S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
It's already gone.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Is Medium Format Right for Me?
- Thread starter bumgardner
- Start date
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
This is one of the achilles heels of digital MF. The linear size difference between the most common MF sensors and the 35mm sensors is so small that it will always be easy to question wherein the advantage lies. When the first MF sensors were developed, there probably wasn't much choice, since the cost of a larger sensor would have been prohibitive, but as 35mm sensors are catching up in resolution and colour depth, and are superior in most other areas, this is getting problematic.
The diagonal linear resolution of an IQ140 sensor is only 3.4% more than that of a D800 while the corresponding difference for the sensor size is 27%. I struggle to see that these are significant values, and unless the MF lenses are vastly superior to those from Nikon or 3rd party suppliers like Zeiss, I fail to see the point with "small" MF sensors, unless they are being used on technical cameras.
For an IQ180 vs. the D800, those figures increase to 46 and 56%. That's a lot more of course, but it should be when the price of the camera is what? 15 times as high?
Even the roughly 6 x 8 cm size of a negative from a GX680 is less than 130% larger than the D800 sensor, but then at least it starts to become significant, and MF film cameras are fortunately much cheaper than either the D800 or any MF digital. I paid somewhere between 1 and 2% of the price of an IQ180 back for my GX680. That's 98% cheaper. I wish I could buy a new car with the same discount
Moiree can be a significant problem in some cases. Some fabrics go crazy, but it is correctable in most cases. However Moiree correction involves bluring color detail. This can be a problem if there is fine color detail especially multicolored detail. However cases like these would be problematic even with a AA filter.
In those cases shooting film eliminates the problem.
Suit yourself... you can talk yourself into believing what you want.
The truth is that in order to see a significant "look" difference you need to double the linear dimensions.
For example there was very little difference going from 6x8cm SLR to 4x5inch film for me. That is why I would shoot either 6x8cm film or 8x10in film back in the day.
Above 40 MP the difference is only there is you are printing very large and viewing the prints close up.... and by that I mean looking at only parts of the image.
Another area where having more megapixels helps is if you are doing post that involves reshaping, distortion, irregular scaling etc. Big difference.
You need to spend ten times as much on four times the area (or number of pixels) to get double the benefit?
...now the H4D-60 has about four times as many pixels as the GH2, and costs about 20 times as much.. but is is more than twice as good where resolution counts.
If the GH2 produces prints that look good to A4 and the H4D-60 produces prints that look good to A2, you get twice the linear dimensions, but four times the area...
Small sensors give you more DOF and are relatively inexpensive... a technical camera gives you movements on all lenses... what would the market be for a D800 sensor in an MF digiback mount compatible package?
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
That is correct, except that the GH2's native resolution covers almost A3 at 300ppi, which means that the Hasselblad would cover close to A1. But that's theory. In the real world, it's possible to print larger than the native resolution suggests with very good results, sometimes much larger.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
No... I have three Sinars, and I am aware of the P3-SLR... and I would imagine that it is a good tool for product/table top "tele" landscapes etc.
DSLRs are bigger than digibacks, and would tend to get in the way when trying to use maximum tilt, and the mirror box would prevent use of non-retro-focus wide angle lenses.
Since "pre-digital" I have an adapter to put Hasselblads on the back of Sinars... and the benefits and drawbacks are similar, but it is hardly worth the hassle now that we have live view.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
In other words, technical cameras are excellent applications for digital backs, whatever the size of the sensor. I think we agree on this.
Perhaps lab tech discussions have superseded artistic visual thinking and subjective judgement?
The only math I trust is the math I can see. Personally, I don't evaluate using the pre-concieved concept that "bigger is better", or whether more meg is better than less. I just look at the images and determine if this looks and feels better than that, and if it compliments my personal vision ... also whether it does it on a consistent basis at any print size with-in the limits of any given camera/sensor/lens performance combination.
Using technical reasoning and/or a bean-counter mentality to over-ride subjective visceral feelings, and hammer that rebellious right brained reaction into submission, is interesting to witness (even in myself unfortunately).
I've watched as some talented folks produced wonderfully beautiful images, then moved to something else, (in one case even MFD), and the synergistic beauty increased, (just something very in tune with their vision ) ... then they over-rode it all for some new rationalized choice, and while the personal insightfulness is still there, the accompanying visceral beauty that complimented that personal vision evaporated.
I watched as a very famous wedding photographer established himself with a singular vision assisted by the use of a rangefinder, then swapped it out for overly rational reasons, and started using a DSLR. Despite assurances that it didn't make any difference, the demarkation was so subjectively obvious as to make me wince in disbelief.
I always remember the rather blunt quote from the famous ad man David Ogilvy on the subject of creative evaluation by less creatively oriented minds ... "Businessmen suffer from the tyranny of reason."
Perhaps we have entered the era where photographic creativity simply suffers from the tyranny of too much reason?
-Marc
The only math I trust is the math I can see. Personally, I don't evaluate using the pre-concieved concept that "bigger is better", or whether more meg is better than less. I just look at the images and determine if this looks and feels better than that, and if it compliments my personal vision ... also whether it does it on a consistent basis at any print size with-in the limits of any given camera/sensor/lens performance combination.
Using technical reasoning and/or a bean-counter mentality to over-ride subjective visceral feelings, and hammer that rebellious right brained reaction into submission, is interesting to witness (even in myself unfortunately).
