Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Alex Waugh on September 27, 2014, 08:13:07 am
-
Evening all,
Quite a while ago I started a thread on here about what constitutes the medium format look, with the general consensus being that its a combination of color fidelity and aberration free optics. My understanding is that these optics are more prevalent in the MF world because slower lenses (providing equivalent DOF on larger sensors) are easier to design and have lower tolerance requirements.
With the advent of the Otus, and to a lesser extent the Sigma Art series, I got to wondering if this look would be possible on 35mm format. My understanding is that the primary differentiator between DSLR + MF color is the implementation of the color filter array on top of various sensors and not a fundamental CCD/CMOS characteristic. My very basic understanding is that color separation is sacrificed for greater light sensitivity / ISO performance. So my question is this - Disregarding resolution gains, if Nikon produced a D800s (studio) with a disregard for ISO performance beyond ISO50-200 and I stuck an Otus 85mm on it, would I find the look I'm after?
A few notes
My interest stems from a love of the look and an inability to afford it.
I am aware that DOF transition is different across formats however I believe the Otus lenses handle it well.
Please forgive my lack of technical accuracy.
Alex
-
Such a camera would probably be called D4x and cost with an Otus as much as many good second hand MF backs+camera+lens.
Why not buy a second hand MF camera if the "MF look", whatever that means, is what matters to you?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Alex, you'll find no answer here for a question as subjective as this.
Fortunately it takes only a few hours of your time to determine how you feel about this. Contact a MF dealer, arrange a comparison/test/evaluation, take some actual pictures, and look at them.
This is what I do every day with our clients.
-
Hi,
Just for fun, make this test: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=2
Answers here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html
Views on "medium format look" differ and may mean a lot of things.
Some more images here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2
Those are only some shoots of mine… your mileage may vary.
Best regards
Erik
Evening all,
Quite a while ago I started a thread on here about what constitutes the medium format look, with the general consensus being that its a combination of color fidelity and aberration free optics. My understanding is that these optics are more prevalent in the MF world because slower lenses (providing equivalent DOF on larger sensors) are easier to design and have lower tolerance requirements.
With the advent of the Otus, and to a lesser extent the Sigma Art series, I got to wondering if this look would be possible on 35mm format. My understanding is that the primary differentiator between DSLR + MF color is the implementation of the color filter array on top of various sensors and not a fundamental CCD/CMOS characteristic. My very basic understanding is that color separation is sacrificed for greater light sensitivity / ISO performance. So my question is this - Disregarding resolution gains, if Nikon produced a D800s (studio) with a disregard for ISO performance beyond ISO50-200 and I stuck an Otus 85mm on it, would I find the look I'm after?
A few notes
My interest stems from a love of the look and an inability to afford it.
I am aware that DOF transition is different across formats however I believe the Otus lenses handle it well.
Please forgive my lack of technical accuracy.
Alex
-
Thanks for the replies everyone I really do appreciate any discussion.
Bernard - Assuming that the CFA is a cheap part (R&D aside), couldn't Nikon do this to any camera at any price point really if it deduced the market would be willing to sacrifice ISO performance? Also - while a 2nd hand back / lens / camera is not as economically daunting as most assume, the older (read: affordable) ones are painfully slow and outdated from back LCD to autofocus to general handling compared to even an entry level DSLR
Doug - If i ever entered into the MF market (i got very close last year) i would not be able to afford to go through a dealer - especially in Australia.
Erik - You are of course correct I have a lot of trouble picking between the images here. I would argue that this series of photos does not lend itself to easily showing what I mean (very subdued colours and subtle contrast shifts) but I have nothing to back myself up here with.
The obvious course of action here would be to purchase a digital back i know - one day.
-
Hi,
It may be a myth that CFA-s for MFD are less ortogonal than DSLRs and DSLRs do differ. Or it may be for real. The Nikon D4s are oriented at sports/news and they have probably more emphasis on ISO than D810.
DxO measures something called SMI and that is 80, same as for the Phase One IQ 80, but as they say it is not very discriminating.
I guess that a major factor is that MFDs are mostly used with the vendors own software and they make very good colour profiles for their own cameras.
On the other issue, I have posted some other images here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/
These are pairs of images shot under same conditions at the same time. They all come with raw images (unfortunately some in DNG), so you can process them self and draw conclusions.
Here are some more MFD shots: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples3
Doug at DT and Steve at CI will be glad to share sample images if you ask.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the replies everyone I really do appreciate any discussion.
