lens-compression-doesnt-exist-147615 (https://fstoppers.com/originals/lens-compression-doesnt-exist-147615)
And apparent I was mistaken before. So what does give medium format photos their supposedly unique "look", or is that more myth than reality? Is it just high megapixels and the sheer amount of detail?
-
In my view this was much more apparent during the film era than now. I'm not sure that there actually is any real "look" with current equipement other than the quality in MF prints being slightly more visible......just my own personal view!
However, during much of the film era most pro work was made with Rollieflex and then Hassleblad cameras (and latterly others such as Mamiya) using a square format. Although much pro work was cropped during printing the square shot from the full transparency or negative was very common and immediately contributed to a definite "look".
In addition, Rollie & Hassy were frequently used wih waist level viewfinders,...standard equipement on both cameras. This provided a lower level view in much pro work that made for a specific "look. Pentaprisms for these cameras were available but were both bulky and heavy, not to mention very expensive so many top users prefered the waist level use. The canmera was typcially mounted on a tripod away from the photographers face the shutter being tripped while the operator was still looking at the subject not the viewfinder. This enabled the photographer to keep both visual and emotional contact with the subject and this comes through in much or the best fashion and editorial work from the 60's as well as before and after this era.
-
With film, I think it was to do with the finer grain you'd see (if you wanted that) for a given size of print, as well as the cropped formats you could pull from 6x6 or 6x7. Much square imagery was used and that, by itself, created a definite look to pictures, but one defined by shape rather than pure film granularity concerns. It's easier to crop a square orginal and make a vertical oblong one than vice versa, unless the intention was there during the shooting. I never found joy trying to make horizontals from 6x6. 135 formats, being that much smaller, don't usually allow the same level of cropping without loss of quality.
Digital MF is another matter, and as I have never owned such gear, I have nothing much to add, other than that cropping from a current, non-square MF digital image may not be that helpful at all. Cropping from digital 135 formats is much the same as it was for film: you end up losing a lot of real estate. Starting from a square, digital MF should logically offer whatever the film equivalent did. For those who would be able to afford and enjoy a square digital 'blad, I hope the design concept makes it through to production, but Mr Oosting didn't seem too convinced...
Having written all this, I suggest that in general, non-pro life, cropping from anything reasonable makes little difference to the final product: a picture you might like and enjoy working with in the computer. Do we all make gigantic prints? Do we even print much anymore? In film days, unless you shot trannies, you had to make prints in order to have anything you could look at. No longer the case.
All things equal, I would love a square digital 'blad for tripod work, and a smaller D700 for hand-held stuff. More pixels on 135 doesn't concern me at all; I no longer print for anyone, but if I did, I'd join the pixel race too, probably of necessity, in that quest for the magical quality we are discussing...
Rob
-
Yes, the article is correct, in that shooting wide and cropping vs. shooting with a longer lens, you get pretty much the same exact rendering in respect to proportions and spatial relationships. The only variation could be that the entrance pupil of a lens that is physically longer will be slightly further away, thus altering the composition a bit, but depending on the composition, may not even be noticeable.
However, when you compare MF to 35mm, keep in mind that to get the same angle of view, you need a longer lens. Longer lenses have less depth of field, which is not dependent on format size, only optics. This will give you a different feel for the same angle of view. This may not be apparent with the wider lenses, but once you get past normal, it will be more so.
(If you compare say a 35mm image to the same angle of view from a 4x5 or 8x10, the differences will be even more apparent.)
MF uses larger pixels to get the same resolution. Larger pixels absorb more light, recording more information, and put less stress on the optics. (Or I should say less stress on the people making the optics.)
Last, the color is better on MF. I know many will disagree with me here, but I have compared files along with looking at MF and 35mm image from the same photographers, there is a difference. I don't always notice it, but occasionally, the color will seem off in the 35mm images, most notably in wood grains.
-
The more you enlarge an image, the more subtle midtones you lose, which I think still holds true with digital, as it did with film, although it seems to me the effect is generally less noticeable with digital. However, this will depend upon the particular image and the degree of enlargement. The result is that some images done with medium format will tend to exhibit smoother subtle tonal gradations than with small format, although the output medium may have an effect upon whether this difference translates to the viewer.
-
Part of it, at least to me, has to do with the ease of making optics for less reproduction ratios. At least, that is my understanding. To get equivalent sharpness out of the lens, MF didn't need the resolving power of 35mm. But, with modern processes, it seems that gap is almost gone.
Another advantage was down stream, once again with reproduction ratios between the negative and print. Bigger source materials = better print. Another thing digital has sort of altered, as it's less the size of sensor, and more the amount and quality of the data (i.e. MP and quality there of).
-
Something I forgot to mention regarding look of MF pictures: the square shape almost forces concentration on the subject matter; there is often a valuable deduction of extraneous 'noise' fom the images made on 6x6. Unlike what's now popularly alluded to as negative space, square demands you know what your subject really is, and when you do, it leaves your viewer in no doubt either.
Maybe that's what made the LP cover so powerful a selling device.
Rob
-
Hi,
It is more about the sensor area than the pixel size. It is really about photon statistics and it does not matter a lot if you distribute those photons over 20 M or 40 M pixels, but twice the sensor surface collects twice the number of photons if all other factors are the same. If you compare say the Sony A7rII and the Sony 100 MP sensor in the IQ3100, they have pretty similar pixel sizes but the IQ3100 has 2.38x time more of them. That gives an 54% advantage in signal/noise ratio.
With tonality there are two factors to the probable advantage to MF. With MFD it is a bit feasible that the CFA may be optimised for say D50 lighting and low ISO work. So balance between blue and red channels may be optimised for daylight, while DSLRs are possibly often optimised for mixed light conditions, like low colour temperatures or event fluorescent light.
The other factor may be surface area again, manipulating colour can increase noise, so the something like 40% advantage in Signal/Noise ratio may come handy.
This is a good posting on that issue: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1234124/2&year=2013#11744473
Best regards
Erik
MF uses larger pixels to get the same resolution. Larger pixels absorb more light, recording more information, and put less stress on the optics. (Or I should say less stress on the people making the optics.)
Last, the color is better on MF. I know many will disagree with me here, but I have compared files along with looking at MF and 35mm image from the same photographers, there is a difference. I don't always notice it, but occasionally, the color will seem off in the 35mm images, most notably in wood grains.
-
Hi,
The crop factor can be compensated by using larger apertures. So if you use a 50 mm lens at f/8 on a 24x36 mm camera it would give same DoF as an 80 mm lens at /f13 on a
But, MFD lenses are often quite usable at f/2.8 but many 24x36 mm are not so great at f/1.8. On the other hand we have some really excellent lenses from Zeiss and Sigma, like all the Otuses, the new Milvus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, the Sigma Art 50/1.4 and the Batis lenses. All these new lenses have many elements and use liberal amount of SD glass.
Personally, I haven't seen any MFD look in my images but I seldom shoot at full aperture, more like f/8 on 24x36 and f/11 on MFD.
