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 there a compelling reason to move to MF?

dchew

Well-known member
Naturally, that's what I'm trying to do. I'm leaning towards proclaiming that MF is a waste of money, but I'm not there yet. I want to believe there is a practical reason folks go out there and spend crazy money on MF stuff. I want to believe it's not just for bragging rights.
And that is why we sometimes tire of these questions. If you don't find what you perceive as a practical reason, then you will make a leap to saying for everyone else it must be just bagging rights.

I don't know why it is so difficult to see that what seems practical for one person may not seem practical for another. That's why we have demand curves.

Why shoot with a full frame DSLR? Isn't m4/3 really good enough for 90% of what you do? Gosh that feels so strange to me saying that and presuming so much about someone else.

Dave
 

Chris Giles

New member
Hiya,

I sold all my medium format kit and now shoot solely 35mm. But shooting medium format is a feeling. You can't define or describe it and a lot of 35mm stuff is more efficient faster and flexible.

So say, I was shooting on the Pentax 645z, the glass was that slightly imperfect organic glass which I actually rate higher than the latest digital stuff due to how it looks.

I guess it depends if you want something for yourself or a general work. I don't actually miss my 645z, I loved the images from it but sensor tech is moving on (I prefer my Canon 5DSr colours).
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Second, supposing the price was $60K, may I inquire what you would personally do with that money? It is an honest question: if I had $60K sitting in the bank, I would not really know what to do with it as I have no desire or need for anything. I would like to know about your personal ideas for spending that "price premium".
If I had $60k sitting in a bank that I didn't know what to do with, I would probably give it to someone who would or whose life would drastically change for the better.

Why would you set one of the most important reasons to shoot MF aside? I don't want to get into the ad nauseam debate on whether or not its needed. But the resolution is possibly the most compelling reason.
Fair enough. Would it be fair to say then that there is no compelling reason to go to MF unless you need resolution way beyond the 50mp that the current 35mm cameras offer?

Interesting read...

I am very interested in the Pentax 645Z...

My motive is simply better IQ.


I keep wishing Sony would release a affordable medium format either Rx fixed lens or interchangeable using their 50mp sensor.
I went over RAW files shot with Pentax 645Z and Canon 5DSr. For the life of me, I could not see a difference between them. I looked really, really hard.

1. I print rather large, running a gallery, and there is a clear difference between MF and 35mm when final result is hanging on the wall. MF wins.

2. I teach photoenthusiasts on a regular basis the fundamentals of photography and here it is much easier on the tiny Alpa TC rather than the A7r (where it takes 1 minute to find 'format').

3. Workflow & feel is more inspiring to me and this alone makes me go the extra mile.
Is there a clear difference between MF and 35mm at the same resolution? If so, what is that difference?

I want to thank all of you folks for responding. I'm actually getting a lot of insight from this discussion. I appreciate all of you taking the time to share your experiences.
 

AreBee

Member
Abstraction,

You can't remove money from the equation.
No, you cannot. However, cost is one thing; affordability is another.

I'm leaning towards proclaiming that MF is a waste of money, but I'm not there yet.
When you arrive, remember to qualify your proclamation with "For me..."

I want to believe there is a practical reason folks go out there and spend crazy money on MF stuff.
There is: it makes them happy.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I have tended to flip the question you have asked.

Through out my career and private use, I've continually asked myself ... "Is there a reason why I can't move away from MFD and just use 35mm?" It was a logical business question that a lot of photographers were asking for various reasons (partially convenience, partially aesthetics, and partially consolidation of expenses).

Years ago, I compared my 22 meg Canon against my 22 meg Hasselblad H2D in various controlled shooting conditions. No contest. Other than handling, higher ISO and speed of operation that gives 35mm its purpose, the H won every time. Better holistic results made up of a lot of image factors ... including more faithful colors and color separation, smoother tonal transitions, more organic in-focus to out-of-focus transitions, and the less quantifiable 3D realism that seems a trait of MFD.

The most obvious technical variables between the two were: CCD verses CMOS; Optics (L glass verses HC glass); and perhaps the most important difference: Pixel Pitch: The same resolution achieved in a larger sized sensor.

It is no secret that many simply loved the way the "Big Pixel" MFD backs rendered images.

In my experience, when a MFD back has smaller pixels it gains the resolution advantage over current 35mm offerings (60, 80 and 100 meg MFD). When the resolution is similar to 35mm, (16, 22, 33, 40 meg MFD) the MFD back then uses bigger pixels ... which provides that holistic improvement in image characteristics. In either case, MFD justifies itself only IF those characteristics aid in your form of photographic expression.

I've made those comparisons many times with the same results.