Bernard - Assuming that the CFA is a cheap part (R&D aside), couldn't Nikon do this to any camera at any price point really if it deduced the market would be willing to sacrifice ISO performance? Also - while a 2nd hand back / lens / camera is not as economically daunting as most assume, the older (read: affordable) ones are painfully slow and outdated from back LCD to autofocus to general handling compared to even an entry level DSLR
Erik - You are of course correct I have a lot of trouble picking between the images here. I would argue that this series of photos does not lend itself to easily showing what I mean (very subdued colours and subtle contrast shifts) but I have nothing to back myself up here with.
The obvious course of action here would be to purchase a digital back i know - one day.
-
With the advent of the Otus, ... I got to wondering if this look would be possible on 35mm format... with a disregard for ISO performance beyond ISO50-200 and I stuck an Otus 85mm on it, would I find the look I'm after?
Alex,
Nothing beats your own testing and criteria - as so many here will quickly tell you. But before you go out and rent a couple of Otus's ( or should it be Otii ?) - here are a few links from someone who has also written an article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/photography_as_art__a_lifelong_passion.shtml) on LuLa - Eleanor Brown. Link 1 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84654.msg693427#msg693427), 2 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84654.msg693486#msg693486), 3 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85244.msg696857#msg696857).
-
Hi,
Yes Elaenor posts good stuff.
My samples were shot with old Zeiss lenses, modern lenses probably perform better.
Best regards
Erik
Alex,
Nothing beats your own testing and criteria - as so many here will quickly tell you. But before you go out and rent a couple of Otus's ( or should it be Otii ?) - here are a few links from someone who has also written an article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/photography_as_art__a_lifelong_passion.shtml) on LuLa - Eleanor Brown. Link 1 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84654.msg693427#msg693427), 2 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84654.msg693486#msg693486), 3 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85244.msg696857#msg696857).
-
My samples were shot with old Zeiss lenses, modern lenses probably perform better.
Erik,
Don't knock older glass !! About a week ago Torger made an interesting post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93613.msg763596#msg763596) , which got me thinking about the 'organic' quality of some shots v the 'shot on digital look'. I think this is a subject you've referred to on the odd occasion ... :-)
Best,
M
-
Hi,
I don't want to knock on old glass, but I have been told that modern glass from Schneider and Rodenstock is significantly better. But I guess that I paid less for my five Hasselblad lenses than I would pay for a new Rodenstock.
Getting back to the MFD look, I guess there are some factors:
- Good to very good lenses
- Relative large pixels (older backs with fat pixels are said to have a special look)
- No OLP filtering (Nikon D810 has no OLP filter either and same goes for Sony A7r)
- Better and possible favored processing in proprietary raw converters
So, would I try to reproduce the MFDB look, I would possibly try a Nikon D810 with an Otus or a Sigma 50/1.4 ART, and use Capture One with no noise reduction and using the profiles for the Phase One IQ-250.
I would possibly also sharpen in FocusMagic.
Best regards, in a hurry
Erik
Erik,
Don't knock older glass !! About a week ago Torger made an interesting post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93613.msg763596#msg763596) , which got me thinking about the 'organic' quality of some shots v the 'shot on digital look'. I think this is a subject you've referred to on the odd occasion ... :-)
Best,
M
-
Alex,
You don't say what field you're interested in - fashion, landscape, portraiture ? But whichever it may be, you can be sure that you'll never get a definitive answer, just as you didn't in the previous thread you started nor will you in this one ! Simply put there are too many factors to consider and ultimately personal criteria and taste will rule.
A few weeks ago LuLa posted a portrait of MR in the 'Join Michael in Antartica' announcement. Jerome asked about the lens used - the thread and answer (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93237.msg759481#msg759481) speak volumes!
-
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/KWR_Whats_New_Images/Whats-New-MR-head-shot.jpg)
-
Hi,
That example sort of illustrates that you need to define MF look before trying to emulate it.
There are now quite a few lenses from China having that kind of look, decent sharpness within a very small area and very little depth of field.
For me, it is not a typical medium format look, but our expectation may vary.
Apart MF look, Leica look or what else, it is a nice portrait of Michael Reichmann.
Best regards
Erik
Alex,
You don't say what field you're interested in - fashion, landscape, portraiture ? But whichever it may be, you can be sure that you'll never get a definitive answer, just as you didn't in the previous thread you started nor will you in this one ! Simply put there are too many factors to consider and ultimately personal criteria and taste will rule.
