What is medium format in the digital age?

[Justan]

The title says it all except Thanks

[Doug Peterson]

The title says it all except Thanks

I assume we're comparing to 35mm dSLRs?

In short: they are different tools. Each is a better tool in some situations and worse in others.

In long: when comparing MF to 35mm dSLRs

Advantages of MF
Bigger sensor
Better resolution
More file flexibility in post (handles a lot of pushing/pulling/manipulation)
More dynamic range
More consistent and faster tethered shooting
Flexibility to shoot on a view camera, technical body, or other specialty gear
Access to better lenses (including the world's best lenses: schneider/rodenstock large format lenses via tech bodies)
Better longer exposure(1)
No anti-aliasing filter (sharper at 100%) (2)
Brand/Snob appeal ("I'm shooting the best camera made")
Pro appeal (an art director or client may personally own a 5DII, but they will NOT have a MF system)
Higher level of service/support (3)
Better resale value (4)
Trade-in programs and mnfr. enforced value for upgrades (5)
Generally sold through dealers rather than direct(

Disadvantages of MF
Slower
Heavier
More $$$(10)
Bigger files (requires better computers)
Not as many lenses (6)
No video or decent in-the-field Live View
Often smaller LCDs(7)
High ISO performance not as good(9)


Notes and caveats
(1)Limited to Phase One P+ series backs. No other medium format system performs well with long exposures.
(2)Also more prone to moire
(3)Depends on the dealer, brand of medium format, and what you're comparing it to
(4)Can be debated and is always changing, but I feel still holds true in general
(5)Hasselblad has decided to end their upgrade program
(6)Depends on which system you're comparing to what and if you include third party or legacy lenses
(7)The LCD size varies by company. Phase has smaller LCDs currently; I don't follow Hassy and Sinar very closely but some of their models have larger LCDs and some have smaller LCDs
(8)Hasselblad sells through box-movers like B&H.
(9)The gap is much closer than most comments would lead you to believe, but 35mm do have a lead on very high ISO performance
(10)There are some great low cost options in medium format, including used (because there are no moving parts they last a long time), demo equipment and leasing/renting. But of course, generally it is more expensive than dSLRS


Doug Peterson,  Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer  |  Personal Portfolio

[Justan]

Thanks for the great answer!

I'm thinking primarily about the ability to capture detail. All will agree that a 6x7 film camera can capture far more nuance than a 35mm camera. But I don’t know if that’s the case when comparing, say a 12 MP dslr camera with a 6x7 camera with, for instance a 20 MP digital back. There is more to the formula than just the number of mega pixels. So I'm trying to get an idea of what is considered medium format by today’s standards.

Also, can a 12 MP dslr duplicate the nuance and detail of a 6x7 film camera?

[ixpressraf]

Medium format seems to die a slow dead. Take a look at  the sales part: back that have cost a fortune some time ago no even don't get sold for ridiculous prices. I myself have a 528c for sala with a price of less than 5000 euro and still nobody reacts. It has the same image quality as any recent multishot back and still better than any one shot but do you think someone is interested... no sir!
On the other hand, it seems that hasselblad never sold as many back's until 2008....
A 12 Mp dslr will never have the detail of a 6/7 neg or slide. Even a 24Mp dslr will not as many users have comfirmed. A digital back on the other hand, even a 16Mp have tremendous detail, partly because of the lacking of the blurr filter. When you use a multishot back, every color is shot on the sensor and there is no interpolation of color and detail. A multishot image is therefore the best what you can achieve. No mather if it's a 16 or 22 or even 39Mp back.

[Doug Peterson]

Thanks for the great answer!

I'm thinking primarily about the ability to capture detail. All will agree that a 6x7 film camera can capture far more nuance than a 35mm camera. But I don’t know if that’s the case when comparing, say a 12 MP dslr camera with a 6x7 camera with, for instance a 20 MP digital back. There is more to the formula than just the number of mega pixels. So I'm trying to get an idea of what is considered medium format by today’s standards.

Also, can a 12 MP dslr duplicate the nuance and detail of a 6x7 film camera?

Why don't you check out a dealer in your area. They would be (assuming they are any good) more than happy to spend time with you comparing 6x7 film to a digital back.

