The feasibility of getting the MF look with smaller formats.

[Plateau Light]

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.

[MrSmith]

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.

[XE11]

interestingly no one mention sigma DPxM or DPxQ series. 

you should be able to hire one for relatively little money. 

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[synn]

Here. Have a ball.

[BernardLanguillier]

Here. Have a ball.

Yep, I remember that one. If I recall there was no clear winner, correct?

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

It's a subjective matter. I don't expect a universal winner.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[pdp11]

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

[Ellis Vener]

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.

[dwswager]

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.

[LKaven]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[synn]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[Manoli]

Pixel count isn't everything.

Synn,
I nominate you and Bernard for the photographic equivalent of The Rumble in the Jungle.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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. 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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[artobest]

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.