Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?

[synn]

Hi Everyone,

I don't use a MF system, but have always lusted to try it.  I may treat my self and rent a system for a weekend one day.  One of the things that about MF that intrigues me is that you can get a wide field of view without using "wide angle" lenses.  The look of having a wide field of view without the wide angle look (less compression, distortion etc) really appeals to me.

I didn't see that mentioned in the previous posts. Wouldn't that be evident in small prints?  If not, all my lusting for MF may be in vain.

I highly recommend that you rent a system and try it out first hand than depend on the internet for answers.

people have different preferences, not always aligned to your own.

[Geoff_C]

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful and informative posts.  I guess I've been misinformed this whole time.  I've spent some time trying to wrap my head around this new, to me, information.

Consider a tight head shot from a close working distance.  If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera? If so, then I've been completely wrong in my view about some of the differences between different sized formats.  If it's not true, then wouldn't some of these differences be evident, even in a small print?

There is so much good information on these boards.  I've got even more to learn than I thought. Thanks again.

[synn]

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful and informative posts.  I guess I've been misinformed this whole time.  I've spent some time trying to wrap my head around this new, to me, information.

Consider a tight head shot from a close working distance.  If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera? If so, then I've been completely wrong in my view about some of the differences between different sized formats.  If it's not true, then wouldn't some of these differences be evident, even in a small print?

There is so much good information on these boards.  I've got even more to learn than I thought. Thanks again.

Cropping from a 14mm on an APS-C will give you much less options for enlargement than using a 35mm on a medium format.

Also, optical aberrations on 135 format ultrawides tend to be higher than that of MF wide angle lenses (General case).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess two pictures say more than two thousands words. Below are two awful portraits of me, doing my best to look like a crook, with my APS-C camera and 20 mm lens and 1.1X crop MF camera using 40 mm lens. APS-C is normally 24 mm wide and my P45+ sensor is 49 mm wide, so 40 mm corresponds almost exactly to 20 mm on APS-C. 40 mm is the widest I have on the P45+, so no comparison for 15 mm.

Both images shot at arms length from front of the lens, about 85 cm?

No artistic attempts. Both images coming straight from Capture One.

Left one is APS-C (Sony SLT 77 with 16-80/3.5-4.5 at 20 mm and f/10), right one is P45+ with Hasselblad Zeiss Distagon 40 at f/11.

Note: This is not a scientific experiment, just a quick and dirty demo. Doing an engineering grade test would take longer time.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful and informative posts.  I guess I've been misinformed this whole time.  I've spent some time trying to wrap my head around this new, to me, information.

Consider a tight head shot from a close working distance.  If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera? If so, then I've been completely wrong in my view about some of the differences between different sized formats.  If it's not true, then wouldn't some of these differences be evident, even in a small print?

There is so much good information on these boards.  I've got even more to learn than I thought. Thanks again.

[hjulenissen]

If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera? If so, then I've been completely wrong in my view about some of the differences between different sized formats.  If it's not true, then wouldn't some of these differences be evident, even in a small print?

The internet abounds with claims about this or that formats benefits. Often, those claims are made without note of conditions, so they serve as little more than one random persons subjective impression while caring about something... For once, I agree with Synn, trying yourself is the right thing to do before spending.

My own understanding was significantly helped by the writeup below. Note that "equivalence" is not the same as "equalness". Once I got my head around that, I found the information to be concise, relevant and to the point for my photography:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

-h

[EricWHiss]

Oh man! Those are some images I WON'T be printing!   Not even small ones!   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Consider a tight head shot from a close working distance.  If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera?

Hi Geoff,

When shot from the same position, they would both be equally unflattering, because the entrance pupils of the lenses are approx. at the same position, hence they produce the same perspective (relative size difference due to distance). The focal length and the sensor dimensions together will determine what field of view you can record.

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Eric,

We all appreciate your insightful comments. Thanks for widening our understanding.

Best regards
Erik

Oh man! Those are some images I WON'T be printing!   Not even small ones!   

[Dustbak]

Heres a test, have a look at my new work page and tell me what was shot on a p65/contax or a canon 5dmk3. theres 4 shots done with the p65 there. i bet you you can't..
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/

I disagree that there is less depth of field with a medium format. i can get a shallower depth of field with my 85 f1.2/50 f1.0 and even the 50 f1.2 than any of my fast contax lenses, including a hassy 110 f2. as my whole style is about shallow depth of field, and i test these things side by side regularly.

paul

Lovely images BTW! I had to weed through heaps of uninteresting stuff to finally find your original post but it was worth it...

[hjulenissen]

Hope you've found it instructive.

Yes, thank you.

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

I am deeply impressed by Bart's efforts!

Best regards
Erik

Yes, thank you.

-h

[EricWHiss]

Hi Eric,

We all appreciate your insightful comments. Thanks for widening our understanding.

Best regards
Erik

Ah! Well played, Mr. Kaffehr!  and you're absolutely welcome! 
A nice surprise to see you understood sarcasm.