A few weeks ago LuLa posted a portrait of MR in the 'Join Michael in Antartica' announcement. Jerome asked about the lens used - the thread and answer (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93237.msg759481#msg759481) speak volumes!
-
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/KWR_Whats_New_Images/Whats-New-MR-head-shot.jpg)
-
Hi,
Jeff Schewe, who is probably not exactly unknown on these forums is on travel right now with his new Nikon gear and also MFD, hopefully he will report back his findings when he is back.
Best regards
Erik
-
When I was using 35mm and 645 film gear at the same time, the main difference between the two for me was the aspect ratio. "Better" lenses or more real estate per frame…I didn't much care about that stuff. I just wanted a less rectangular frame to compose images with.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
A good point. On the other hand I guess that we are moving to 16x9…
Personally, I fit crop to subject and either crop or stitch.
Best regards
Erik
When I was using 35mm and 645 film gear at the same time, the main difference between the two for me was the aspect ratio. "Better" lenses or more real estate per frame…I didn't much care about that stuff. I just wanted a less rectangular frame to compose images with.
-Dave-
-
I searched for this so called "MF look" far and wide on a D800 for a while. I ended up buying an MF kit for it. Couldn't be happier.
It has a lot more to it than clinically shooting both formats and trying to equalize everything.
Ask yourself. Do you strive to achieve the "Full frame look" on micro 4/3rds? Can an M43 kit be considered as a replacement for a full frame kit?
-
For what it is worth, I have some images shot wth the Otus 55mm f1.4 and the D800 and D810 here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157639077058796/).
I let you decide if you see something in these images that matches what you call the MF look.
Some of these images are panoramic stitches with a virtual sensor size typically larger than those of the MF physical sensors. This may give you some hint as to whether the size of the sensor is a contributor to that MF look.
My guess is that you will reach the conclusion that only images shot with MF have the MF look. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Having shot on 10x8/5x4/6x6 film in the past I don't crave the 'look' of those cameras anymore apart from perhaps plus-x in very dilute hc-110 or pyro printed on record rapid through a cold cathode enlarger.
I just don't see that much difference between formats now we have the sony sensor available in various cameras, I see the differences between lenses and the extra dynamic range available but having retouched and shot on 39, 40mp and 50mp backs I struggle to see an advantage for what I shoot and certainly don't see a different 'look' between the formats which are now closer together in size (dig out those 6x7 transparencies and compare that to a sony MF sensor) if I shot people and printed large prints instead of handing over files to clients to go to repro then yes maybe there is a tangible difference but at the end of the day who is going to see that? Other photographers might but images are about so much more than what they are shot on.
Good lenses* on a good sensor but don't get hung up on the format.
*there are obviously lenses that suit different subjects, the range of 50mm's from 1.2's to macros all have attributes that suit certain subjects.
-
Personally, MF look is matter of spacial distortion, pixel transition and colors. The "less orthogonal" argument sound very valid.
Harry Swimmer was shot with what ?
(http://payload113.cargocollective.com/1/9/313125/4578694/Pierre.jpg)
-
Harry Swimmer was shot with what ?
(http://payload113.cargocollective.com/1/9/313125/4578694/Pierre.jpg)
An iPhone 5s?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
;D I know you seen the exifs, I forgot to erase it. Someone with good PS skills know that with today technology, appart MP, any look can be created on PS. This was D700 + 50f1.2
-
;D I know you seen the exifs, I forgot to erase it. Someone with good PS skills know that with today technology, appart MP, any look can be created on PS. This was D700 + 50f1.2
Ha ha ha, I had no clue, in fact I thought it had been shot witj an IQ280! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When I was using 35mm and 645 film gear at the same time, the main difference between the two for me was the aspect ratio. "Better" lenses or more real estate per frame…I didn't much care about that stuff. I just wanted a less rectangular frame to compose images with.
-Dave-
I mostly use my D800 in 4:5 aspect ratio (set up so the viewfinder is masked).
-
I mostly use my D800 in 4:5 aspect ratio (set up so the viewfinder is masked).
How have you masked the viewfinder?
-
I searched for this so called "MF look" far and wide on a D800 for a while. I ended up buying an MF kit for it. Couldn't be happier.
It has a lot more to it than clinically shooting both formats and trying to equalize everything.
Ask yourself. Do you strive to achieve the "Full frame look" on micro 4/3rds? Can an M43 kit be considered as a replacement for a full frame kit?