I won't get into a debate about what the usable resolution of a particular film format size is. I will however comment that we have converted many 4x5 shooters. They walked in convinced before they walked in that they could not get the quality they needed out of digital and walked out the door with a digital back. In other words the proof is in the pudding. Compare them yourself.

The backs... not the pudding.

Doug Peterson,  Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer  |  Personal Portfolio

[Doug Peterson]

Medium format seems to die a slow dead. Take a look at  the sales part: back that have cost a fortune some time ago no even don't get sold for ridiculous prices. I myself have a 528c for sala with a price of less than 5000 euro and still nobody reacts. It has the same image quality as any recent multishot back and still better than any one shot but do you think someone is interested... no sir!

By this measure automobiles, cars, and high-end computers are all on their way out.

2008/2009 is a hard time to objectively view the underlying fundamentals of any business, especially based on the sales price of distressed assets (like foreclosed homes or used digital backs).

Doug

Doug Peterson,  Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer  |  Personal Portfolio

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think so, mostly not. It depends on a lot of factors, e.g. the film used in the film camera. I mostly used Velvia and it's no easy film to scan. My scanner was a 3200 PPI Minolta DSMP and I felt that 3200 PPI was a bit excessive with anything but Velvia. I have two 70x100 cm enlargements made from scanned originals and they astonishing. I also made an 70x100 enlargement from a 10 MPixel DSLR and it was pretty good if viewed at 80-100 cm, but any closer it was obviously lacking detail.

My guess is that 25 Mpixel will compare favorably with MF film, resolutionswise film may have some advantage but it will be much more grainy and tolerate far less sharpening. But the proof is in the print.

The other answer is clearly that FF DSLRs are the medium format of the digital world. They are relatively affordable, especially now that we have the Canon 5DII and the Sony Alpha 900, efficient and easy to use. MFDBs go beyond what film based MF used to be, both regarding quality and cost. MFDBs can also be used on Field/View cameras. Except the price best of two worlds.

Erik

Also, can a 12 MP dslr duplicate the nuance and detail of a 6x7 film camera?

[Plekto]

My guess is that 25 Mpixel will compare favorably with MF film, resolution wise film may have some advantage but it will be much more grainy and tolerate far less sharpening. But the proof is in the print.

Not quite, but close.  6x6 or 6x7 film is actually in the 30-40MP range.  25MP is closer to 645, which is still worlds better than 35mm(about 7MP optical and about 12MP digital)  And honestly, Velvia 50 still looks like no digital that I've ever seen when it's projected.

[ziocan]

A 12 Mp dslr will never have the detail of a 6/7 neg or slide. Even a 24Mp dslr will not as many users have comfirmed.

That may be true only if the film camera is a range finder or a reflex used with the mirror locked up and focused at infinity on a still subject. Any other kind of photography that does not include all the above, will be better done on a +14mp digital reflex.

[David Grover / Capture One]

(8)Hasselblad sells through box-movers like B&H.

Your point?

Please bear in mind the world is bigger than the USA alone.

Best,


David

[dwdmguy]

Wow, the answer that Doug gave is awesome, well thought out and frankly kind of him to take the time.

Now, I happen to think that each difference / pro / con will be subjective and personal. For example, the reasons I went over and added a MF Digi would be

The reverse crop. My 80mm is wider at 50mm along with a awesome lens.
IMO, the 25MP of a dSLR is NOT close to a MF digital, reason being is that it is ALL about dynamic Range. I don't care which FF dSLR is on the market there is a huge difference in your image and that is due to not only the awesome Dynamic Range but it has no AA filter over the sensor and the difference in IQ is quite clear.

The Mamiya AFD-III now holds in your hand, almost, like a dSLR. It's really quite amazing.

A kit for MF can now be had for around $14K depending on your needs. Mine was the AFD-III with a 65s Leaf Back. I'm able to choose from a long line of 645 lenses with perhaps some Leaf Shutters excluded.

T

[NigelC]

Not quite, but close.  6x6 or 6x7 film is actually in the 30-40MP range.  25MP is closer to 645, which is still worlds better than 35mm(about 7MP optical and about 12MP digital)  And honestly, Velvia 50 still looks like no digital that I've ever seen when it's projected.