Best regards
Erik
I had been under the impression of what gives medium format pictures their unique "look" was that their large crop factor (e.g. 0.7) allow them to use longer lenses for the same field of view. e.g. a 24mm being equivalent to a 16mm on a 35mm sensor
This would allow them to compress the subject more because of the longer focal length. However, I then I read this article: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lens-compression-doesnt-exist-147615 (https://fstoppers.com/originals/lens-compression-doesnt-exist-147615)
And apparent I was mistaken before. So what does give medium format photos their supposedly unique "look", or is that more myth than reality? Is it just high megapixels and the sheer amount of detail?
-
Hi Rob,
I would say that there is something to that. With the Hasselblad/P45+ combo i have a square view with the 37x49 mm sensor size shown by a transparent viewfinder mask. So I can see four compositions at the same time: 37x37, 37x49, 49x37 and the 55x55 mm (or so) 6x6 frame. With the P45+ I quite often shoot two images an stitch for near square. You see it in the viewfinder…
That said most of my images are still rectangular.
Today, we were hanging these prints at my office: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/
They are mostly rectangular, two of the eleven where shot on MFD the rest on 24x36 digital (Sony Alpha 900, Alpha 99, A7rII).
The panos are printed at 0.9x3.0m and 0.9x4.0m, largest prints I ever made!
Best regards
Erik
Something I forgot to mention regarding look of MF pictures: the square shape almost forces concentration on the subject matter; there is often a valuable deduction of extraneous 'noise' fom the images made on 6x6. Unlike what's now popularly alluded to as negative space, square demands you know what your subject really is, and when you do, it leaves your viewer in no doubt either.
Maybe that's what made the LP cover so powerful a selling device.
Rob
-
I believe in the MF Look.
But from my experience it's not related to any single factor. It's the cumulative effect of using a system that is entirely different from the average camera out there. Some factors I would call out specifically:
- Sensor size
- Pixel count
- Sensor design
- IR filter used
- Software
- Color Profile
- Lens design
- Lens quality
- Style of Shooting
- Viewfinder size
I'm short of time, so let's just pick three:
Style of Shooting... digital backs encourage you to shoot in a more considered manner. In theory one can slow down and think through the shot with any camera. In reality people are not machines and the camera in their hand influences their style.
Software... most medium format shooters (at least with Phase/Hassy) are using software that is developed down the hall from the camera itself. Those teams (hardware and software) interact from prototype onward. They drink together. They vacation together. They are incentivized to make the combination of their work sing.
Viewfinder Size... Once you've worked with a big bright medium format viewfinder it's hard to look through a small format camera's viewfinder. Composition is not an abstract process; it is a visceral interaction between the scene, your eye, and your mind. Composing through a larger viewfinder impacts the way you see, compose, and create a scene.
Nearly every thing about a Phase One system is different than a Canon system. I don't know why it would surprise anyone that it would create a different look. It's almost like saying a motorcycle and sports car lead to different driving experience - duh! Reducing it to a single factor is reductionist and, in my experience, wrong headed.
-
^^^ Nice post, Doug!
-
If I had to pick three that would be:
Style of shooting (obviously the most influencing parameter)
Sensor size
Lens design / look
I think the most important technical thing is the image ratio. Focus fall off is quite different with bigger size. That being said, we don´t really have a true MF size with digital. If you have been used to 6x7 or LF sizes it still does not compare.
-
I don't know MF, but I do use it sometimes. I don't think the medium format look is one factor, I think it is a combination of things. Size is one of those things for sure, but there are others. MFD isn't a cult, religion, or anything else. If you are an amateur it's art. If you are a pro it's a business decision. Personally, I can see the difference in my work and as much as I can't justify the expense I feel like I am delivering higher quality images and I spend less time in post. That is worth something to me.
Whether you can see a difference or not, you are right. Just because MF is better for some photographers doesn't automatically mean it is better for you.
-
Hi,
I have pretty much the same shooting style with both MFD and 24x36 mm. With 24x36mm I also shoot action, never with the Hasselblad 555/ELD as I don't have a shutter button on that camera.
But generally, I always shoot on tripod whenever feasible. On the Hassy I mostly shoot f/11, because I struggle a bit with focusing. On the A7rII I mostly shoot at f/8. These are approximately equivalent apertures. Naturally, I change aperture for effect when needed. Why I use tripod? Because it helps me focus on composition and gives me some serenity when shooting.
I also develop both in Lightroom, with home made profiles.
What I have seen is that I can generally not say which camera was used for what image just by looking. The rare cases I directly compared the two systems I wouldn't say I saw a difference. Some lenses are better and some are less good, of course, but that applies to both systems.
My experience is with a P45+, it has same resolution as the A7rII in practice.
The aspect ratio doesn't really matter to me, as I almost always crop or stitch my images to subject, but I can often see that a more quadratic size is often more appropriate than more rectangular formats.
So, no, with my kind of shooting I don't think there is an MFD look.
But, would I do large aperture shooting for short DoF or had the policy to compose for sensor format it may be different.
I have not used any MFD than the P45+, but whatever the sensor or sensor size, the same physics still apply, so I don't think there was more of an MFD look with modern sensors.
High end sensors like the IQ3100 MP obviously can show a tremendous amount of detail when paired with excellent lenses, of course, but I would be pretty sure that we need print large to observe that advantage.
Which of these images has an MFD look?
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-4rrW35H/0/XL/20151018-_DSC3039-Pano-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-FrgNtZF/1/X2/20140812-CF045436-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-cdCJXB7/1/X2/20151229-_DSC3609-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-RtgDW4W/0/XL/20160719-_DSC6517-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-RM2WB8K/0/XL/20130630-CF043307-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-VSVrgmt/0/X2/20140604-_DSC4093-X2.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
The answers: #2 and #5 from top are MFD, #1 is Sony A7rII stitched, #3 and #4 are a7rII and #6 is Sony Alpha 99 SLT.
If I had to pick three that would be:
Style of shooting (obviously the most influencing parameter)
Sensor size
Lens design / look
I think the most important technical thing is the image ratio. Focus fall off is quite different with bigger size. That being said, we don´t really have a true MF size with digital. If you have been used to 6x7 or LF sizes it still does not compare.
-
snip
The aspect ratio doesn't really matter to me, as I almost always crop or stitch my images to subject, but I can often see that a more quadratic size is often more appropriate than more rectangular formats.
snip
Just for the record, I was talking about about image ratio, not aspect ratio. Of course aspect ratio needs to be adjusted for the intended use. The image ratio (how big the object is projected on film or sensor, so the relation of object size to image size) is quite influential. I remember a portraiture we shot on 8x10 inch B/W polaroid, the image was printed in a size of only may be 1,5x2 inches but no matter how I would have tried I would have never been able to recreate that look with a small format. If stepped down like in your examples the difference might be negligible.
-
Which of these images has an MFD look?