There is a difference between the two comparisons you mention above (MF vs. FF & FF vs. Smaller) which makes the example less valid... That being the DOF aspect, with FF one can much and even beat the narrow DOF of MF (for the same AOV) by using faster lenses... with smaller formats, he can't much the FF DOF...
-
Hi,
I guess that it needs to be decided what look is sought, than we can try to emulate it.
Some alternatives:
- Short DoF at medium focal lengths -> use medium focal length with large aperture that is decently sharp at that aperture
- Sharpness at actual pixels -> sharp lens using non OLP filtered sensor and/or deconvolution sharpening
- Colour rendition -> better colour profile
The last two are pretty specific to MF (although resolution can be improved by stitching on any format).
- Resolution
- Short flash sync times using leaf shutter
Best regards
Erik
There is a difference between the two comparisons you mention above (MF vs. FF & FF vs. Smaller) which makes the example less valid... That being the DOF aspect, with FF one can much and even beat the narrow DOF of MF (for the same AOV) by using faster lenses... with smaller formats, he can't much the FF DOF...
-
For Interior shots, sadly M.F leaves any other wannabe in the rear view camera. Of course L.F is incl in that category.
-
How have you masked the viewfinder?
Viewfinder masking is a rather obscure feature of the D800. In its default state, the D800 represents the 4:5 aspect ratio with two thin black lines in the viewfinder. But if 'AF point illumination' (Custom Setting 'a5') is switched to 'off', then these thin black lines are replaced with dark grey blocks that properly mask the viewfinder. Perfect for shooting full bleed magazine pages. Also useful when using the D800 as a 'polaroid' for 5x4 film.
(I assume the D810 works in the same way. It's a shame there isn't an option to shoot a 1:1 square.)
-
maybe the difference between MF and other formats is the attitude of the photographer rather than the camera ie maybe we should talk more about MF photographers, P&S photographers etc rather than different types of cameras?
-
Hi,
May be yes, may be no.
Putting the camera on tripod and work carefully is a good start.
I am not sure the MF look exists. The major advantage I see with MF is higher resolution than smaller formats. But all this is a moving target.
This page contains two exposures MFD (39 MP) and FF 135 (24 MP) with actual crops. The MFD image may have better sharpening (I don't recall).
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Stendorren_2014_09_30/
Best regards
Erik
maybe the difference between MF and other formats is the attitude of the photographer rather than the camera ie maybe we should talk more about MF photographers, P&S photographers etc rather than different types of cameras?
-
:) Actually with your photo, I'm starting to wonder what happen in the background ;D
-
@Erik:
Nice frame of the tree, but I am not very sure if such a test scene is the best showcase for what an MF back does better than 35mm. That said, I can still see fine tonal variations in the tree bark in the MF shot that the 35mm shot simply does not have. This has been my ongoing observation of how MF files stack up against 35mm files. colors that are close to each other are rendered as one singular "Mush" by 35mm, but as distinct colors by MF.
To me, the MF look comes across much better in portraits. The much talked about skin tonality, the way the highlights "Sparkle", the grace in which in-focus areas transition into out of focus (Not talking about how shallow the DoF is, rather how good the transition is), how subtle tonal variations are rendered and so on. A 35mm file looks "Plasticky" in comparison. Sure, you can post produce anything to look like anything these days, but you'll get a much better start with an MF file. A Sigma DP file might be the closest thing to MF that you can get. Still, it doesn't do the focus transition as good as a proper MF back.
Sharpness is only one small aspect of the MF look.
Case in point:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2943/15233459789_f11e740f27_c.jpg)
-
Hi,
The images posted were not exactly a test, it is just a couple of images from an evening walk.
I am not shooting portraits normally, in fact I would say I have not shot a portrait sine 1975, but we had a nice portrait session at our photo club. I was only shooting my P45+ as I lent out my DSLR to two ladies who had problems with theirs. But I had the opportunity to shoot a little bit with my DSLR, too. Those images turned out absolutely crappy. In a part that depended on sloppy use of the camera.
The original posting was about getting the MF look with smaller formats. Now, to answer that question we need to define what is meant by medium format look. For instance, it could be anything like:
- 3D effect with short DoF with large apertures
- 3D effect because of high micro contrast
- Skin tones
- Resolution
- Use of outdoor flash
- Add any of yours…
My point is that the best the way to get near to MFD quality is to work properly. For instance use minimum ISO, shoot from tripod, focus properly.