[EricWHiss]

ps. for me this discussion was over the moment I looked at my Imatest SQF results and saw 99's in most of the image areas at the print height in question, which according to the data should make the difference between the 90 from the DSLR sample you posted quite discernible as its greater than the 5% needed you had quoted.  I already knew this from seeing my own prints, but I did post one of my Imatest charts on page 1 remember?   That was all that needed to be shown so I felt the the OT question about whether a difference could be seen was completely settled to the affirmative - yes a difference can be seen even in small prints.

It seems like a lot of the rest of this thread was taken up with how to process a file properly, and to understand why your test images were not as good as they could be. Synn and Bart and others did a nice job on that and I had nothing to add.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi

What you may miss that both images may receive similar sharpening. I actually responded to that argument here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87650.msg714619#msg714619

The essence was:
- If you use same processing the SQF values will be pretty close (within 5%) for low end MF and high end DSLRs
- If you use use different processing you can get almost any SQF you want


I really appreciate the sharpening lesson by Bart. He made a good job of finding a strategy to sharpen my images and describe the technique in great detail while your essentially spent your time making sarcastic remarks. Bart's workflow can be helpful anyone. I will try to write it down and publish on my web site, with Bart's kind permission.

Anyway, I really learned a lot.

Best regards
Erik

ps. for me this discussion was over the moment I looked at my Imatest SQF results and saw 99's in most of the image areas at the print height in question, which according to the data should make the difference between the 90 from the DSLR sample you posted quite discernible as its greater than the 5% needed you had quoted.  I already knew this from seeing my own prints, but I did post one of my Imatest charts on page 1 remember?   That was all that needed to be shown so I felt the the OT question about whether a difference could be seen was completely settled to the affirmative - yes a difference can be seen even in small prints.

It seems like a lot of the rest of this thread was taken up with how to process a file properly, and to understand why your test images were not as good as they could be. Synn and Bart and others did a nice job on that and I had nothing to add.

[kencameron]

My own understanding was significantly helped by the writeup below. Note that "equivalence" is not the same as "equalness". Once I got my head around that, I found the information to be concise, relevant and to the point for my photography:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Thanks for that link. A lucid essay which clears away at least some of the fog that surrounds these technical issues in my mind.

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Bart, thank you for the lengthy tutorial on sharpening processes, software you have found optimal for particular situations/sharpening effects, and the details of applying these techniques in the particular image of Erik's that you were working with.  I need to print out your responses, re-read, and re-read again to aid my understanding, make the Topaz people a little richer with some additions to my software collection, and then practice -- and practice some more.  I truly feel that you graced us with a mini-tutorial that many of us would have been willing to travel and pay money to have the benefit of, and I thank you. --Barbara

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am most thankful for Bart's effort. I asked for Bart's permission to publish it on my website, but it will take some time.

As a side note, I have used both Topaz InFocus and Focus Magic, but have not really find them useful. Bart's effort was a real eyeopener in this case. I have known Bart a long time, here on LuLa and he has always been very helpful.

Best regards
Erik

Bart, thank you for the lengthy tutorial on sharpening processes, software you have found optimal for particular situations/sharpening effects, and the details of applying these techniques in the particular image of Erik's that you were working with.  I need to print out your responses, re-read, and re-read again to aid my understanding, make the Topaz people a little richer with some additions to my software collection, and then practice -- and practice some more.  I truly feel that you graced us with a mini-tutorial that many of us would have been willing to travel and pay money to have the benefit of, and I thank you. --Barbara

[jerome_m]

I don't understand why Bart's "original raw conversion" is so soft. I never seen anything so soft coming out of a camera without low pass filter, even with no sharpening applied.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, thank you for the lengthy tutorial on sharpening processes, software you have found optimal for particular situations/sharpening effects, and the details of applying these techniques in the particular image of Erik's that you were working with.  I need to print out your responses, re-read, and re-read again to aid my understanding, make the Topaz people a little richer with some additions to my software collection, and then practice -- and practice some more.  I truly feel that you graced us with a mini-tutorial that many of us would have been willing to travel and pay money to have the benefit of, and I thank you. --Barbara

Hi Barbara, thanks for the kind words. I'm just a satisfied user of the Topaz Labs products, and they are really innovative in some aspects. That's something we need, to keep progressing to better tools that will allow us to reach our creative intent with less effort. The tools I've mentioned are not perfect, and it's a pity we need several to achieve our goal, but they are amongst the best on the market.

I also have to repeat that Topaz Labs organize Webinars about their products, at the end of which they usually share a limited time coupon discount code for the specific product that was the focus of the webinar topic, or for their whole bundle when new versions of products are announced. So far, all updates and even upgrades to new versions have been free for existing users, so the investment over time is quite manageable for most people.

As to the mini-tutorial, I thought it was a better idea to show what I was talking about than just talk about it in general terms. I have skipped elaborating more about some alternative approaches that I've also tried before picking the IMHO best ones for the task at hand.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I am most thankful for Bart's effort. I asked for Bart's permission to publish it on my website, but it will take some time.

As a side note, I have used both Topaz InFocus and Focus Magic, but have not really find them useful. Bart's effort was a real eyeopener in this case. I have known Bart a long time, here on LuLa and he has always been very helpful.

Hi Erik,

You're welcome. I'm a strong believer in sharing information to help others, it usually benefits all parties involved.

Cheers,
Bart