I've watched as some talented folks produced wonderfully beautiful images, then moved to something else, (in one case even MFD), and the synergistic beauty increased, (just something very in tune with their vision ) ... then they over-rode it all for some new rationalized choice, and while the personal insightfulness is still there, the accompanying visceral beauty that complimented that personal vision evaporated.
I watched as a very famous wedding photographer established himself with a singular vision assisted by the use of a rangefinder, then swapped it out for overly rational reasons, and started using a DSLR. Despite assurances that it didn't make any difference, the demarkation was so subjectively obvious as to make me wince in disbelief.
I always remember the rather blunt quote from the famous ad man David Ogilvy on the subject of creative evaluation by less creatively oriented minds ... "Businessmen suffer from the tyranny of reason."
Perhaps we have entered the era where photographic creativity simply suffers from the tyranny of too much reason?
-Marc
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
LIKE
wentbackward
Member
I guess the OP is well and truly put off MF now.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Agreed one needs to pay attention to his actually needs. Which seems to have veered off course. Just sayin
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
And that is exactly the point. Very often when I look at photos taken with gear that is supposed to be technically better than what I use or have access to, I see little or no difference, and I wonder if my eyes are lacking or if it's true that the emperor more often than not has no clothes. So, I started digging into the technicalities to see if there was any reason for the lack of excellence, and I find that the physical differences between the "budget" digital MFs and the best DSLRs is indeed small.
Only 3-4 years ago, the situation was totally different, but in the current marketplace, I believe that one has to go with one of the technical cameras or one of the top MF backs to really gain an advantage compared to a D800, and maybe even to a D3X or an A900.
So I ended up with the GX680, very much because the visual differences are so obvious that the technical side became uninteresting, but also because it's a relatively inexpensive solution nowadays and because for my photography, it works well in its own somewhat obscure way. Like weighing four kilograms and using this ancient technology called film.
So I reach the same conclusion as always: it's the photographer first, then the lens and then this black box that we call a camera, loaded with a more or less expensive sensor or even with film.
That of course doesn't preclude others from finding their ultimate solutions with other cameras, including "small" sensor digital backs. It's what we learn to use through endless hours of practice and experience that works best for each and every one of us. That's one of the things that makes this forum such a nice, little universe; it's crowded with highly skilled photographers who produce excellent results with totally different gear.
Shashin
Well-known member
3.4%???? You mean pixel pitch. You think smaller pixels are better? And how does the MTF of the lens change when the there is a 27% difference in format size? There is more to an image than how many pixels something has. I have yet to hear the the Nex 7 is a replacement for the 5D.
But I am curious, what MFDB have you shot with?
Still, your argument seem to be economic. It seems to boil down to "I can't afford it and so it has no value."
Shashin
Well-known member
First your assumptions--I am not a gearhead. I buy systems for various reasons. IQ is one, but it is more than just pixels and noise.
Second, your economy is a false one, or at least only relevant to your situation. Your film solution is not always a "cheaper" solution. I bought a Pentax 645D a year ago and have shot over 6,000 frames. Before that I was shooting medium-format film and running my own color darkroom. If I had shot the same number of frames with my 6x6 and 6x12 cameras over the year, I would have spent $5,000 to $10,000 on film and developing costs alone. I am on track of having the camera pay for itself. It does not quite give me the quality of my 6x6 camera in terms of look, but it gives me something that I like.
I can print on 44" printers fine with my 645D. There is nothing lacking in the images. I really don't want more than 40MP because there is no point in putting up with larger file sizes. I will probably shot this camera into the ground--I usually use cameras for 10+ years.
One thing is really important for me and makes this camera so much better than its 35mm brothers, that is the format. For me, the 3:2 format sucks. I shoot full frame and putting up with a 3:2 camera is not worth it. And yes, I also have a m4/3 camera, but no others, at least in digital.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
But comparing the Fuji with the Pentax 645D is like comparing the Pentax with a somewhat advanced point & shoot. The images that come out of it are that different, and so is the technology for that matter. This is what I don't understand. The difference between MF 6x7, 6x8 or larger and most digital MF is much larger the difference between those same digital MF cameras/backs and a digital 35mm camera. The "look" between photos taken with a 6x8 compared to a small digital MF back simply can't be compared. From a technical point of view, that is very easy to explain. the sensor in the Pentax is 28% larger than that of a D800, while the film size of a 6x8 is roughly 80% larger than the sensor of the Pentax.
The closest relative of a Pentax 645D or a Mamiya with an IQ140 back is not traditional medium format, it's a D800, both from a technical and, from what I see with my eyes, from a visual point of view. If we are talking about something like the IQ180, I'm sure it looks different. That's yet another class, but for financial reasons, I haven't sunk my eyes into that. I wouldn't be able to afford it even if I sold my house, if I had a house, which I don't.
So discussing medium format from a point of view that it's one format with one set of properties simply doesn't hold water. Likewise, a discussion about economies between the Pentax and the Fuji makes no sense. I don't doubt for a second that the Pentax is much cheaper long term, but again; they are completely different formats.
I have btw. calculated the cost per click for the Fuji. If I take 10,000 photos with it over its life time, it's $1.54 or lower per photo, including film, developing (which I don't do myself) and scanning (which I do myself). Then all the gear is written off, including scanner and lenses. If I take more photos or I'm able to sell the gear or if I start developing myself, the cost per photo will go down. Particularly if I start developing myself. If I had used 6 x 4.5 film, like a Mamiya or Pentax 645, the cost per photo would go down more than 40%.