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?

Charles Wood

New 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.
That likely wouldn't be the case had the files been captured under very low light conditions or if there was a need to pull out shadow detail. Resolution is only part of the equation along with dynamic range, S/N performance, freedom from moire, etc., in which the 645Z beats the 5DSr hands down. Needs vary. For some the Canon may be a solution while not for others.
 

Jager

Member
For me, it was seeing and appreciating something from long ago. A wet darkroom print from 8x10 film.

Looking for Infinite « E vestigio

That led to old-school medium format... Hasselblad and film and a Flextight X1 scanner. And that, finally, to a CFV-50c back.

I tend to focus far more on the pictures one makes than the tech one uses in making them. That said, the process and the technique of most medium format photography is very different from 35mm. Medium format imposes a slower, more thoughtful, more disciplined way of seeing light and shadow. That more measured pace isn't for everyone. But it greatly influences what the end result will be. That's the first difference... the kind of pictures you get are going to be different.

35mm digital is crazy good these days. I absolutely love the results I get from my Leica and Nikon systems. And no one needs to apologize for concluding that it's quite good enough for their purposes. But medium format has an ineffable quality to it, a depth, that many of us find enormously compelling. I don't know what it is. I suspect it's some combination of resolution and pixel depth and color profiles. What I do know is that the difference in detail and tonality and color is easy to see. There's a dimensionality to medium format that sometimes just makes you catch your breath.

As for price, there is a lot of overlap between high-end 35mm systems and lower-priced or used medium format gear. I paid more for one lens for my Leica than the current retail on the CFV-50c. Nothing says you have to spend 50 grand.

Or any at all.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
And that's really the rub: "I think I can". I think I can too, but I don't think I can to the tune of $50,000 or even $15,000. If the price delta is going to be that high, shouldn't we be able to obviously see the difference? The difference should be so big that there shouldn't even be any doubt or debate about it.

A lot of it, in fact, most of it has to do with money. If the price delta is small, we really don't care if we see that big a difference. We like the viewfinder, we like the way it feels, we like the work flow, all good things, and so we can afford to indulge. However, when the price delta is SO high, shouldn't the difference be a lot more than "I think I can?"
For me the difference is there and for me its worth the money.
At work I have to make many decisions based on ROI rated in Euro/Dollar.
But thats not the case for all things in life.
Sometimes it is good to have high goals and to not decide just based on value vs price. (I think) ;)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
You can't remove money from the equation. Money is very much part of the equation. As I had stated previously, if the price difference is small enough, we can afford to be "subjective" if you will, and just say: "I like the MF experience, it's got that 'je ne sais quoi" and so I'm going to pay, let's say 10% more and have that visceral enjoyment. Fair enough, but when we're talking about spending 10x as much for what could objectively amount to being a 5% difference... that's why the French stormed the Bastille



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.
If you believe money is such an important factor in your decision than it will be hard to justify anything other than buying a used lower priced DSLR from the pre-previous generation. It will deliver the best ROI and it will deliver IQ nearly as good as the latest models.
 

jagsiva

Active member
I thought so too and to me, that was THE most compelling reason to go the MF route until I saw this:

https://captureintegration.com/cambo/cambo-x-2-pro/
Not sure you understood the previous post. An SLR is not totally interchangeable with a MFDB with any of these tech/view cams. On lenses less than 40mm, there is almost no room between sensor and rear-element. So while you can attach a Nikon or Canon, you are limited to longer focal lengths. The Sony A7x fair a little better, but still have limitations.

Regardless of this, you'll find most of these solutions are hacks. The SLR was meant to be shot as an SLR, not as the equivalent of a film back on a tech cam.

Anyway, it sounds like you've got your answer, and now we are splitting hairs for the sake of finer hairs.

If you care to share the kind of work you do or samples of your work, people maybe able to help you understand how an MF system may help or not help your cause.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
For me there were several reasons to leave MF behind (Hasselblad in my case, but I do know Phase so well that there is no difference for me).

1) There is not enough IQ difference anymore for me - simply put I cannot see enough difference. Maybe it is for others, it was not for me, at least since the introduction of the D800E 4 years ago.

2) There is not the choice of lenses I want to see for MF. I know there are many great lenses around for all MF systems meanwhile, but far from what is available from Nikon. And again, for me in most cases I could not see enough of IQ difference.

3) MF is FAR more expensive as a system than an excellent FF system.

4) MF was and is and will always be too bulky for me to carry around - for landscape, architecture, people and I do not even count in wildlife, as this is by no means the native domain of MF

5) All this together made me happily step out of MF and I never looked back.

I want to have fun with photography and with MF it became too much hassle on every level. For me this was an easy decision and I do not regret.