Personally, with the gear I use, the largest advantage with MFD I see is resolution. There may be other aspects, like I am not shooting portraits. Also I am shooting zooms on the Sony while I have old Zeiss primes on the "Blad". On the Sony I used magnified live view for focus while on the Hasselblad I use manual focus. I have been shooting the Hasselblad for a year and I feel I am warming up to it.
Another point is that I can only talk about equipment I use. It would be reasonable to assume that the 36 MP cameras like Nikon D810 and Sony A7r would be closer to MFD quality than my Sony Alpha 99. The Sony A7r has shutter vibration issues at the shutter speeds I normally use around (1/60), so it is said to perform like a 24 MP camera. The A7r can be bought for 3300 $US with a very good 55/1.8 lens, while a used P45+ like the one I have still sells for close to 10000 $US, without a camera and lens. I cannot talk about cameras I have not tested.
For me, the Hasselblad is a keeper, but I will not expand the system a lot and I will not buy another MFD system. Live view is attractive, so I am thinking a bit about the new CMOS backs, but I am not enthusiastic about the crop factor.
If/when Sony comes out with a new Alpha camera that is improved in areas which I consider important I may buy into that. Zeiss has a new line of lenses called Loxia which I find interesting, as I am interested in well working manual focus with live view.
Best regards
Erik
@Erik:
Nice frame of the tree, but I am not very sure if such a test scene is the best showcase for what an MF back does better than 35mm. That said, I can still see fine tonal variations in the tree bark in the MF shot that the 35mm shot simply does not have. This has been my ongoing observation of how MF files stack up against 35mm files. colors that are close to each other are rendered as one singular "Mush" by 35mm, but as distinct colors by MF.
To me, the MF look comes across much better in portraits. The much talked about skin tonality, the way the highlights "Sparkle", the grace in which in-focus areas transition into out of focus (Not talking about how shallow the DoF is, rather how good the transition is), how subtle tonal variations are rendered and so on. A 35mm file looks "Plasticky" in comparison. Sure, you can post produce anything to look like anything these days, but you'll get a much better start with an MF file. A Sigma DP file might be the closest thing to MF that you can get. Still, it doesn't do the focus transition as good as a proper MF back.
Sharpness is only one small aspect of the MF look.
Case in point:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2943/15233459789_f11e740f27_c.jpg)
-
I think MF film has a different look.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/rb67/
-
Digital MF and especially 35mm seem to be too sharp and distinctive with less gradations. It reminds me of the soap opera look on TV. Almost too real.
-
@Erik: All my observations are based on the D800 vs MFD.
Doesn't matter if you're working handheld/ tripod/ timed release/ flash/ available light.... my points still stand.
@Alan: I agree. MF film vs 35mm film is a different argument altogether. There still are differences, but of a different kind. I absolutely miss shooting Velvia on 645.
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/999263_10151558217984209_1050340813_n.jpg?oh=2ddcf433142531bff024071a7b792d8f&oe=54864F64)
-
Hi,
@Synn:
Just to remind you, the original posting was about: "The feasibility of getting the MF look with smaller formats.", so that is the question I try to answer.
@Alan:
I was shooting MF film for a long time, mostly Velvia or Provia. For me, film is history. I essentially never liked the film look. But other photographers love film. One problem with film is that scanning film and doing it well is not specially easy.
Best regards
Erik
@Erik: All my observations are based on the D800 vs MFD.
Doesn't matter if you're working handheld/ tripod/ timed release/ flash/ available light.... my points still stand.
@Alan: I agree. MF film vs 35mm film is a different argument altogether. There still are differences, but of a different kind. I absolutely miss shooting Velvia on 645.
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/999263_10151558217984209_1050340813_n.jpg?oh=2ddcf433142531bff024071a7b792d8f&oe=54864F64)
-
@Alan:
I was shooting MF film for a long time, mostly Velvia or Provia. For me, film is history. I essentially never liked the film look. But other photographers love film. One problem with film is that scanning film and doing it well is not specially easy.
Fortunately, Eric, as an amateur and retired I have the luxury of using film. Not sure how much longer I'll be able to handle the weight of the equipment though.
-
Hi Alan,
My main issue with film is really the scanning part, but also that I cannot get the results I really want. But I did get a film back for my Hasselblad and I will be trying a bit more film next year, I think.
Carrying the gear is an issue…
Best regards
Erik
Fortunately, Eric, as an amateur and retired I have the luxury of using film. Not sure how much longer I'll be able to handle the weight of the equipment though.
