Valid MF criticism or not?

[Morgan_Moore]

It's in the sensor size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course it is the sensor size which renders a completely different look in terms of depth of field

With less DOF the subject 'pings' off the background and the image looks more 3d - simple

Longer lenses have less depth of field (for a given aperture/focus distance etc)

So you get a 80mm DOF and a (35mmterms)50mm field of view

Even an 85 1.2 wont change this physics although it will give a minimal DOF

I dont know why people even consider MF without understanding this.

the canone premise therefore is utter baloney - of course they may make a tool that has ancceptable number of pixels/DR no doubt at all

Of course there are other factors too in favour of MF - viewing experience - smaller dust etc

S

[eronald]

Frank,

 It's interesting to see how strong the 3D illusion is even on small web images. The face image is astonishing.

Edmund

[samuel_js]

Of course it is the sensor size which renders a completely different look in terms of depth of field

With less DOF the subject 'pings' off the background and the image looks more 3d - simple

Longer lenses have less depth of field (for a given aperture/focus distance etc)

So you get a 80mm DOF and a (35mmterms)50mm field of view

Even an 85 1.2 wont change this physics although it will give a minimal DOF

I dont know why people even consider MF without understanding this.

the canone premise therefore is utter baloney - of course they may make a tool that has ancceptable number of pixels/DR no doubt at all

Of course there are other factors too in favour of MF - viewing experience - smaller dust etc

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not so simple. Even 35mm pictures taken with telephoto can look flat. It's also the color and shadow light transitions, (this is bit deph and DR) and I'm talking about the sharp part of the picture. You can emulate the DOF of a MF picture with a telephoto, buy the big problem for the 35mm is the fucused part. The flatness is there.
To see an example, look at the portrait Frank posted right here. No really blur anywere, or big telephoto feeling. No 35mm can do that. And it's a web jpg...

[jing q]

It's not so simple. Even 35mm pictures taken with telephoto can look flat. It's also the color and shadow light transitions, (this is bit deph and DR) and I'm talking about the sharp part of the picture. You can emulate the DOF of a MF picture with a telephoto, buy the big problem for the 35mm is the fucused part. The flatness is there.
To see an example, look at the portrait Frank posted right here. No really blur anywere, or big telephoto feeling. No 35mm can do that. And it's a web jpg...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with the 3-dimensional aspect of things
You will really see the difference when you print large. I myself thought the Canon images looked better than the 39 megapixel files shot by the Hassy until I blew my print up to 4ftx6ft.


(please ignore the person in the center)

 There seems to be more meat and microdetail in the MF files that I don't get in the 1Ds MKII. this applies also to the files from my old 16 mp Kodak back (that's long been sold off)

There seems to be more colour information in the MF files which allow a more gradual transition among colours, whereas colours on the 1DsMkII can be flatter in terms of transition. Perhaps this also contributes to the more 3-d look of MF files?

Comparing depth of field also, I noticed that I can easily get everyone in sharp focus in one of my shots whereas even at f16 on my MF there is obvious gradiation from sharp to out of focus.

[img]

[eronald]

Comparing depth of field also, I noticed that I can easily get everyone in sharp focus in one of my shots whereas even at f16 on my MF there is obvious gradiation from sharp to out of focus.

[img]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed. Maybe a crop-sensor camera makes the perfect marriage camera because it's even easier to get everyone in focus ...


Edmund

[canmiya]

Ah! But we haven't yet seen what the 1Ds3 can do, have we? As already mentioned, the 1Ds3 sample image on Canon's site is not truly representative.

Can someone also explain to me how a 2-dimensional photograph can produce a greater sense of 3-dimensionality when it's taken by an MFDB. Is it the extra resolution; the greater dynamic range? If not, is it perhaps the placebo effect of owning such an expensive piece of equipment? A sort of subconscious justification for such excessive expenditure.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An additional factor with respect to dimensionality, may be the lenses:  There does seem to be a difference in contrast/micro-contrast in the mf lenses and Canon lenses.  It is interesting that with Zeiss or Leica glass on Canon bodies,  images do seem to have more dimension and depth  than images taken with their Canon couunterparts out of camera.

[Frank Doorhof]

Correct at the difference pointed out by Morgan, I have had this discussion over and over and just gave up at a certain point.

It's best seen when you shoot MF and only than, on paper you can post the most outrageous theories which by the way ALL are valid, but in the practice it's simply never the same.
It's like the perfect sauce with ONE very small ingredient you can make or break the sauce.