Best regards
Erik
The answers: #2 and #5 from top are MFD, #1 is Sony A7rII stitched, #3 and #4 are a7rII and #6 is Sony Alpha 99 SLT.
I picked 2, 3 and 5. Naturally on websize images you can pick a wrong one but still apparently there is something that differentiates numbers 2 & 5 from the others. This question pop up every now and than over the last 10 (or more years). I don't know what makes MF look MF or even whether it exists. I only know I grab the HB every occasion I can, I enjoy working with MF. The FF I also enjoy working with but it is different. The image basically all end up in pixels :)
-
I agree with Erik,
shooting style - i do both architecture and lowlight action photography;
It is hard to do that both with a MF camera but you can do it with FF with great results.
Lens design/ look; when using FF you will have to pay for good optics to get the image quality of the equally expensive MF lenses. (think Otus)
By using FF you have far more choice in finding the specific lens you need.
Software: Nikon and Canon make their own software for the camera's/lenses - I prefer Lightroom for my d810 but in some cases the color of nikons NXD is better.
I have always liked the many creative options of FF/ 35mm.
My latest addition is a 300mm f4 PF lens; 800 grams and stunning image quality+ VR (1/40s= sharp)
I have worked with 4x5 inch, MF and 35mm.
On the D810 i can do a splitview; look in detail to both sides of my image to check @100% the sharpness/ depth of field. One push of a button and i see the central area.
Very nice - especially with TS lenses when using tilt.
-
...
The answers: #2 and #5 from top are MFD, #1 is Sony A7rII stitched, #3 and #4 are a7rII and #6 is Sony Alpha 99 SLT.
I would have chosen 3 and 5.
Why;
They are softer in contrast than the others.
They look like a classic landscape photo- they seem to be taken more thoughtful and with more patience ( look less like snapshots)
They look more post processed than the other images.
Are these qualities of the type of camera?... no
in image 5 two photographers seem to be in the wrong place :)
-
Hi,
These two were the MFD images:
The first one is a quite deliberate image.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-FrgNtZF/1/1854x1068/20140812-CF045436-1854x1068.jpg)
This one was made in great haste. It was my first real world (non testing) image on the P45+, that lighthouse is one of my favourite spots. I saw that sailboat on way when I arrived at the place, set up tripod, camera and lens and just got the shot.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-RM2WB8K/0/X3/20130630-CF043307-X3.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Ulf,
Sorry for misunderstanding…
I have not shot larger formats than 6x7 on film, so I don't have the experience, but I have seen quite a few large format images with very short DoF and they did have a special look.
I think it is a bit of a combination of film gradation curves, long lens at moderate aperture and also simple symmetric lens designs with a good bokeh.
Best regards
Erik
Just for the record, I was talking about about image ratio, not aspect ratio. Of course aspect ratio needs to be adjusted for the intended use. The image ratio (how big the object is projected on film or sensor, so the relation of object size to image size) is quite influential. I remember a portraiture we shot on 8x10 inch B/W polaroid, the image was printed in a size of only may be 1,5x2 inches but no matter how I would have tried I would have never been able to recreate that look with a small format. If stepped down like in your examples the difference might be negligible.
-
once you've used Medium Format and seen what it can do it's very difficult to go back.
-
Hi,
I have shot MFD and don't find it hard to go back 24x36. I guess it depends on what you compare and what your perceived needs are.
I have no doubts that full frame 645 MFD at the high end can deliver better image quality. With crop frame 645 it may be a different case. I guess that 24x36 at 42-50 MP can give 50 MP cropped frame a run for they money with the right lenses.
It may be that he X1D and the Fuji GFX hit some sweet spot. Great lenses optimised for 33x44 mm at a decent price point with functional AF…
Best regards
Erik
once you've used Medium Format and seen what it can do it's very difficult to go back.
-
I think the MF "Look" was mainly due to the MASSIVE increase in dynamic range over most 35mm based cameras. Now that today's Sony sensors have almost caught up with the DR of MF backs, the difference in the "look" is negligible. There will always be that DOF difference and the purity of the image at 100% compared to the smaller sensor, but that "look" can be achieved with the faster lenses available on 35mm based cameras.
Let's take my 5DII and a Hasselblad with a Phase One back, for example. There's a remarkable difference in dynamic range. I know a Leaf Aptus is around 12 stops, so I would assume that the Phase would be in that territory as well. The 5DII, however, I believe only handles about 8.5 stops. That's the main thing that differentiated MF from 35mm based, IMO.
-
once you've used Medium Format and seen what it can do it's very difficult to go back.
I used a mix of MF and 135 formats all my career and I never found any difficulty in deciding which to use; they were different tools and one knew instinctively which one to use for what. The problems came with clients who thought that they knew better than you did, and forced you to MF when the other was the sensible choice. I once had to negotiate a calendar shoot that was supposed to take place in southern France aboard a yacht. The owner was willing to have his boat used, but wanted to screw pictures of his boat as a sweetner. And get this; he wanted 4x5. The subject of the calendar was girls... I refused to tie myself to that idea; the job fell through and never got shot, though I had offered to go 6x6, which was already a financial nuisance as I'd already quoted for the shoot.
As I say, you know the format you need. Or at least, you should!
Rob
-
Hi,
That has changed with the 5DIV.
But, Sony Exmoor sensors are nothing new they have been around since 2007 or so. Present day MFD uses Sony Exmoors, too. Sensor size would give them a 1-1.5 EV advantage in DR.
Historically the Nikon D3X and Sony Alpha 900 were the first full frames with Sony Exmoor.
This link illustrates that developemnt: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D3X,Nikon%20D810,Phase%20One%20IQ250,Phase%20One%20IQ260
This shows Bill Claffs "Photographic Dynamic Range" and it is based on a set of samples photographed with different cameras. The figures are normalised, so magnification is taken into account.
Best regards
Erik
I think the MF "Look" was mainly due to the MASSIVE increase in dynamic range over most 35mm based cameras. Now that today's Sony sensors have almost caught up with the DR of MF backs, the difference in the "look" is negligible. There will always be that DOF difference and the purity of the image at 100% compared to the smaller sensor, but that "look" can be achieved with the faster lenses available on 35mm based cameras.
Let's take my 5DII and a Hasselblad with a Phase One back, for example. There's a remarkable difference in dynamic range. I know a Leaf Aptus is around 12 stops, so I would assume that the Phase would be in that territory as well. The 5DII, however, I believe only handles about 8.5 stops. That's the main thing that differentiated MF from 35mm based, IMO.
-
once you've used Medium Format and seen what it can do it's very difficult to go back.
Digital MF images tend to have slightly more depth, smoother transitions between in and out of focus areas, it is all very subtle though...
Like many others I do also find that (especially square) Film MF (Hasselblad/Rollei) did give a more distinct different look...
-
Digital MF images tend to have slightly more depth, smoother transitions between in and out of focus areas, it is all very subtle though...