My latest was my 37 meg Leica S(006) verses My 36 meg Sony A7R and 42 meg A7R-II. In this case, similar resolution but the sensor size difference is less than comparing a FF 645 MFD back. The Leica still wins, but may not have by such an obvious margin were it not for the S optic system developed specifically for this camera. Where the S further justifies itself is having taken on more diverse applications ... as mentioned previously, the S also is a dual shutter camera and can sinc to 1/1000 with my Profotos.

Personally, I never say never. Who knows what is possible in a small form camera? The A7R-II is an amazing thing. When 35mm can deliver those image characteristics I look for, I'll gladly jettison the MF stuff.

Marc
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
I started this thread some years back on Fred Miranda and got all the information I needed.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1234124/0?keyword=medium,format#11741709

Read carefully all posts by theSuede. Extremely knowledgeable gentleman. It would be a sacrilege to take his answers and quote out of context.

If you are really looking for what you say you do, you will find all the answers there. I did.
That's a fantastic answer! It makes perfect sense. Would it be accurate to say that given that the new 100mp back has the same pixel density as the 50mp 35mm, the MF lenses have to be just as sharp as 35mm, thereby negating the MF advantage other than allowing for greater resolution?
 
That's a fantastic answer! It makes perfect sense. Would it be accurate to say that given that the new 100mp back has the same pixel density as the 50mp 35mm, the MF lenses have to be just as sharp as 35mm, thereby negating the MF advantage other than allowing for greater resolution?
You mean deliver closer to 60lpmm as in the case of 35mm equivalent?
Hard for me to say without having insight in up to date technical information on latest lens line up.

I would guess that it is unlikely. Even at 80Mpx sensor pixel density 40lpmm ballpark lenses delivered exceptional results already.

I would more so concentrate on LieView, Video and PDAF point he made plus readout.
 

Jamgolf

Member
Abstraction said:
Would it be fair to say then that there is no compelling reason to go to MF unless you need resolution way beyond the 50mp that the current 35mm cameras offer?
Abstraction said:
Would it be accurate to say that given that the new 100mp back has the same pixel density as the 50mp 35mm, the MF lenses have to be just as sharp as 35mm, thereby negating the MF advantage other than allowing for greater resolution?

No, I don't think it would be fair or accurate to say that.

Aside from resolution or the medium format look there are many other reasons. I can mention a few:

  1. Possibility to use leaf-shutters and strobes for ambient light control
  2. Possibility of using some of the finest lenses available with up to 100 line pairs/mm (Rodenstock/Schneider)
  3. Ability to achieve perfect composition in camera via rise/fall/shift
  4. Ability to stay within the optimal aperture range of the lens via use of tilt
  5. Ability to achieve focus in unique situations via swing
  6. Ability to achieve perfect stitches by using the far larger image circles of the MF lenses
  7. No worries about shutter vibration when using slower shutter speeds
  8. 4:3 aspect ratio over 3:2
  9. Built-in lens profiles in Capture One
  10. Beautiful color profiles in Capture One

Some of these are technical camera specific since that is how I use my digital back.
Whether some/any of these are important for you is for you to decide.
The point is that there ARE many other compelling reasons.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
One could argue that the lens for 35mm format has to be even better than the Mf lens, as more enlargement would be required to make the equivalent print size. Speaking about resolution primarily.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
No, I don't think it would be fair or accurate to say that.

Aside from resolution or the medium format look there are many other reasons. I can mention a few:

  1. Possibility to use leaf-shutters and strobes for ambient light control
  2. Possibility of using some of the finest lenses available with up to 100 line pairs/mm (Rodenstock/Schneider)
  3. Ability to achieve perfect composition in camera via rise/fall/shift
  4. Ability to stay within the optimal aperture range of the lens via use of tilt
  5. Ability to achieve focus in unique situations via swing
  6. Ability to achieve perfect stitches by using the far larger image circles of the MF lenses
  7. No worries about shutter vibration when using slower shutter speeds
  8. 4:3 aspect ratio over 3:2
  9. Built-in lens profiles in Capture One
  10. Beautiful color profiles in Capture One

Some of these are technical camera specific since that is how I use my digital back.
Whether some/any of these are important for you is for you to decide.
The point is that there ARE many other compelling reasons.
All of those are very valid and I would say compelling reasons to go MF except that most of the bullet points you describe can be achieved with 35mm.

1. Since there are technical cameras available that can accommodate 35mm bodies, the swings, stitches, and tilts are no longer the purview of MF world. The same goes for Rodenstock lenses, and leaf shutter lenses or at the very least, HSS flashes that would approximate leaf shutter effects.

2. Capture One - Can't you use Capture One with your 35mm camera? There might be color profiles available or as some have mentioned, they create their own

So, that leaves the 3:2 aspect ratio. Is that enough to warrant such a price premium? I'm not negating it as a valid point, it is, but it seems this is the only point that can't be addressed (other than through cropping) with 35mm format.
 

