medium format "look"

[douglevy]

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

[MichaelEzra]

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.

[Doug Peterson]

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 .

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[DezFoto]

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.

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[minicoop1985]

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.

[kers]

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...

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[kers]

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

[DiamondsDr]

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...

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[kers]

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.

[razrblck]

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.

[orc73]

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.

[orc73]

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.

[Bo_Dez]

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

[kers]

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".