In theory possibly, in practice not. I can tell you I only sold my Pentax 6x7 kit when I'd satisfied myself beyond doubt that in real world conditions output up to A3+ prints my 5D gave virtually indistinguishable results. (specific prints I compared used 165 LS lens, mirror lock-up, very heavy tripod, Fuji NPS 160 film, scanned with Canon 9950F/Silverfast)

[David Grover / Capture One]

Notes and caveats

(5)Hasselblad has decided to end their upgrade program

(7)The LCD size varies by company. Phase has smaller LCDs currently; I don't follow Hassy and Sinar very closely but some of their models have larger LCDs and some have smaller LCDs



Doug Peterson,  Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer  |  Personal Portfolio

Doug,

You omit to mention the recent price reduction on all our products.  Some as much as 40%.  This is why the upgrade program was discontinued and has been explained many times here.

The LCD is 3.0" on all the H3DII cameras... but I am sure you knew that even though you don't follow us closely.  ;-)

Best,


David

[Anders_HK]

The title says it all except Thanks

I believe the answer is simple: Medium format in digital age is no different than was in film age.

I gave up on Nikon SLR & DSLR for three reasons:

1) Desire to expand into a larger format (people did so in film days also)

2) Because i found DSLRs did not yield the image quality as 35mm slides did (I used Velvia 50 vs. D200).

3) DLSRs was pain to process because they teach you to photograph like machine guns, too many photos to review... medium format slows you down... yield higher success ratio by planning, just like with film   .

The shame of digital is that it has made film more difficult. It has sold people on that digital is superior, which it is clearly not. It is only more difficult of where to buy film and where to process to quality. It was for those reason that I went digital in first place, not because higher quality or lower cost. Tried the ZD, but it was faulty and lost over 2,000 USD in process. The Leaf Aptus 65 was expensive but beats any DSLR in low ISO. There is color and DR superior to any DSLR, in particular if you not desire to sit in computer and process each photo long time, and like me have a sensitive eye to color and image rendering. That said anyone with a smaller camera with just announced higher MPs will stick it out and claim it is same as a bigger and more expensive... and... the G10 is similar to 5DII, is it not???

Above said... I do have a DSLR: Sigma DP1 which fits in my pocket. Why is that a DSLR? Same sensor as Sigma DSLRs. Well... it is same format as a cropped DSLR sensor... I also experience the sensor medium format like when I process the photos in CS4, while of course colors and rendering is not up to medium format sensor. There is a very high DR, 3d effect etc.

I also use film and compared ZD to my Mamiya 7 and Velvia 50. In details/pixel peeping they were about similar (although film render poor details better than digital), in colors the film won hands down. Search for my thread MFDB Challenge from last year here in this forum... many processed my ZD files that time. I can add that I find the Leaf Aptus 65 is far superior to ZD.

Another issue with medium format in digital age is that medium format digital is very expensive! Then yet... is not also DSLR compared to 35mm film SLRs? How much more do they cost, and how many times have we upgraded? The Aptus 65 is bound to last me long time... so perhaps compared to a D700, D800, D900 and those new Nikkor lenses... the cost is not that different??? But... we are all paying much more for gear with digital... are we not??

Regards
Anders

[ixpressraf]

I think a lot of people do indeed forget that a back that was perfect a couple of years ago, with the same sensor, only other casing than the present ones is still a great back. I cannot believe there are no photographers left who make enough monney to buy my 528c for a ridiculous 4750 euro. Is economy reaally going that bad or is it that we still want the newest, somethime, when there is monney, instead of a workhorse to make monney with???

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Some viewpoints...

a) The ZD back is low res for an MF back. Comparing the Aptus to Velvia is more adequate.

 Velvia is notoriously difficult to scan.

c) Sharpening is an essential part of the digital workflow, weather scanning slides or using sensor based photography.

d) Velvia is a 50 ISO film, with DSLRs we can go to 1600 ISO or even more in the middle of the roll.

e) With DSLRs and RAW processing we can develop any exposure an infinite amount of different ways. Ansel Adams would love it!

Regarding costs.