@canmiya,
Correct.
HOWEVER that is not the whole story.
I have tested alot of lenses on my 5D and the 135mm 2.0L and the 85mm 1.2L gave me the most 3D look in my pictures, however it was all slightly.
When the light was right, the exposure spoton etc. etc. it was better.

There is however a HUGE gap between MF and even the best L lens on the Canon as explained by morgan it's different pshychics.

You can see it very easily when studiying the pictures as also mentioned in this thread look at the course the sharpness follows and goes over in the bokeh of the lens, I have NEVER seen this with my Canon, there always was a digital edge in the transition which broke a big deal of the 3D look for me, and ofcourse again sensor size as Morgan explained.


Also as mentioned before when you deliver for a magazine there is ALOT lost, I have seen prints made by MF systems that looked as flat as a one dollar bill , however when you look at the inktjet prints made by myself it's very 3D and it jumps of the paper.

So for the JOB the new Canon will do just fine, and maybe even better than MF, for the artist in yourself........... it's a different story.

[Ray]

Of course it is the sensor size which renders a completely different look in terms of depth of field

With less DOF the subject 'pings' off the background and the image looks more 3d - simple

Longer lenses have less depth of field (for a given aperture/focus distance etc)

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You realise this is heresy in the opinion of some   . Sensor size is supposed to have nothing to do with DoF. DoF is determined by focal length, aperture and distance to subject.

Theoretically, if you make the appropriate adjustments in respect of focal length and aperture, using a shorter FL and about 1 stop wider aperture for FF 35mm, then DoF should be the same for both cameras.

The fact that some of you seem to think it isn't (and I'm assuming you all know that you have to make FL and aperture adjustments when using a different format) makes me think that your MF lenses are simply sharper at that equivalent aperture.

For example, a 75mm lens at f4 with a P45 should give you the same DoF (and FoV making allowances for the different aspect ratio) as a 50mm lens at f2.8 with a 35mm DSLR (from the same distance). But I happen to know that my Canon 50mm lenses are not particularly sharp at f2.8 and pretty awful at f1.4 and f1.8.

I guess this would have the effect of diminishing the effect of 3-dimensionality.

I agree with Edmund, BTW, that Frank's shot of the young lady is astonishingly clear, sharp and smooth.

[Bruce MacNeil]

Diinemsion - there is a lot of things to consider. I mmade a lot of portraits with the 8x10 and usually found f8 to be a certain look.

The 1Ds I now use leaves loads to be desired. The images from the camera are lovely but there is a marked lack of emotional draw in some sense that is partly attributable to my frame of mind and partly to the manner in which the circlle of confusion removes ambiguity from the image.

A portrait is a portrait for sure.

[Morgan_Moore]

You realise this is heresy in the opinion of some  . Sensor size is supposed to have nothing to do with DoF. DoF is determined by focal length, aperture and distance to subject.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But some are wrong - they are also right in a way

An 80 at 2.8 (a lense I have in three formats aps, 35FF and '645')

All have exactly the same DOF at a given Focus distance and aperture

but to get the same FOV with a 35mm or APS sensor you need to move back or select a wider lense - both actions create more DOF and less definition between foreground and background

Oh well even if am am wrong my blad makes nice pictures and my APS nikon consistently frustrates

S




SMM

[Ray]

...but to get the same FOV with a 35mm or APS sensor you need to move back or select a wider lense - both actions create more DOF and less definition between foreground and background

Oh well even if am am wrong my blad makes nice pictures and my APS nikon consistently frustrates
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are not wrong. There will be greater DoF with the smaller format, which is why you have to stop up, about 1 stop.

35mm lenses can have some very wide apertures, but we kid ourselves if we think the lenses are razor sharp at such apertures.

For same DoF, MF digital lenses can be 1 stop narrower (numerically bigger) and therefore possibly sharper. Combine that extra lens sharpness with the wider pixel spacing of the larger format MFDBs, which require less lp/mm resolution from the lens because the sensor is larger, then we have higher 'net' resolution at the point of focus, and therefore a shallower DoF than we might have expected according to the DoF formulas. Am I being clear?

This shallower DoF, due principally to the greater 'system' resolution of the larger format, despite the conventional adjustments of FL and aperture to match 35mm, is possibly what creates this sense of greater 3-dimensionality.

[Mark_Tucker]

I'm not an engineer. I'm not a mathematician. I'm a photographer. You guys can talk numbers til the cows come home, but just look at images shot with various formats, to SEE the difference. The problem is, at least the way I see it, all we have as digital options are 35 and 645, and sadly, they're about the same, optically. You've got to get on up to at least 6x9 or 4x5 or even 8x10 to really get this "format size thing" to be readily apparent.