Anyway I wish all who love, like and need MF all the best and great experience.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
If you believe money is such an important factor in your decision than it will be hard to justify anything other than buying a used lower priced DSLR from the pre-previous generation. It will deliver the best ROI and it will deliver IQ nearly as good as the latest models.
This is true unless there's something so incredibly different about the latest generation cameras that compels you to buy it new. Canon 5DSr is an example of that, so is Sony A7RII, so is Nikon 810. Those models are paving the way to the next phase of digital photography in the 35mm world. Otherwise, you are absolutely correct.
 

gavincato

New member
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.
I just cant understand that for the life of me. We compared my 645z vs a friends 5Dsr - the difference was seriously significant. We shot them side by side on a tripod both at 100 iso at f/8 and the difference was clear as day.

But if you can't see a diff, then definitely stick with the 5D - the lens range is certainly a lot broader.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
This is true unless there's something so incredibly different about the latest generation cameras that compels you to buy it new. Canon 5DSr is an example of that, so is Sony A7RII, so is Nikon 810. Those models are paving the way to the next phase of digital photography in the 35mm world. Otherwise, you are absolutely correct.
What do you mean with "next phase of digital phtography" ? Could you tell -when looking at a print- if it is was made from a 5 year old DSLR or one of those you mentioned?:loco:
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Not sure you understood the previous post. An SLR is not totally interchangeable with a MFDB with any of these tech/view cams. On lenses less than 40mm, there is almost no room between sensor and rear-element. So while you can attach a Nikon or Canon, you are limited to longer focal lengths. The Sony A7x fair a little better, but still have limitations.
As I understand it from the link, you attach Rodenstock lenses to this camera down to 28mm. There is another camera made for mirrorless, but this one in particular is for DSLRS.

Regardless of this, you'll find most of these solutions are hacks. The SLR was meant to be shot as an SLR, not as the equivalent of a film back on a tech cam.
If you think about it, all tech cameras are hacks since digital backs were originally designed for DSLRs. However, this particular camera is produced by Cambo, so as I see it, it's as good of a hack as any other Cambo. I would agree that it's probably a bit more limited than a Cambo made for digital backs, but my point is that it's so close that unless you're super specialized, there are solutions out there that will cover you 99% of the time

Anyway, it sounds like you've got your answer, and now we are splitting hairs for the sake of finer hairs.

If you care to share the kind of work you do or samples of your work, people maybe able to help you understand how an MF system may help or not help your cause.
Yeah, for the most part, I got my answer.

Here are some images of the type of work that I do:










 
But medium format has an ineffable quality to it, a depth, that many of us find enormously compelling. I don't know what it is. I suspect it's some combination of resolution and pixel depth and color profiles. What I do know is that the difference in detail and tonality and color is easy to see. There's a dimensionality to medium format that sometimes just makes you catch your breath.
I have a Leica M240 but am looking at getting into MF digital, and have roadtested both the Leica S006 and S007 (so both CCD and CMOS).
It is the depth and dimensionality you mention which, to me, is the most distinguishing part of the image quality advantage of the S over the M.
In large crops from 50x30" images on fine art baryta, the difference in depth / dimensionality is very obvious. I feel like I'm walking into the S image, and things just "pop out" at me from the S print.
If I was comparing images side by side on a computer screen, the differences might not be anywhere near as obvious.
 

MrSmith

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.
I use an A7r with Schneider digitars (via a cambo actus) the results are way better than any 35mm based lenses I have used (not tried an otus as I need movements) and have made a P45/hassleblad redundant. I'm unlikely to go back to MFD as it just doesn't make sense for me or my business.

i still think the MFD cameras including the latest phase are still flawed and way overpriced for what they can do.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
A situation of having a Nikon kit and $60k in a bank might be a better situation than P1 kit and 0k in a bank if the Nikon kit produces the same quality images as the P1, thus allowing me to produce beautiful work and having $60k in a bank with which to do other things. The P1 and 0k in a bank scenario would drain the extra $60k without buying me anything more.
Trust me, there are folks on this forum who might well not even notice an extra $60k in the bank if it were there. (And I dare say also on any boards, including Leica, Canon, Nikon, M4/3rd etc). It's not the important consideration when it comes to enjoying life. :facesmack:

It doesn't matter how much money one has or whether it's a big monetary hit for that particular person or not. There are always other things to spend money on. If you're telling me that the reason you or other folks on this forum got their MF cameras because "you can", that would certainly be the type of an answer that would put this entire discussion to rest.

All right, I'll bite. I shoot medium format because I can. And I want to. And I get pleasure from it.

On the flip side I live in a modest home with no desire to keep up with the neighbors. I don't have a boat. I don't have an ex-trophy wife and alimony and child support either.