Jamgolf

Member
All of those are very valid and I would say compelling reasons to go MF except that most of the bullet points you describe can be achieved with 35mm.

1. Since there are technical cameras available that can accommodate 35mm bodies, the swings, stitches, and tilts are no longer the purview of MF world. The same goes for Rodenstock lenses, and leaf shutter lenses or at the very least, HSS flashes that would approximate leaf shutter effects.

2. Capture One - Can't you use Capture One with your 35mm camera? There might be color profiles available or as some have mentioned, they create their own

So, that leaves the 3:2 aspect ratio. Is that enough to warrant such a price premium? I'm not negating it as a valid point, it is, but it seems this is the only point that can't be addressed (other than through cropping) with 35mm format.
The great thing about this forum is that no one shoves their choices and opinions down upon anyone.
I hope you'll agree that you got several well thought answers from some pros and some hacks (me).
It seems the answer for you is 35mm not MF.

Cheers!
 

Uaiomex

Member
Which reminds me what a DPR member wrote a while ago while discussing in a similar thread:
Don't look at the pixels. Look at the whole picture.



I went over RAW files shot with Pentax 645Z and Canon 5DSr. For the life of me, I could not see a difference between them. I looked really, really hard.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
The great thing about this forum is that no one shoves their choices and opinions down upon anyone.
I hope you'll agree that you got several well thought answers from some pros and some hacks (me).
It seems the answer for you is 35mm not MF.

Cheers!
I absolutely did. This thread has been very educational. It's not and has never been my intention to shove my opinions down anyone's throat. And I think that you're right that I'm getting to the point where I'm ready to say that I don't see a compelling reason to jump into MF. As far as I can see, 99% of the image quality, at a given resolution can be achieved with 35mm. That's not a bad thing, btw.
 

Jamgolf

Member
I absolutely did. This thread has been very educational. It's not and has never been my intention to shove my opinions down anyone's throat. And I think that you're right that I'm getting to the point where I'm ready to say that I don't see a compelling reason to jump into MF. As far as I can see, 99% of the image quality, at a given resolution can be achieved with 35mm. That's not a bad thing, btw.
I did not mean to imply that you are shoving your opinions down anyone's throat. Most of the people who post here are already MF owners so obviously they made their decisions. You can't/won't convince them otherwise :)
In the end if you can not perceive more than 1% quality difference then it would be absurd to opt for MF.
The perception of most MF owners far exceeds the 1% and combined with some of the things I listed and some I failed to mention,it makes an easy choice in favor of MF. Its great to have choices.

I am not being facetious when I say this. And it is my personal opinion off-course. Modern camera phones have invalidated the need for a DSLR. Point and shoot cameras were the first victims and DSLRs are next. I think MF will push the envelope further upwards to create the quality separation. In the end we will be left with superlative MF IQ on quality end of the spectrum and the excellent camera-phones on the convenience end of the spectrum.
 
Last edited:

kdphotography

Well-known member
....
The perception of most MF owners far exceeds the 1% and combined with some of the things I listed and some I failed to mention,it makes an easy choice in favor of MF. Its great to have choices.

.....
This general statement is probably about as succinct as you can get to a "compelling reason" for medium format digital, reasons which are both objective and subjective.

Don't forget! We wanna see pictures of the boat! Pictures or it didn't happen! :ROTFL:

ken
 

stngoldberg

Well-known member
The images that I take with my H5D50 back attached to my Arca rm3di with one of my Rodie or Schneider lenses are superior in resolution to those taken with my Nikon D810 with any of my Nikon glass. The difference really becomes apparent when I print big!
That said obviously the Nikon is superior for nature/wildlife due the the great Nikon telephoto lenses.
Stanley
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
The images that I take with my H5D50 back attached to my Arca rm3di with one of my Rodie or Schneider lenses are superior in resolution to those taken with my Nikon D810 with any of my Nikon glass. The difference really becomes apparent when I print big!
That said obviously the Nikon is superior for nature/wildlife due the the great Nikon telephoto lenses.
Stanley
Put your Nikon on a a tech camera with the same Rodie or Schneider glass and then tell me if there is a difference.
 

f8orbust

Active member
Put your Nikon on a a tech camera with the same Rodie or Schneider glass and then tell me if there is a difference.
You could do that, but because of the Nikon's mirror box you'd be limited to longer lenses only ... and since there are great long lenses (in 35mm format) on the Nikon anyway, you wouldn't see much of an advantage of the S/K or R/S glass.

Where S/K and R/S glass really shines is with the W/As ... nothing comparable in 35mm terms - not even the Canon T/S lenses or anything from Zeiss IMHO.

The problem is that - again because of the mirror-box - you can't use them on a Nikon DSLR. You can use them on a tech cam with a mirrorless body (e.g. an A7R), but with limited movements and an effective increase in focal length.
 
Top