Yes, you can kinda fake it by shooting the Canon 85 1.2 at 1.2, but even then, it's a different effect. I don't know how to explain it, but I know it when I see it.

So you guys can argue about 35 vs 645 all you want. Sadly, there's just not that much difference; the formats are just too close. And there's no 4x5 sensor coming down the pike.

It's about optics. That's all I know. Look at most any 8x10, and you'll instantly see it. It's that "atmospheric effect", whatever that is.

At some point, you've just got to pick your toolset and get to work. Nothing that I've seen for digital has the feeling of film shot on 6x9 or larger. It just doesn't. I wish it did. God knows I've spent enough money chasing it.

You've also got to factor in, simply, "how does the tool feel in your hands? Does it work for your style?". At some point, your style should pick the camera; not the other way around.

Just one opinion.

[feppe]

I'm afraid this debate about the 3D-look of MFDBs starts to sound like how high-end audiophiles' claim their stereo sounds better after they lather speaker cables in organic goat urine. €700 per listening session.

There's a lot of talk and anecdotal claims, but little evidence. The examples posted are indeed striking, but without comparable shots with 35mm the critique is of the photography, lighting, post-processing, etc., not about MFDB vs. dSLR. I've seen similar impressive "3D-look" MFDB shots posted here and elsewhere, and am inclined to believe that "better" photos can be bought along with an MFDB system.

Even I tend to correctly spot the MFDB shots even on web resolution resamples, and I'm an amateur shooting a prosumer dSLR. But I have a creeping feeling that the reason why the MFDB shots jump out is - at least partly - due to the fact that those who shoot with them generally have access to nice studios, make-up artists, hairdressers, wardrobe and lighting, and know how to use their equipment. So, in the end, how much of the end result is the back, how much everything else?

Comparisons are finicky. We are left how to define comparable shots between the two systems. And herein lies the problem: while audiophiles' claims can be easily disproven by a double-blind test, it's not so easy with cameras. Different lenses, cameras, sensors, etc. just give different results, no matter how much you try to recreate the shot. So, instead of finding which system produces "better" images, the study might devolve into a "spot the MFDB shot."

Nevertheless, I'd be thrilled to hear results of a double-blind study between prints from the new high-end dSLRs and MFDBs by knowledgeable individuals. *hint hint Michael*

[Mark_Tucker]

Nevertheless, I'd be thrilled to hear results of a double-blind study between prints from the new high-end dSLRs and MFDBs by knowledgeable individuals. *hint hint Michael*
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Trust me, I have done the double-blind taste test, comparing 1ds2, 5D, P25, P45, and there's not a nickel's worth of difference in them. Especially if you're taking them to CMYK reproduction, or outputting to some shitty Epson printer. Epson and CMYK are, like someone else said, "The Great Levelers".

All this talk is mullarkey. Just buy a camera and use it every single day of the week, and really get to know it, and really process the files. I have shot a million jobs with Canon, and a million jobs with Phase; there's not an ounce of difference in them, (except that Canon is faster and easier to use, and easier to hit good color with).

If you're a product guy or architectural guy or a landscape guy, buy a P45 or an A75 and be done with it. If you're a Lifestyle guy, buy the new Canon and be done with it.

[bwpuk]

I'm not an engineer. I'm not a mathematician. I'm a photographer. You guys can talk numbers til the cows come home, but just look at images shot with various formats, to SEE the difference. The problem is, at least the way I see it, all we have as digital options are 35 and 645, and sadly, they're about the same, optically. You've got to get on up to at least 6x9 or 4x5 or even 8x10 to really get this "format size thing" to be readily apparent.

Yes, you can kinda fake it by shooting the Canon 85 1.2 at 1.2, but even then, it's a different effect. I don't know how to explain it, but I know it when I see it.

So you guys can argue about 35 vs 645 all you want. Sadly, there's just not that much difference; the formats are just too close. And there's no 4x5 sensor coming down the pike.

It's about optics. That's all I know. Look at most any 8x10, and you'll instantly see it. It's that "atmospheric effect", whatever that is.

At some point, you've just got to pick your toolset and get to work. Nothing that I've seen for digital has the feeling of film shot on 6x9 or larger. It just doesn't. I wish it did. God knows I've spent enough money chasing it.

You've also got to factor in, simply, "how does the tool feel in your hands? Does it work for your style?". At some point, your style should pick the camera; not the other way around.