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.
3:2 ratio isn't a pleasurable format for me to shoot with. If I don't enjoy using a system due to the image proportions, or usability, or just simply getting on with it, then I choose to use my moments on the planet to decide not to. It's called choice.
 
Last edited:

satybhat

Member
As I understand it from the link, you attach Rodenstock lenses to this camera down to 28mm. There is another camera made for mirrorless, but this one in particular is for DSLRS.



If you think about it, all tech cameras are hacks since digital backs were originally designed for DSLRs. However, this particular camera is produced by Cambo, so as I see it, it's as good of a hack as any other Cambo. I would agree that it's probably a bit more limited than a Cambo made for digital backs, but my point is that it's so close that unless you're super specialized, there are solutions out there that will cover you 99% of the time



Yeah, for the most part, I got my answer.

Here are some images of the type of work that I do:
I'm not sure I am entitled to an opinion about anyone else's photographs, but looking at these, I wonder whether one couldn't manage to make these images using ONLY photoshop. ie, no camera at all. This isn't a criticism, this is just a suggestion. Looking at these, I think you might want to stick to point-and-shoots, if at all. Why bother with even 35mm?
Understand that I am in no way trying to demoralise your artwork, but honestly, if these indeed are your flagship artworks, then you have bigger fish to fry than debating MF vs 35mm. Again, no criticism intended, simply trying to widen your perspective about your art (since you asked).
Really, I don't see any place for MF digital as a tool for you to improvise (if they need improvising in your opinion, that is). You will notice that the tech cam thread puts up photos that are far far different to what you have uploaded. Sure there are some with ICM (intentional camera movements) but not many.

Cheers man !
 

Harry

Member
I think I have read every post on this and no one has stated the most obvious factor in MF ... Sensor size. Just as 8 x 10 was the benchmark in film, there is no way for a full frame DSLR to beat 40mm x 52 mm sensor. Please CCD vs CMOS arguments need not reply.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Trust me, there are folks on this forum who might well not even notice an extra $60k in the bank if it were there. (And I dare so also on any boards, including Leica, Canon, Nikon, M4/3rd etc). It's not the important consideration when it comes to enjoying life. :facesmack:


All right, I'll bite. I shoot medium format because I can. And I want to. And I get pleasure from it.
That's fine and that's the reason I said that if you, or anyone says: "I shoot MF because I can", that puts the entire discussion to bed. That says to me that you do it for no practical reason, but for reasons that have to do with the feel, the zen, the this, the that, all kinds of reasons except practical ones. In that case, there's nothing to discuss, everything becomes pretty clear.

On the flip side I live in a modest home with no desire to keep up with the neighbors. I don't have a boat. I don't have an ex-trophy wife and alimony and child support either.
I have a feeling a lot of folks out here have had their trophy wives stuffed and their trophy heads are now hanging in the cabin, in the woods somewhere. :ROTFL:


3:2 ratio isn't a pleasurable format for me to shoot with. If I don't enjoy using a system due to the image proportions, or usability, or just simply getting on with it, then I choose to use my moments on the planet to decide not to. It's called choice.
I'm not too keen on 3:2 ratio either, but I can live with it.

I'm not sure I am entitled to an opinion about anyone else's photographs, but looking at these, I wonder whether one couldn't manage to make these images using ONLY photoshop. ie, no camera at all. This isn't a criticism, this is just a suggestion. Looking at these, I think you might want to stick to point-and-shoots, if at all. Why bother with even 35mm?
Understand that I am in no way trying to demoralise your artwork, but honestly, if these indeed are your flagship artworks, then you have bigger fish to fry than debating MF vs 35mm. Again, no criticism intended, simply trying to widen your perspective about your art (since you asked).
Really, I don't see any place for MF digital as a tool for you to improvise (if they need improvising in your opinion, that is). You will notice that the tech cam thread puts up photos that are far far different to what you have uploaded. Sure there are some with ICM (intentional camera movements) but not many.

Cheers man !
Funny enough, I'm not very good with Photoshop. One of the things that I really admire about a lot of folks on these forums is their ability to use photoshop to make their photographs sing. I was following an old thread where Jack Flesher was testing iq180 and he took, what I thought was a lack luster photograph and then he massaged it and voila! That image just came alive. The guy is obviously a PS magician. One of the things that makes him a magician is that you wouldn't say that he did a lot of PS work looking at his photographs. He makes them look natural and beautiful.

Conversely, my photographs are straight out of camera. If there is a way to do them in Photoshop, I wouldn't know how. The most that I do to them is clean the spots and sometimes adjust the contrast curves.

The thing that drew me to digital format is the ability to mount the backs on tech cams and have the proper movements. Besides, since my work is mostly about color, I was hoping that MF allowed for greater color tonality. Alas, from what I have seen, I'm not sure that's the case.
 
Top