I just bought an Sony Alpha 900 for about 3000 USD. I can use it with all my old lenses, some (an 80-200) is about 20 years old. I guess that 3000 USD buys you an MF body, but not much else. What's the price of your Aptus?

By the way I was shooting MF (also Velvia) for many years. For me digital came as a great relief.

Best regards
Erik

I believe the answer is simple: Medium format in digital age is no different than was in film age.

I gave up on Nikon SLR & DSLR for three reasons:

1) Desire to expand into a larger format (people did so in film days also)

2) Because i found DSLRs did not yield the image quality as 35mm slides did (I used Velvia 50 vs. D200).

3) DLSRs was pain to process because they teach you to photograph like machine guns, too many photos to review... medium format slows you down... yield higher success ratio by planning, just like with film   .

The shame of digital is that it has made film more difficult. It has sold people on that digital is superior, which it is clearly not. It is only more difficult of where to buy film and where to process to quality. It was for those reason that I went digital in first place, not because higher quality or lower cost. Tried the ZD, but it was faulty and lost over 2,000 USD in process. The Leaf Aptus 65 was expensive but beats any DSLR in low ISO. There is color and DR superior to any DSLR, in particular if you not desire to sit in computer and process each photo long time, and like me have a sensitive eye to color and image rendering. That said anyone with a smaller camera with just announced higher MPs will stick it out and claim it is same as a bigger and more expensive... and... the G10 is similar to 5DII, is it not???

Above said... I do have a DSLR: Sigma DP1 which fits in my pocket. Why is that a DSLR? Same sensor as Sigma DSLRs. Well... it is same format as a cropped DSLR sensor... I also experience the sensor medium format like when I process the photos in CS4, while of course colors and rendering is not up to medium format sensor. There is a very high DR, 3d effect etc.

I also use film and compared ZD to my Mamiya 7 and Velvia 50. In details/pixel peeping they were about similar (although film render poor details better than digital), in colors the film won hands down. Search for my thread MFDB Challenge from last year here in this forum... many processed my ZD files that time. I can add that I find the Leaf Aptus 65 is far superior to ZD.

Another issue with medium format in digital age is that medium format digital is very expensive! Then yet... is not also DSLR compared to 35mm film SLRs? How much more do they cost, and how many times have we upgraded? The Aptus 65 is bound to last me long time... so perhaps compared to a D700, D800, D900 and those new Nikkor lenses... the cost is not that different??? But... we are all paying much more for gear with digital... are we not??

Regards
Anders

[Anders_HK]

Erik,

It is fine if we agree that we disagree. I use medium format and before used DSLRs. Above and following was and is my experience;

"a) The ZD back is low res for an MF back. Comparing the Aptus to Velvia is more adequate."

22Mp is good resolution on a MF back and per my experience about equal in resolution/details to 6x7 Veliva slide but not in pleasing color rendering. The Leaf Aptus 22 sensor use same 22MP sensor by Dalsa as ZD but have far better color rendering and handling of shadow and dark areas than ZD or any DSLR. I have found that around 28.6MP gives less problem with noise because it is smaller noise due the more pixels. The Aptus 65 does not give me same color rendering as Velvia 50, but the Aptus 65 is the only digital product I have used which out of box at default settings common give me pleasing colors.

"B) Velvia is notoriously difficult to scan. "

On DiMage SE 5400 my 35mm Velvia slides scanned like a charm, albeit slow. I have not scanned medium format Velvia 50 myself, but medium format leads me to shoot less frames, thus more planned and higher success ratio and thus less to scan, which will not take same time as 35mm slides.

"c) Sharpening is an essential part of the digital workflow, weather scanning slides or using sensor based photography."

For DSLRs yes, thanks to AA filter. For medium format digital not as much needed.

"d) Velvia is a 50 ISO film, with DSLRs we can go to 1600 ISO or even more in the middle of the roll."

Yes, but most DSLRs do not go to native 50 ISO. I never shot 1600 ISO with film, thus do not see that need, but perhaps some people do. I do shoot nearly only ISO 50 for landscapes and people. Yours and other peoples preference may differ. Though to yield highest image quality from any digital camera it should be shot at native ISO, which is the lowest standard ISO (not extended).