Just one opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,

Once again you've nailed it in your post. I agree with everything you say. This "atmospheric effect" is indeed for me entirely due to optics. Just recently I've been collecting any old vintage lens I could find to stick on my Linhof. The older the better, most without shutters. Take off your hat and put it over the front, just like they used to do, to control the exposure.

If you want atmosphere these old lenses give it in buckets. They might not be as sharp as modern lenses but they've got the MOJO that modern optics seem to lack. A large format camera and a cheap vintage lens giving me a tonality and a bokeh to die for.  Try as I might I just cannot replicate the look on my digital gear, 35 or 645 size.

You just can't describe the look, I just know when I see it. As for handling, this gear sure feels good in my hands.

Just my 2 cents too.

Barrie Watts

[Dustbak]

Even if it is a placebo effect. If it works for you it works for you. Fine.

Funny thing is. I use one and the same sensor on a 35mm system as well as 6x6 hasselblad and soon Hasselblad H.  If I'll remember I will try making the same shot with all 3 of them so people can start dissecting them. The only thing that will be different between the files will be the lenses they have been taken with.

[Mark_Tucker]

Try as I might I just cannot replicate the look on my digital gear, 35 or 645 size.

You just can't describe the look, I just know when I see it.

You might as well give up trying. They're just two different animals.

On some level, nothing is "broken". The 35 Guys still have their Canons, and they're happy as clams. The guys who were shooting 645 before digital are happy; they've still got their same cameras.

The ones who are in a bind are the guys who were shooting 6x8 (me), or 6x9, or 4x5 or 8x10. They're the ones being forced to adjust to this New Reality.

And actually, it's not even THAT bad, because unless you're shooting for demanding advertising, you can still shoot film, in those larger formats.

The ones really in a bind are the guys who are now being forced to shoot digital, (and shoot tethered), and before, they shot large format, but now, the demands of tethered shooting are forcing them into digital 645.

Once a client goes thru a job shooting tethered, there's no going back for them. Just try handing them a funky nasty Polaroid, after they've been through a shoot looking at a 30" Apple Cinema Display. It just won't fly.

To most of the people on this board complaining, I'd respectfully suggest to going back to film and keep those great optics. I had a funky old Komura 152mm f2.8 lens that was amazing. It fit onto my Ebony 4x5. There is just NO WAY to duplicate that effect on a 645 format. I don't care how good your retoucher is.

[Frank Doorhof]

So you guys can argue about 35 vs 645 all you want. Sadly, there's just not that much difference; the formats are just too close. And there's no 4x5 sensor coming down the pike.

I don't know how you can say this ?
The Leaf/ZD back sensor is TWICE as big as the 5D's sensor.
That's a WHOLE lot of difference.

Also the results are NOT due to the nice studios and MUAs and models.
I have used the 5D in EXACTLY the same setups, EXACTLY the same models and MUA and were with the 5D I was getting what the camera had to offer with the Leaf I'm getting better results every shoot because I'm now learning how to handle the much greater DR in the studio.

I think the high-end audio thing works.
But I would like to refrashe that
There are ALOT of people who don't hear a difference in cables, when asking them they simply say it's not possible, however they never seriously tried.

It's NOT a placebo effect (well not for me at least), I'm not happy that I had to switch to MF, big investment, slow AF, no ISO3200, two systems to carry with me and the list goes on and on.

If the difference really was SMALL I would have stayed with my wonderful 5D which I still use and love.

On the other hand as mentioned before, it's all in what YOU as an artist want to achieve. Today I delivered a file for a billboard for a Belgium zoo which was shot with the 5D and it works great, don't need the leaf for that.
But when comparing it to the leaf files I miss so much depth and detail and dynamic range, my customer however doesn't care he loves it.

I think that's the whole story.
The 1DsIII with 22MP will serve alot of working photographers, the MF system will serve the artists who demands the very very best and are willing to do sacrifices there (in which I will not say that someone with a 1DsIII is not an artist, don't get me wrong).

Greetings,
Frank

[Morgan_Moore]

I would add that if you are using flash and 25 ISO and maybe 800th speed in a super bright environment you get a lot less DOF than 250, 100 ISO because you cant use that 1.2 or 2 setting you are more likely to be pushed to f11

The larger chip is only part of the package for H1 users

As a beach shooter the low ISO and high synch speed is part of the unique MF package

SMM

[samuel_js]

So you guys can argue about 35 vs 645 all you want. Sadly, there's just not that much difference; the formats are just too close. And there's no 4x5 sensor coming down the pike.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry Mark, the problem is that YOU don't see it. For me (and others) the difference is very clear.