-
Hi,
Well, getting back to the original issue, I found a posting by Eleanor Brown which I think is releant in the context:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84654.msg693486#msg693486
Erik, it's been interesting for sure..I haven't directly compared the Otus to my best Nikon lenses so far, only the Otus on my D800e and Sony A7r to my Phase One and Hasselblad lenses. However on my previous non scientific tests of Phase One/Hassy vs D800e and my top Nikon primes I was surprised that even my Hassy normal 80mm lens beat out my Nikon top lenses. It wasn't until I put the new Zeiss Otus on to compare to medium format did I start to see just how important the lens qualities are. I was honestly shocked. My medium format files always had a "textured" "pop" to them layered over super smooth creamy tonalities to give a feeling I could just walk into the image…a 3D look if you will. The qualities of the new Zeiss on a high megapixel Nikon (or new Sony A7r) with no AA filter gives the same "feel" as my Phase set up. Hard to be precise…it's just a "feel" one gets after looking at file after file . Eleanor (also keeping in mind that for me, one needs a super low iso to get the Nikon/Otus files at or nearly at the level of my Phase files…and I'm talking "pixel for pixel" basis…not overall actual file size.)
So, it seems that Eleanor essentially found that the Otus on a high resolution DSLR without OLP filter and using low ISO. She also makes the point that this is on a per pixel basis, her MFDB has significantly more pixels than DSLRs which now peak at 36 MP. But, 46 and 54 MP cameras are expected from Canon and Sony within 1-6 months, according to recent news.
I guess that Eleanor has some interest in meeting her high image quality standards with equipment of lower weight. The Otus is a beast of a lens, unfortunately, both regarding cost and weight. More affordable alternatives are around.
Guy Mancuso at GetDPI.com has tested the Credo 50 (CMOS), and seems to be impressed by that back, he has a lot of raw images available for download. I don't know if that answers the question of CCD vs. CMOS, but Guy seems to be happy about it. The new backs have live view, which is very helpful with exact focusing.
Another thing you may consider is a used MFD back combined with an affordable MF system, like Mamiya 645 or Hasselblad V. Another option is the Pentax 645D which available at real low prices now.
Personally, I have some significant interest in the upcoming Sony combined with some of the new Loxia lenses, but what future brings will in the future be seen. Until than I shoot with my Hasselblad/P45+ and Sony Alpha 99, enjoying both.
Best regards
Erik
Evening all,
Quite a while ago I started a thread on here about what constitutes the medium format look, with the general consensus being that its a combination of color fidelity and aberration free optics. My understanding is that these optics are more prevalent in the MF world because slower lenses (providing equivalent DOF on larger sensors) are easier to design and have lower tolerance requirements.
With the advent of the Otus, and to a lesser extent the Sigma Art series, I got to wondering if this look would be possible on 35mm format. My understanding is that the primary differentiator between DSLR + MF color is the implementation of the color filter array on top of various sensors and not a fundamental CCD/CMOS characteristic. My very basic understanding is that color separation is sacrificed for greater light sensitivity / ISO performance. So my question is this - Disregarding resolution gains, if Nikon produced a D800s (studio) with a disregard for ISO performance beyond ISO50-200 and I stuck an Otus 85mm on it, would I find the look I'm after?
A few notes
My interest stems from a love of the look and an inability to afford it.
I am aware that DOF transition is different across formats however I believe the Otus lenses handle it well.
Please forgive my lack of technical accuracy.
Alex
-
I've been fortunate enough to own the Hasselblad, Phase 1 and Nikon D 800 E systems. To me there are three factors that seem to define the quality differences. One is the 16-bit files have a particular tonal rendering that the 14 day files simply don't have. it is purely subjective but it is clearly there.
The other factor is the extreme level of sharpness and corner performance of the MF. I attribute that to the lack of micro lenses and the overall superiority of medium format glass. If Nikon or Canon and made a lens that was on the level of the Hassy 35 to 90 I would be very happy however I'm sure it would cost close to $5000 and everyone would wine about the cost. I believe that the sharper lenses lead to less sharpening in post which makes files look more natural versus the hard look you get from sharpening to heavily.
-
FWIW The 16 bit thing was evidently a myth.
I found the new canon 24-70 II as good as the HBLAD 35-90 (on A7r / IQ140) and slightly better distortion/corner wise at the wide end.
-
interestingly no one mention sigma DPxM or DPxQ series. ;D
you should be able to hire one for relatively little money. 8)
-
We used to do these pixel peeping comparisons btwn backs and DSLRs.