"e) With DSLRs and RAW processing we can develop any exposure an infinite amount of different ways. Ansel Adams would love it!"

Ehh. A medium format digital provides far greater DR, color rendering etc. Which would Ansel have choosen? Landscapes are often best at ISO50.... And... what is best to start off from, a RAW file you first need correct colors for relative correctness before making your interpretation of the scene or not?

"I just bought an Sony Alpha 900 for about 3000 USD. I can use it with all my old lenses, some (an 80-200) is about 20 years old. I guess that 3000 USD buys you an MF body, but not much else. What's the price of your Aptus?"

If you are happy with the Alpha, then I am happy you enjoy it. I do enjoy what I use, not becuase it is gear, but finally because the Leaf Aptus 65 is the first digital product I feel I can use and enjoy like I did with film. The Sigma DP1 falls behind it... but to be frank colors are not as commonly pleasing from that one when I open the RAW files.

This a medium format forum. What is point to argue a DSLR here? I am happy with the Mamiya 7 + AFDIII + Leaf Aptus 65. Actually just bought a Shen Hao 4x5 because want to do some more film in larger format on select occasions too, just different paint brushes to me. I am also content with the DP1 and I do like the Foveon sensor which is a DSLR sensor I enjoy.

Would I feel I should sell my Aptus 65 and buy a Alpha 900 or similar? The Aptus cost me more than four times the money you paid for your Alpa. I am not rich but finally said goodbye to that money because I wanted to enjoy photography in the digital age. I would not be pleased with the image quality and machine gun handling from any DSLR on market, so no... am not selling even though could give me cash after the swop. There is a difference DSLR and MFDB, very obvious such. It is up for who ever sees it. Galen Rowell shot 35mm and enjoyed it. I much admire his work. That is ok also   .

Now, lets step back to your initial post and be to point: "What is medium format in the digital age?" I believe medium format in digital age is still same as it was in film days. It is regardless of pixels not same as DSLR, for there is more than pixels. Or... is there a point to argue that a Canon G10 equals an Alpha 900? Lets be frank, the pixel number difference between those to is far less than 35mm film and medium format film ever was... Is there any more difference between the image quality of them???

Regards
Anders

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

Sorry! I did not mean DSLR but a digital device as a comparison with film. What I meant was that Ansel Adams would have loved RAW processing, because it would give him more control than what was available with film.


Regarding scanning Velvia I'm quite familiar with it as I have been using Velvia since it was introduced on the market, and was scanning MF Velvia for a long time. My experience is with Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and it's predecessor the Scan Multi II. The issue when scanning Velvia is in my and as I believe others view is that it has a fairly extreme D-MAX of around 4.0. My Minolta DSMP was specified to have a DMAX of 4.8 but I'm pretty sure that was a "phantasy figure".

Now, the question was: "What is the medium format in the digital age"? The comments I gave should be seen in that context.

I would suggest that it is a valid view that DSLRs make inroads into the territory where medium format film was used, and the comparison I intended is mostly with film. Full frame DSLRs are also in the same territory as film based medium format used to be regarding cost. I used a Pentax 67 before going digital, that camera was definitively medium format.

As far as I understand digital medium format does replace 4x5" film. MFDB:s can be used on different systems and as far as I understand many photographers have found the P45 at least as good as 4x5" film.

In this sense I see APS-C cameras in essence play the role that 135 played before. Full frame DSLRs are the next step in photographic systems, at the same level of costs we have seen earlier with entry level 120 SLR systems, like the Pentax 67. MFDB are definitively above that. The only step up from MFDBs may be scanning backs. So if MFDBs are the medium format what is the large format in digital picture taking?

Do I see DSLRs replacing medium format film? Yes, I see digital replacing film in general.