Like many others I do also find that (especially square) Film MF (Hasselblad/Rollei) did give a more distinct different look...
The new MF sensor is 33 x44mm 1.7x larger sensor area than Full Frame 135mm
The film MF was 66 or 67; 3.5x or 4.5 larger area
Then in the film days the film was the weakest link- so the lens could actually use that area without problem and the technical quality was about a factor 4 better.
Film grain was reduced by that same factor.
Since then the lenses have become better because the demanding sensors asks for better lenses.
The digital FF now has a quality that is comparable with a film Hasselblad then and even at high ISO.
Lens choice and quality for Full Frame also has grown immense.
-
Even in film days, it was somewhat difficult to make statements about image quallty regarding 135 and 6x6 formats that stood much analysis. Perhaps the most telling thing about the two formats was shape: 135 tied you into the experience of never cropping unless it was essential, whereas 6x6 gave you the freedom to be much more flexible if you resisted the strong temptation to conceive everything as that delightfully perfect square!
The actual format of 135 flms was as close as dammit to 24mm x 36mm and 6x6 was around 56mm x 56mm and not the imaginary 60mm x 60mm. Film types varied across the ranges, and you could get more grain from 6x6 than from 135 formats if that was your intention or simply an effect from the film choice you'd been obliged to make.
A very popular fallacy was the concept that stepping up from 135 format to 6x7 format would instantly give you the performace of the best 135 format lenses spread equally right across the entire 6x7 area. Mistake. The lenses for the smaller format were often better because they only had to cover that tiny area; lenses for larger areas couldn't deliver the same quality (whatever you take to mean quality). I once ran a test using my 4/150mm Sonnar on the 'blad and the 3.5/135mm Nikkor on an F body. Cropping the 'blad negative to the same area as the Nikkon one did not produce as good an image quality; in both negs the subject was held to the same actual size, thus comparing the same actual, physical areas in both cases, and proving my point to my own satisfaction. (Whether Mick Jagger did or did not inspire this test I cannot now remember.)
Lenses then, as I presume today, were designed within the economical limits placed on the makers. As our current movie lenses are much more expensive because they can afford to be, meeting the needs of a richer market than stills photography appears to be, it's difficult for an utsider such as myself to know for sure whethere the limits today are actually physical ones or mainly economical boundaries.
The most reliable way to judge the quality question, I suppose, is from the point of view of how good or bad an image looks when it's up on a wall, but even then, so many factors come into play, and we haven't even touched on the little matter of stitching...
Conclusion? Use what gives you what you want at the price that is comfortable, and never forget that somebody else can make the same equipment appear to be far better or much worse than you can.
Life.
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
Quite interesting…
My experience in film times was that I achieved better results with my Pentax 67 than with Minolta's, but that was a bit of using the Pentax 67 to it's advantage. Once I was stranded without 135 film and shot typical 135 stuff with the Pentax 67, the results were just like 135.
I have been shooting a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+ for three and a half year and really enjoyed the experience. Regarding image quality it was a bit of a mixed bag. The P45+ delivered very good image quality at base ISO, and that was the speed I was using, but so did my 135 Sony A99. Under optimal conditions I would say that the P45+ yielded better resolution than the Sony, but I couldn't really tell the difference at A2 size. At A1 there would be a visible advantage to the larger format.
The really good lenses I had/have for the "Blad" were the two Sonnars (150 and 180) and the Planar 100/3.5, the other lenses I hade Distagons (40/50/60) and Planars (80/120) were one or two notches below.
With 135 most expensive lenses are at f/1.4, but I think that moderate aperture lenses like f/2.0 - f/4 may be quite interesting. Question is if 135 with the very best lenses can match or surpass MF-gear. Just as an example, we have the Otuses 28/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and the Apo Planar 135/2 from Zeiss and all those lenses are full apochromats. I don't know if there are true apochromats for MFD in production.
So, I could buy the three Otuses and a Sony A7rII for the price of the Hasselblad X1D with a lens. Which would perform better? It may be a close match.
I did some comparison between my A7rII with my Canon 16-35/4L and the "Blad/P45+ combo using my two present Distagons with somewhat surprising results:
- The A7rII outclasses the Blad/P45+/Distagon at pixel peeping distances on screen and on 80x100 cm print.
- But, backing off to longer viewing distance the weakness of the Distagon is masked and the P45+ image may be a tiny bit more brilliant
- Standing back (say 1m), I don't think you could see the difference if the prints were hanging side by side. I was comparing A2-size crops on top of each other.
I did also "pixel peep compared" the Planar 100/3.5CF and the 120/4CF to the Sony 90/2.8 G Macro and the Sony 90/2.8G macro was superior in both cases. But, the Sony macro has some skewness, while the Hasselblad 100/3.5 is flat.
Recently Fuji released the GFX. They don't see it as MFD just as their step up from APS-C. An interesting development.
Best regards
Erik
Even in film days, it was somewhat difficult to make statements about image quallty regarding 135 and 6x6 formats that stood much analysis. Perhaps the most telling thing about the two formats was shape: 135 tied you into the experience of never cropping unless it was essential, whereas 6x6 gave you the freedom to be much more flexible if you resisted the strong temptation to conceive everything as that delightfully perfect square!
The actual format of 135 flms was as close as dammit to 24mm x 36mm and 6x6 was around 56mm x 56mm and not the imaginary 60mm x 60mm. Film types varied across the ranges, and you could get more grain from 6x6 than from 135 formats if that was your intention or simply an effect from the film choice you'd been obliged to make.
A very popular fallacy was the concept that stepping up from 135 format to 6x7 format would instantly give you the performace of the best 135 format lenses spread equally right across the entire 6x7 area. Mistake. The lenses for the smaller format were often better because they only had to cover that tiny area; lenses for larger areas couldn't deliver the same quality (whatever you take to mean quality). I once ran a test using my 4/150mm Sonnar on the 'blad and the 3.5/135mm Nikkor on an F body. Cropping the 'blad negative to the same area as the Nikkon one did not produce as good an image quality; in both negs the subject was held to the same actual size, thus comparing the same actual, physical areas in both cases, and proving my point to my own satisfaction. (Whether Mick Jagger did or did not inspire this test I cannot now remember.)
Lenses then, as I presume today, were designed within the economical limits placed on the makers. As our current movie lenses are much more expensive because they can afford to be, meeting the needs of a richer market than stills photography appears to be, it's difficult for an utsider such as myself to know for sure whethere the limits today are actually physical ones or mainly economical boundaries.
The most reliable way to judge the quality question, I suppose, is from the point of view of how good or bad an image looks when it's up on a wall, but even then, so many factors come into play, and we haven't even touched on the little matter of stitching...
Conclusion? Use what gives you what you want at the price that is comfortable, and never forget that somebody else can make the same equipment appear to be far better or much worse than you can.
Life.
Rob
-
Thanks Rob C for that wonderful discussion; how rare it is in the endless format comparisons to hear from someone with many years of professional experience with both candidates, and who has had the opportunity and motivation to compare their merits, and sees the advantages of each!