Would it be more difficult to put an Otus 85mm f1.4 on a D810, use pro lighting and pro post-processing and do a blind test between the 2 images?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/12452880275_4e11519e3a_c.jpg)
Here. Have a ball.
-
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/12452880275_4e11519e3a_c.jpg)
Here. Have a ball.
Yep, I remember that one. If I recall there was no clear winner, correct?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's a subjective matter. I don't expect a universal winner.
-
Hi,
I am much in doubt about the validity of the 16-bit argument. It is widely known that the 2-3 least significant bits of 16-bit ouputs on CCD-s is just garbage. Furthermore, Anders Torger has written a tool to create IIQ files for the Phase One, and found out that it only uses 14-bits. It is a good engineering choice as there are about 13 bits of valid data from the CCD + ACD, but quite a bit of false marketing to call it 16 bit data. The Hasselblad stores it's data as 16 bits, according to Anders Torger. So, would 16 bits make the difference Phase One would be like DSLRs and Hasselblad superior to Phase One.
Regarding the lens argument, I don't know. The larger sensors make lesser demands on the lens. Zeiss has a couple of lenses that are as good as they can get, at MFD prices. High end MFD has very high resolution and lenses for technical cameras are very sharp. So I don't see that DSLRs catch high end MFD for quite a while, and MFDs are also moving forwards.
Best regards
Erik
I've been fortunate enough to own the Hasselblad, Phase 1 and Nikon D 800 E systems. To me there are three factors that seem to define the quality differences. One is the 16-bit files have a particular tonal rendering that the 14 day files simply don't have. it is purely subjective but it is clearly there.
The other factor is the extreme level of sharpness and corner performance of the MF. I attribute that to the lack of micro lenses and the overall superiority of medium format glass. If Nikon or Canon and made a lens that was on the level of the Hassy 35 to 90 I would be very happy however I'm sure it would cost close to $5000 and everyone would wine about the cost. I believe that the sharper lenses lead to less sharpening in post which makes files look more natural versus the hard look you get from sharpening to heavily.
-
Hi,
IMHO the MF look is "composed" by: great color rendition and very good sharpness and lack of aberrations.
Is not easy to emulate: ff bodies capable of very good resolution haven't a good color rendition. IMHO the last generations cameras (d800s, d600s, alphas, 5d2/3 6d) have significantly worst color rendition than previous generation (5d, 1ds3, d3s, d700).
Older FFs have better colors (not good as MF) but a smaller resolution.
Best Regards,
Pietro
-
I think that much of the "MF look" is down to the fact that for a given angle of view you have to use a longer focal length to fill the frame. If you are using a 50mm lens at f/5.6 on a 24x36mm format DSLR then you'll need an 80mm @ f/8 on the MF camera if you are working from the same camera to subject distance to keep the same perspective and close to the same depth of field.
-
Such a camera would probably be called D4x and cost with an Otus as much as many good second hand MF backs+camera+lens.
Why not buy a second hand MF camera if the "MF look", whatever that means, is what matters to you?
Cheers,
Bernard
And would sell very well if people could get MF resolution in a 35mm camera body/lens package.
In the old days of film, the 2 things that made MF so nice was total resolution available requiring less enlargement. The other was smoother tonal gradations. In digital, only the 1st is really at issue.
-
I think some of the "MF Look" comes from the traditions and habits of medium-format photography. I think it often involves casting a lot of light (needed for slow film/sensors, and small apertures) on a scene and generally having sufficient craft to control it. This can yield benefits both to the scene, and to a sensor's midtone response. There are also benefits in spatial oversampling for reducing aliasing, and mitigating high frequency noise.
-
And would sell very well if people could get MF resolution in a 35mm camera body/lens package.
The thing is that a 36mp D810 already offers "MF resolution". At least the resolution available in the 39mp backs that, we have been told for years, do deliver that "MF look". ;)
So if can get it at 54mp, we should also be able to get it at 36mp.
Put it the other way around, those who don't see it at 36mp will probably also not see it at 54mp.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
M43 cameras and even Point and shoots are delivering Full frame DSLR resolutions now. At least that of top of the line DSLRs from a while ago.
Do you see the "Full frame" look in them, Bernard? Same difference. Pixel count isn't everything.
p.s. If you do, get rid of the D800 and the Otii. You'll save a chunk of change in the process.
-
Hi,
I don't have 4/3, just MF, 135 FF and APS-C.
I don't see difference between FF and APS-C except resolution and some advantage in noise, due to the larger sensor.