Will DSLRs replace MFDBs? To some extent yes but to some extent no. My presumption would simply be that photographers will normally use the most adequate equipment for a given task within the limitation they are willing to spend. We have seen some interesting comments from James Russel who uses both Leica M8 and MFDBs with Canon DSLRs in beetwen. As far as I see he certainly factors in economy in his equipment choice. As far as I understood he felt at this time it was not necessary to invest in the latest and most expensive backs. The requirements of his clients would not justify the costs

You perhaps have seen that Michael Reichmann, the author and owner of this site:

- First used Pentax 120 equipment 645 and 67
- He sold the Pentax and went to MFDB (Contax with Kodak back)
- When the Canon 1DsII arrived he sold of the Contax equipment and used the DSLR exclusively
- With the arrival of the P45 he invested in a Linhof view camera and special view camera lenses designed for digital
- When planning for an expedition to Africa he decided that he needed an SLR camera for the P45 so he made the investment in his present Hasselbald system.

Michael discussed the reasoning behind his choices on this site.

Best regrads
Erik

"e) With DSLRs and RAW processing we can develop any exposure an infinite amount of different ways. Ansel Adams would love it!"

[Morgan_Moore]

I think a lot of people do indeed forget that a back that was perfect a couple of years ago, with the same sensor, only other casing than the present ones is still a great back. I cannot believe there are no photographers left who make enough monney to buy my 528c for a ridiculous 4750 euro. Is economy reaally going that bad or is it that we still want the newest, somethime, when there is monney, instead of a workhorse to make monney with???

I think the poverty is not in the photographers but with the clients - time is money to them

My D3 is so great I can shoot so fast with nearly no lighting tripod or set up at all

great ISO , great AF

Are the pictures as good as my Hassy or your Hassy - no way

Is the clients pleased - yes - because I shoot four times as much per day and it is great quality for the web or their A5 brochure

S

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

Sorry! I did not mean DSLR but a digital device as a comparison with film. What I meant was that Ansel Adams would have loved RAW processing, because it would give him more control than what was available with film.


Regarding scanning Velvia I'm quite familiar with it as I have been using Velvia since it was introduced on the market, and was scanning MF Velvia for a long time. My experience is with Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and it's predecessor the Scan Multi II. The issue when scanning Velvia is in my and as I believe others view is that it has a fairly extreme D-MAX of around 4.0. My Minolta DSMP was specified to have a DMAX of 4.8 but I'm pretty sure that was a "phantasy figure".

Now, the question was: "What is the medium format in the digital age"? The comments I gave should be seen in that context.

I would suggest that it is a valid view that DSLRs make inroads into the territory where medium format film was used, and the comparison I intended is mostly with film. Full frame DSLRs are also in the same territory as film based medium format used to be regarding cost. I used a Pentax 67 before going digital, that camera was definitively medium format.

As far as I understand digital medium format does replace 4x5" film. MFDB:s can be used on different systems and as far as I understand many photographers have found the P45 at least as good as 4x5" film.

In this sense I see APS-C cameras in essence play the role that 135 played before. Full frame DSLRs are the next step in photographic systems, at the same level of costs we have seen earlier with entry level 120 SLR systems, like the Pentax 67. MFDB are definitively above that. The only step up from MFDBs may be scanning backs. So if MFDBs are the medium format what is the large format in digital picture taking?

Do I see DSLRs replacing medium format film? Yes, I see digital replacing film in general.

Will DSLRs replace MFDBs? To some extent yes but to some extent no. My presumption would simply be that photographers will normally use the most adequate equipment for a given task within the limitation they are willing to spend. We have seen some interesting comments from James Russel who uses both Leica M8 and MFDBs with Canon DSLRs in beetwen. As far as I see he certainly factors in economy in his equipment choice. As far as I understood he felt at this time it was not necessary to invest in the latest and most expensive backs. The requirements of his clients would not justify the costs.

You perhaps have seen that Michael Reichmann, the author and owner of this site:

- First used Pentax 120 equipment 645 and 67
- He sold the Pentax and went to MFDB (Contax with Kodak back)
- When the Canon 1DsII arrived he sold of the Contax equipment and used the DSLR exclusively
- With the arrival of the P45 he invested in a Linhof view camera and special view camera lenses designed for digital
- When planning for an expedition to Africa he decided that he needed an SLR camera for the P45 so he made the investment in his present Hasselbald system.

Michael discussed the reasoning behind his choices on this site.

Best regrads
Erik

"e) With DSLRs and RAW processing we can develop any exposure an infinite amount of different ways. Ansel Adams would love it!"