I will avoid my geeky temptation to add other optics-based reasons why the move to a larger format and corresponding adjustment of focal length tends to improve print resolution" (more ”lines per picture height”) and such, but less than in proportion to format size (due to less "lines per mm" on the sensor). That sort of consideration should only reduce the larger format's advantage, not nullify or reverse it.
One simple but important change from film to digital is in the realm of "under what circumstances are the differences noticable?”. With 36x24mm film (most film types anyway; maybe not slow, super fine-grained B&W ones), the limitations are already visible in 10"x8" prints and more so at 14"x11", meaning under more or less normal scrutiny from a viewing distance comparable to the print's diagonal length. With today's sensors instead, it seems that even far smaller formats down to 1” and below handle normal viewing quite well — at least as far as resolution/detail/"grain"/pixelation, and also handle tonal gradations in scenes of fairly normal subject brightness range, scenes not needing substantial contrast compression to fit into the brightness gamut of a print.
If I am right, this means that the vast majority of even professional photography that is intended for "normal" viewing, which with film often benefits from the step up from 36x24mm to 56x42mm ("645”), now sees little or no advantage from any "medium format". In fact, apart from special needs like extreme low light and high shutter speeds or the desire to massively snd artificially blur much of a scene, the requiremrnts of "normal viewing" are now met far further down the format size scale.
Of course there are legitimate needs for images where viewers will move in close to examine parts of the scene, or the photographer will crop heavily, but I have to think that a lot of the online enthusiasm about larger formats and higher pixel counts is driven by hobbyist "print sniffing" and its modern counterpart of 100% pixel peeping, rather than by legitimate artistic or professional goals.
-
Hi,
Just a pair of remarks…
Regarding pixel peeping, when peeping pixels we see the pixels. It doesn't matter if it is MFD or 4/3" it is still pixels. The latest generation of MFD has Sony pixels, like say the A7rII or the Nikon D810. When we pixel peep we see Sony pixels and if we use a normal 24" screen we can see two million of them. The older sensors had "fat pixels", I never liked that idea, but they may had a different look to them.
The other point is that I don't think it is illegitimate to strive for higher image quality, it may be meaningless but in no way illegitimate.
Let's throw in a car analogy. You can be perfectly happy with a small SUV by Toyota that I own, but you may feel you need a big SUV, say a Hummer. Or you can feel that you need the cornering speed of a Porsche. All that is absolutely legitimate, even if the environmental footprint of the Hummer may be a bit heavy. But, if you use the cornering speed of that Porsche on almost any public road you would probably violate a lot of laws and endanger other motorists, because they don't expect a car coming out at 75 MPH on the wrong side of that next curve.
I don't think that you put anyway at risk by spending on photography.
Best regards
Erik
Of course there are legitimate needs for images where viewers will move in close to examine parts of the scene, or the photographer will crop heavily, but I have to think that a lot of the online enthusiasm about larger formats and higher pixel counts is driven by hobbyist "print sniffing" and its modern counterpart of 100% pixel peeping, rather than by legitimate artistic or professional goals.
-
One simple but important change from film to digital is in the realm of "under what circumstances are the differences noticable?”. With 36x24mm film (most film types anyway; maybe not slow, super fine-grained B&W ones), the limitations are already visible in 10"x8" prints and more so at 14"x11", meaning under more or less normal scrutiny from a viewing distance comparable to the print's diagonal length. With today's sensors instead, it seems that even far smaller formats down to 1” and below handle normal viewing quite well — at least as far as resolution/detail/"grain"/pixelation, and also handle tonal gradations in scenes of fairly normal subject brightness range, scenes not needing substantial contrast compression to fit into the brightness gamut of a print.
My experience as well with 24x36mm and digital formats.
Of course there are legitimate needs for images where viewers will move in close to examine parts of the scene, or the photographer will crop heavily, but I have to think that a lot of the online enthusiasm about larger formats and higher pixel counts is driven by hobbyist "print sniffing" and its modern counterpart of 100% pixel peeping, rather than by legitimate artistic or professional goals.
Have you seen the works of, say, Alex Soth? In a museum or gallery, on large prints as it was intended to be presented? It is overwhelming.
Of course, Alex Soth uses a 8x10 view camera. But maybe he could use a 100 mix digital back and get the same effect (I don't know).
Still: the idea to present large, detailed prints to overwhelm the assistance is a legitimate artistic goal, isn't it?
Then, there are the works of Richard Learoyd. Look it up.
-
My experience as well with 24x36mm and digital formats.
Have you seen the works of, say, Alex Soth? In a museum or gallery, on large prints as it was intended to be presented? It is overwhelming.
Of course, Alex Soth uses a 8x10 view camera. But maybe he could use a 100 mix digital back and get the same effect (I don't know).
Still: the idea to present large, detailed prints to overwhelm the assistance is a legitimate artistic goal, isn't it?
Then, there are the works of Richard Learoyd. Look it up.
So, what did I do to deserve this?
;-)
Rob C
-
Have you seen the works of, say, Alex Soth? In a museum or gallery, on large prints as it was intended to be presented? It is overwhelming.
Of course, Alex Soth uses a 8x10 view camera. But maybe he could use a 100 mix digital back and get the same effect (I don't know).
Still: the idea to present large, detailed prints to overwhelm the assistance is a legitimate artistic goal, isn't it?
Then, there are the works of Richard Learoyd. Look it up.
I have no dispute with the idea that there are some artistic endevours that go well beyond "normal viewing" — that was the gist of the beginning of my paragraph that you quoted. Some professional ones too — say life-size photos of clothing and jewelry models to be displayed in stores and viewed at close quarters. But I do have the suspicion that a lot of users of large format, high pixel count cameras are not doing that, but instead are staying with a format out of various kinds of inertia (some legitimate, like owning lots of nice lenses for it and just knowing how to work with a certain brand and format) and a vague "bigger is better" sentiment, rather than the sort of comparisons and rational decision making that Rob C illustrated.
P. S. Erik: I was only commenting on when certain gear is or is not needed to produce photographs that meet certain professional or artistic goals. It was not my intent to delegitimize the emotional and social needs that lead to spending large amounts on luxury cars whose performance attributes are never used, or watches hand-made by Swiss elves that are no more accurate or functional than a $100 Swatch, or big, expensive prestige-brand cameras whose images are never displayed in a way that distinguishes them from what a good mainstream ILC can produce.
-
Another gain the MF had was the non AA filter. this gave a chunk more in sharpness and a more 3D look.
Lack of this filter gives you texture differences on smooth surfaces. Now this too is taken out on some bodies, which is fantastic. Canon really needed to do this to their 5DmIV as an option.
Now you are left with leaf shutter advantage, and how some lenses look. .....and the CCD did do something, but that may have been the DR/?