There have been cases where I have found 16 MP APS-C preferable to full frame 135, later generation sensor with better high ISO performance and able to use a better lens at larger aperture. Problem was wind caused motion. A2-prints were almost identical but the APS-C had less wind motion blur, so it was that image that went onto the wall.
I use APS-C for wildlife and street shooting. Full frame or MF for landscape. APS-C has smaller pixels, so I get more pixels "on target" in wildlife shots, where telephoto lenses are not long enough.
Best regards
Erik
M43 cameras and even Point and shoots are delivering Full frame DSLR resolutions now. At least that of top of the line DSLRs from a while ago.
Do you see the "Full frame" look in them, Bernard? Same difference. Pixel count isn't everything.
p.s. If you do, get rid of the D800 and the Otii. You'll save a chunk of change in the process.
-
Pixel count isn't everything.
Synn,
I nominate you and Bernard for the photographic equivalent of The Rumble in the Jungle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rumble_in_the_Jungle).
-
M43 cameras and even Point and shoots are delivering Full frame DSLR resolutions now. At least that of top of the line DSLRs from a while ago.
Do you see the "Full frame" look in them, Bernard? Same difference. Pixel count isn't everything.
Which is exactly my point, isn't it?
That look is yet to be worded in something factually measurable so pixel count will not help close the gap.
I personally don't think there is an FF DSLR look, so I have no problem to admit that smaller formats such as 4/3 may be able to achieve a look similar to that I am getting with my D810. ;)
BTW, I have just invested in a 503cw and 3 nice Hassy V lenses (40mm CFE IF, 80mm CFE anf 150mm CFi). I intend to start with Portra 160 and have it professionally scanned for the few and apart nice images I would be able to produce with it. It should be fun because that is real 6x6 MF size, the look should be un-surpassed! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It should be fun because that is real 6x6 MF size, the look should be un-surpassed! ;)
LOL, that should set them wannabee (cropped) 'MF' sensor boys straight...
Shooting true MF@56x56mm (or 56x70mm) with Portra 160 should be fun (I think I still have some '120 spool' rolls in the fridge), just give it a bit more exposure for better scans. Shooting it as ISO 160 gives rather modest density, more density is better for scanning. I used to shoot it as ISO 125 even when I did C-prints, but scans have no problem with even lower ISO ratings and normal processing.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I've added some common filmscan sizes to the camera pull down menu of my on-line DOF and Focusstacking tool (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/dofplan/dofplan.html). Resolution on filmscans is not as clear cut as for a direct digital capture device, so I have not included scan resolutions that are mostly needed to avoid grain-aliasing or artificial upsampling, but hardly for additional resolution.
-
Shooting true MF@56x56mm (or 56x70mm) with Portra 160 should be fun (I think I still have some '120 spool' rolls in the fridge), just give it a bit more exposure for better scans. Shooting it as ISO 160 gives rather modest density, more density is better for scanning. I used to shoot it as ISO 125 even when I did C-prints, but scans have no problem with even lower ISO ratings and normal processing.
Thanks Bart. I have never shot with Portra so your advice is most welcome.
My last dealing with films were 4x5 sheets of Provia 100F, but it has been 7-8 years I guess. Portra was already around of course but I never got to try it out myself.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ah, Portra. Lovely film. Here it is in 120 (Rolleiflex SL66SE; scanned on an Epson V750).
This is what the term "medium format look" means to me.
-
Hi,
My scanning experience is with Velvia, Provia, Ektar 100 and T-MAX 100. The scanner I have used is a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, and two 6000 PPI drum scans.
I guess I will look at Provia, when I have some time to spare.
This far I would say that I don't like scanned film.
These page are all scanned film (mostly 67 on Velvia)
http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Sextener-Dolomiten/
http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/VelviaScans/
These are Ektar 100:
http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/Ektar100/
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Bart. I have never shot with Portra so your advice is most welcome.
My last dealing with films were 4x5 sheets of Provia 100F, but it has been 7-8 years I guess. Portra was already around of course but I never got to try it out myself.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ah, Portra. Lovely film. Here it is in 120 (Rolleiflex SL66SE; scanned on an Epson V750).
Nice! Did you use wet mounting to get this result?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice! Did you use wet mounting to get this result?
Thanks! No, I used the betterscanning.com film holder with T-locks. This seems to work well for me. The main issue I have with the Epson now is CA, which is easily fixable. I do think it's a much better machine than people give it credit for.
Here's another Portra shot (160, from memory):