-
Hi Phil,
There is something to the AA-filterless design, personally I still feel it is a bad design, and I have seen a lot of artefacts on my P45+. Canon now has the 5DsR, with zeroed out OLP filtering and 50 MP resolution. Gapless microlenses decrease the MTF of the sensor, and that acts as a mitigating factor. When the IQ-250 was released it could be noticed that it had much less aliasing then the IQ-260 and IQ-280 tested simultaneously, these tests were done by DigitalTransitions, the "library shots".
If there is an MFD look, it may be there are small pieces adding up.
- In many cases the 4:3 MFD crop factor works better than 3:2 crop factor of 135
- At least some MFD lenses are pretty good
- Comparisons may be made against a Canon 5DII with a 24-70/2.8L lens
- That lens is subject to much wear, the bushings holding the front element wear out, so most well used 24-70/2.8 lenses are in no good shape. It is an easy repair, though.
- Canons and Nikons using Nikon designed sensors don't have great DR at base ISO.
- Camera profiles may not be as good. As an example, some Capture One users tried out the ICC profile for the IQ-250 on the Nikon raws in capture one and got superior results. Phase One spending more time on developing profiles for their own cameras?
- Phase One workflow is a bit biased to protect highlights. At least some of the cameras have overrated ISO-settings. The film curve in Capture One tends to rend images bright, so Phase One users are led to expose a bit under ETTR.
The latest generation MFD uses CMOS from Sony, pretty similar to the sensors used on the Nikon D810. Having a larger sensor is obviously better. Regarding DR, CCD was essentially passed with the introduction of the Exmoor sensor, back in 2008. I attach some data measured by DxO. These are normalised to same print size, so the advantage of size is taken into account.
The large sensors obviously have a benefit resolution and Phase One has beefed up their lens line. From the MTF data published by Hasselblad the lenses for the X1D are very good. The X1D needs less magnification and it may outperform say a canon 5DsR with the Otus, or it may not. I would guess the Otus is better corrected for out of focus fringing, for instance.
We will see higher resolution sensors from Sony and they will migrate upwards to MFD, so 50 MP is not that end of thing for 1.3X crop MFD and nor is 100 MP for full frame 645. And yes, Sony will make those sensors as long there is a business case.
Best regards
Erik
Another gain the MF had was the non AA filter. this gave a chunk more in sharpness and a more 3D look.
Lack of this filter gives you texture differences on smooth surfaces. Now this too is taken out on some bodies, which is fantastic. Canon really needed to do this to their 5DmIV as an option.
Now you are left with leaf shutter advantage, and how some lenses look. .....and the CCD did do something, but that may have been the DR/?
-
I wish all manufacturers woiuld deal with the AA filter as a removable option. Just as easily you clean your sensor, it should be an overlay to remove (I know easier said than done, but maybe as easy as replacing the viewfinder screen or something.
In the 15+ of shooting digital, I have had rare and easy fix situations on moire, and I will take a no filter camera any day over a filter cam for my type of work, and play shooting. The ONLY time I might want the AA is if I do any clothing , or perhaps I have to buy a camera that incorporates video, and I make myself use it as a video camera. Of course this is something many shooters like, and that is why it should be a snap in option.
The sooner mfg's start doing this the sooner that discussion can rest.
Why is it that in 15+ I have had a rare occassion? I mean if your looking to test for it, sure you will get it to come in, and even if it has happened, I would rather deal in post than lose that 3D sharp look. Blow up a print next to each other and people would rest about it.
I can't remember a time My P25 MF had issues due to non AA, nor the SLR/C Kodak.
Why force folks to another camera, or to a service that would void warranty?
As far as small pieces adding up...YES! I can see this, as you list, lens, crop?, I would not compare a zoom lens to any MF look...yes DR I see, Profiles, sure, the Phase color! I guess many people wait for Nikon to get the 42mp sensor, I wish Canon did as well. But the mount of the SonyE makes adapting to older studio lenses easier as well., so its fun stuff :-)
Do you still use the A7rII Erik? I was reading the negative reviews on Amazon, and I agree with just about all of them. The Auto focusing regardless of lens is pretty horrible. The lag and reaction time is also horrible. Menus are whatever. When you need to take the time to reframe refocus and such, the menu issues become less importnat(or more, when needing to dig in short times). The feel of the grip area in my hand feels flexible. Sometimes functions like wheels don't kick in right away after you turn the device On. etc.
Otherwise I do love it. As you said, its not for pro use, at least in a number of areas. But it sure is working as a MF replacement.
-
Hi,
Regarding the AA-filter I often have issues with both the P45+ and the A7rII. I am living at the seashore and I often shoot water and sailboats. Small waves on water often have colour aliasing and sailboat rigs are very problematic. So, it depends on use. Just to say, the OLP filters used on most cameras are a compromise. They reduce MTF to around 0.15 at Nyquist while an OLP filterless camera may have around 0.25-0.3.
Sony RX1R II has a variable AA-filter, and Nikon has patented a similar solution. So, I think that variable OLP filters are around the corner.
I still use the A7rII, and it is the best camera I ever had. But…
- I am a long time Minolta and Sony user, the menu system was always the same.
- I almost never go into the meny system. I have two preset all buttons assigned to functions and a lot of options in the Fn menu.
- Only use menu system för "picture effects on/off", formatting cards and some rare options.
Regarding AF, I have mostly positive experience. The 24-105/4L I use mostly works very well with the Metabones. On the other hand the 28-70 kit lens often fails miserably and I got a lot of bad focus images with a Vello adapter one day. The long story is:
- 24-70/2.8 works excellent with LA-3 adapter
- 70-400/4.5.6G works excellent with LA-3 adapter
- Canon 24-105/4L works excellent with the Metabones IV
- Canon 16-35/4L works excellent with the Metabones IV
- Sony 90/2.8G works excellent without adapter
You have not disabled Phase Detection by mistake? That would make AF slow and unreliable.
Mostly I work with a tripod and often focus manually.
My experience with all my Sonys was very satisfactory, no failures on any of the eight I had and all still work. Why did I have eight? Because Sony was slow on delivering live view.
What I don't like?
- LCD could be larger
- Battery life (but it wouldn't fit on my HCam Master TSII with a bigger battery)
- Switches to 12-bit mode in continous shooting
- Menu system, of course
- Would be nice program any menu choice to buttons
- A lot of you cannot do that with this lens on that mode remarks
Jim Kasson has written a small article about the his two most used cameras the A7rII and the Nikon D5, I don't have a D5 but his words on the A7rII are spot on: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=14540
So, what happened to Hasselblad and the P45+. Both are in happy retirement, i very seldom use them. But they will go for walk now and than. The Hassy just got a new viewfinder.
Best regards
Erik
I wish all manufacturers woiuld deal with the AA filter as a removable option. Just as easily you clean your sensor, it should be an overlay to remove (I know easier said than done, but maybe as easy as replacing the viewfinder screen or something.
In the 15+ of shooting digital, I have had rare and easy fix situations on moire, and I will take a no filter camera any day over a filter cam for my type of work, and play shooting. The ONLY time I might want the AA is if I do any clothing , or perhaps I have to buy a camera that incorporates video, and I make myself use it as a video camera. Of course this is something many shooters like, and that is why it should be a snap in option.
The sooner mfg's start doing this the sooner that discussion can rest.
Why is it that in 15+ I have had a rare occassion? I mean if your looking to test for it, sure you will get it to come in, and even if it has happened, I would rather deal in post than lose that 3D sharp look. Blow up a print next to each other and people would rest about it.
I can't remember a time My P25 MF had issues due to non AA, nor the SLR/C Kodak.
Why force folks to another camera, or to a service that would void warranty?
As far as small pieces adding up...YES! I can see this, as you list, lens, crop?, I would not compare a zoom lens to any MF look...yes DR I see, Profiles, sure, the Phase color! I guess many people wait for Nikon to get the 42mp sensor, I wish Canon did as well. But the mount of the SonyE makes adapting to older studio lenses easier as well., so its fun stuff :-)
Do you still use the A7rII Erik? I was reading the negative reviews on Amazon, and I agree with just about all of them. The Auto focusing regardless of lens is pretty horrible. The lag and reaction time is also horrible. Menus are whatever. When you need to take the time to reframe refocus and such, the menu issues become less importnat(or more, when needing to dig in short times). The feel of the grip area in my hand feels flexible. Sometimes functions like wheels don't kick in right away after you turn the device On. etc.
Otherwise I do love it. As you said, its not for pro use, at least in a number of areas. But it sure is working as a MF replacement.
-
The Hassy just got a new viewfinder.
Lol, Erik :-)
Yes, with your surrounding, which I wish I had, I can see how MF and tripod, and a non reflex need to shoot would be absolutely a dream using the A7RII. And I really should be more happy with it, and I am inside, but when I hear people say its the best for all your needs...I had this hope in my for it being my travel, street fast shooting side kick as well. But, anyway.
Yes I think I am at least NOW(I likely was then,Exif/Sony Maker Notes gives me little info on the focus I had set besides F7.1, @1/100 to 1sec), in the small green squares phase detect AF. I will do another shoot perhaps in a couple days and test it out again. As before I did have single shot center point set.
As for Canon glass, I have the Meta IVt.....
24-70 2.8 L USM I, not in the list of supported, but does OK in day light conditions
70-200 2.8 L USM I, not in the list of supported, not so good
Sigma 50 1.4 EX does pretty darn good
Sigma Sport 150-600 5.6 is OK.
-
So this is interesting. Purely anecdotal, but I've been shooting D4/D5/D810 Credo 40 for this year, but the only new camera this year was the D5 (great AF, good sensor). This week in the midst of a job my Credo died, and I had to shoot with the 810 on 3 jobs this week and will for next week as well (at the soonest). To be blunt - it's painful for the way I work. I knew all of this was true, but I'm not able to get the color I really love from the Credo out of the Nikons, and this week has really reinforced that. Now I have zero idea how much of this is lens based vs. sensor based (I shoot H5X), but having seen some CMOS files, I think it's largely a sensor issue. I just found a H1 for a backup, but obviously can't afford a backup Credo, but man, I hope it comes back soon.
-Doug
-
After much contemplation ... I resorted to use medium format system for the medium format look;)
Since there was already much technical discussion in this thread, I will mention another aspect to medium format systems that for me greatly adds to their benefit.
I actually Love using medium format cameras - I *love it*. I feel it.. and this is the key. I am transformed when I feel it.
It does not feel like a snapping machine. I feel the weight of every capture. The silky sound of the shutter, it transforms experience and pace of studio sessions.
I loved Mamiya RZ Pro II, Mamiya ZD and now Pentax 645z.
I greatly enjoyed reliability of D800e, but I never felt the camera the same way.
-
Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's (temporarily) gone.
Sorry to hear your back required repaired! Should return to you quite snappily :).
-
You know, it's interesting. I know that you should be able to get the same color, but when it comes down to it, you don't always do. I think it is more then just a overall profile as well, goes to specific areas of the image.
When I review the work of photographers who shoot both, I don't always see it, but when I do, it is really obvious. Most of the time, that look is very apparent (for me) with wood. In their MF files the wood grain and colors just look natural. In their 35mm files, wood just never looks right.
I am sure it is the same way with skin tones, but I don't shoot people so that is not something I pay attention to as much as materials.
-
Longer lenses have less depth of field, which is not dependent on format size, only optics.
New guy jumping in here. This bit is not correct, focal length does not affect depth of field. If you stand 10 feet from a ruler and take a photo with a 645 camera with an 80mm lens and 135 camera with a 50mm lens, both set at f/2.8, they will both have nearly the same depth of field.
-
New guy jumping in here. This bit is not correct, focal length does not affect depth of field. If you stand 10 feet from a ruler and take a photo with a 645 camera with an 80mm lens and 135 camera with a 50mm lens, both set at f/2.8, they will both have nearly the same depth of field.
That is just not correct. It is well known that longer lenses inherently have less depth of field for the same f/stop. If you are comparing different formats, in order to get the same angle of view, you will need a longer lens on the bigger format, and that image will have less depth of field at the same aperture.
Now with 35mm vs MF with a normal lens, you may not notice it as much, especially if you do not print at full res, but it is still there.
When you get into the longer focal lengths or comparing two systems that are much further apart in format size, it will start to become more apparent.
For instance, compare an image captured with a 24mm lens on a 35mm system to an image captured with a 210mm lens on an 8x10 camera shot at the same aperture. Very similar angles of view, but the 8x10 will have little DoF. This has nothing to do with 8x10 format inherently have less DoF, but is an indirect result of the need to use longer lenses, which are inherently more shallow with DoF.
-
Oh man, the DOF debate. I've been involved in this one for years.
Aperture affects DOF, as does focal length. If you take two lenses, on the same format, say one's a 50mm f2.8 and one's a 200mm f2.8, shooting something the same distance from the camera and wide open, there will be a NOTICEABLE difference in DOF. This is why MF, since it uses longer lenses to achieve the same framing, is known for thin DOF and great out of focus areas.
-
New guy jumping in here. This bit is not correct, focal length does not affect depth of field. If you stand 10 feet from a ruler and take a photo with a 645 camera with an 80mm lens and 135 camera with a 50mm lens, both set at f/2.8, they will both have nearly the same depth of field.
according to cambridge in colour
( http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm)
these are the result for the suggested comparison:
( sorry i choose Meters instead of Feet)
PS i made a mistake with the image- i updated it ; it means there is now more DOF with 35mm than before...
-
Hi,
You need to consider equivalent focal lengths and apertures:
Let's assume we shoot portrait with an 85/1.4 lens on full frame 24x36. It has an image diagonal of ca. 43 mm
If we shoot on 44x33 the image diagonal would be: 55 mm. So equivalent focal length and aperture would be:
85 * 55 / 43 -> 110 mm and 1.4 * 55 /43 -> 1.8
If we go for full frame 645 (53,7 x 40.4) the corresponding focal length and aperture would be:
85 * 66.6 / 43 -> 132 mm
1.4 * 66.6 / 43 -> 2.2
Let's assume needed CoC (Circle of Confusion) 0.030 mm for 24x36 mm, 0.039 m for 44x33 and 0.46 mm for IQ 3100 MP
For two meter we get:
4 cm DoF for 85/1.4 on 24x36
4 cm DoF for 110/1.8 on 44x33
4 cm DoF for 135/2.2 on the IQ3100 MP
For 24x36 we could use the new Sigma 85/1.4 Art, any of the Canon, Nikon or Sony 85/1.4, The Milvus 85/1.4 or the Otus 85/1.4
For Phase One with the 44x33 mm sensor the closest one would be the Schneider Kreuuznach 110/2.8 having 7 cm of DoF
For Phase One with the full size sensor the closest one would be the Schneider Kreuznach 150/2.8 yielding 4 cm of DoF
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik thank you fro clearing things up- actually i made a mistake in my image see above... and corrected it resulting in more DOF in the 35mm format image
In effect both ways of looking at DOF are correct.
You calculate the DOF by using lens/format characteristics.
Cambridge calculates the same thing considering a print made from that combination with known viewing distance...
Looking at the results; the difference is not so large;
and in the case of 35mm you can buy an FF lens with comparable angle that has a smaller DOF
for instance you can buy a 1.4 85mm lens for FF but now try to find this 1.8 110mm lens for MF
-
Hi, in my experience it's tonal(hue) transitions and a bit details is the most difference that i see a side from file file size, i was working interchangeable with canon, nikon, and hasselblad.
I used to have h3dII-31 and really liked the output from it kinda "grainy" would be great for portrait work, but upgraded to h4d60 this one have dalsa chip and seems more 'smooth" look like cmos. But i don't hesitate to use my nikon d810 this one is like jack of all trades. All of them were color profiled and in the same studio lighting would have slightly different results, so i had to fiddle with the files a bit to push them where i want them to be...While for color critical work i feel more comfortable to work with hasselblad, i'm also using d810 as well...
-
Thanks!
One factor that is important that older f/1.4 lenses were not very sharp at f/1.4, while an MFD lens often quiet sharp at maximum aperture.
But, it seems that we have a lot of f/1.4 lenses that are very sharp now.
Best regards
Erik
Erik thank you fro clearing things up- actually i made a mistake in my image see above... and corrected it resulting in more DOF in the 35mm format image
In effect both ways of looking at DOF are correct.
You calculate the DOF by using lens/format characteristics.
Cambridge calculates the same thing considering a print made from that combination with known viewing distance...
Looking at the results; the difference is not so large;
and in the case of 35mm you can buy an FF lens with comparable angle that has a smaller DOF
for instance you can buy a 1.4 85mm lens for FF but now try to find this 1.8 110mm lens for MF
-
Hi, in my experience it's tonal(hue) transitions and a bit details is the most difference that i see a side from file file size, i was working interchangeable with canon, nikon, and hasselblad.
I used to have h3dII-31 and really liked the output from it kinda "grainy" would be great for portrait work, but upgraded to h4d60 this one have dalsa chip and seems more 'smooth" look like cmos. But i don't hesitate to use my nikon d810 this one is like jack of all trades. All of them were color profiled and in the same studio lighting would have slightly different results, so i had to fiddle with the files a bit to push them where i want them to be...While for color critical work i feel more comfortable to work with hasselblad, i'm also using d810 as well...
I second that the D810 file is incredible smooth and that you can use the camera for almost anything;
Just made some studioportraits with it and with lenses ( sigma art 50 and 85) wide open and i could print them 1.24m meter wide ( 150dpi) without any hesitation.
I have not worked with MF digital, but the way i use my camera it would not work out.
-
You know, it's interesting. I know that you should be able to get the same color, but when it comes down to it, you don't always do. I think it is more then just a overall profile as well, goes to specific areas of the image.
When I review the work of photographers who shoot both, I don't always see it, but when I do, it is really obvious. Most of the time, that look is very apparent (for me) with wood. In their MF files the wood grain and colors just look natural. In their 35mm files, wood just never looks right.
I am sure it is the same way with skin tones, but I don't shoot people so that is not something I pay attention to as much as materials.
I noticed this as well, it seems to be an issue separating oranges, reds and yellows. Somehow bigger sensors are better at this. It could be the bigger area (thus more photons collected overall), the color profile, the CFA, the supporting electronics or all of those combined. Who knows. What I know is that there is a clear difference when it comes to certain colors.
Same for skin tones. The worst I've seen are from my phone. I would need amazing studio lighting to get skin tones to look acceptable (it doesn't help that the images have a constant green cast even in RAW). The few m43 cameras I tried struggle as well, but with good post and/or good light you can compensate and get good small prints or web images.
Modern 135 can do a lot better, but really depends on the quality of light. Some of the model photos I posted here required fine tuning to properly smooth skin color transitions, others were perfect straight out of camera.
-
Great pics Eric :) I would have said 1 and 6 are the best quality from those shots.
Just for the record, I was talking about about image ratio, not aspect ratio. Of course aspect ratio needs to be adjusted for the intended use. The image ratio (how big the object is projected on film or sensor, so the relation of object size to image size) is quite influential. I remember a portraiture we shot on 8x10 inch B/W polaroid, the image was printed in a size of only may be 1,5x2 inches but no matter how I would have tried I would have never been able to recreate that look with a small format. If stepped down like in your examples the difference might be negligible.
-
compression is a matter of distance, I made that mistake as well before.
I think transitions between colors and shadows are smother with MF, which give it the nice look.
Also the lenses tend to be better, while canon seems to have kind of a "fat" punchy sharpness, details in MF seem finer, however and Otus on a 5dsr is also not bad from what I have seen, so I guess lenses make a difference.
-
Resolution is one part of it, it's probably the most obvious, but it isn't the most important difference, to me. It's the graduations, focal, colour, tonal that get longer as you get a bigger sensor, digital or film. No amount of megapixels will replicate this.
I am falling in back in Love with Large format film now though, where this look is just on another level. Even 6x7 is much better, IMO. Too bad 4x5 is £20 per shot to shoot and develop :(
-
Resolution is one part of it, it's probably the most obvious, but it isn't the most important difference, to me. It's the graduations, focal, colour, tonal that get longer as you get a bigger sensor, digital or film. No amount of megapixels will replicate this.
I am falling in back in Love with Large format film now though, where this look is just on another level. Even 6x7 is much better, IMO. Too bad 4x5 is £20 per shot to shoot and develop :(
and after developing you have to print it analogue .... (or digitize it first as i have to do to print it on my z3100 inkjet)
But yes, it is a different medium all together and it will look different from digital- especially 8"x10".