jerome_m
Member
I think we already have debated these questions to death, now is the time for some real science: why don't you shoot the same subject with your Actus and a MF camera and post the results for all to see?
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!
MFD 'the look' conundrum
- Thread starter MrSmith
- Start date
I think these comparisons have been done to death. There's loads of images shot on different cameras in the name of 'science'
Even then it wouldn't prove anything to me as I'm not into 'the look' as it doesn't mean anything to the work I do.
But my question was quite specific, would a stitched shot have the same 'look' as an MFD one on the same lens.
That's enough proof for me. I guess now the sensor is the same technology the 16/bit MFD magic is no longer there
M
mjr
Guest
I'm a little slow MrSmith, so please excuse my ignorance, I just want to make sure I have this correct.
You aren't going to shoot your stitch with your Sony because it's been done to death, you don't see any difference between MF and smaller formats yourself but your specific question is, would the shot that you're not going to take, have the MF "look" that you don't see, if you used an MF lens, is that about the sum of it?
Mat.
You aren't going to shoot your stitch with your Sony because it's been done to death, you don't see any difference between MF and smaller formats yourself but your specific question is, would the shot that you're not going to take, have the MF "look" that you don't see, if you used an MF lens, is that about the sum of it?
Mat.
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
The IQ3-100MP has actually 16 bit signal path and 15 bit DR, indepently measured. I don't think it makes a real difference, but it should be cleaner than older MFD.
I have published the images, but I need to get back home to find the links.
Best reagrds
Erik
The IQ3-100MP has actually 16 bit signal path and 15 bit DR, indepently measured. I don't think it makes a real difference, but it should be cleaner than older MFD.
I have published the images, but I need to get back home to find the links.
Best reagrds
Erik
I think these comparisons have been done to death. There's loads of images shot on different cameras in the name of 'science'
Even then it wouldn't prove anything to me as I'm not into 'the look' as it doesn't mean anything to the work I do.
But my question was quite specific, would a stitched shot have the same 'look' as an MFD one on the same lens.
That's enough proof for me. I guess now the sensor is the same technology the 16/bit MFD magic is no longer there
No. I have a MF lens, I have a sensor 24x36 that's the same technology and manufacture as MF digital backs.
I'm not going to do back to back tests as there's loads of comparisons on the web and I just don't have the time plus the outcome is not going to change my working methods as I'm very happy with the sensor/camera/lens combination I currently use.
What I'm wondering is if I double the sensor area (by stitching) will I suddenly have access to the fabled `MF look’ seeing as the sensor area and MPixels will be similar to some current MFD offerings?
stephengilbert
Active member
I thought there's no such thing as an MF look?
M
mjr
Guest
Ahh, I see, that's much clearer now. Many thanks for explaining the whole thing.
What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange, I checked and haven't seen any posts on the Sony/Nikon/Canon side from owners of M4/3 cameras or smaller formats suggesting that anyone who spends loads of money on full frame 35mm is a fool when simply stitching a smaller format would do exactly the same thing, surely a pixel is a pixel after all. I haven't seen any MFD owners on Sony/Canon/Nikon etc forums questioning why 35mm owners don't just work a bit harder so they can afford MFD or mocking anyone who has to stitch just to get similar resolution. I wonder why that is?
Mat
What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange, I checked and haven't seen any posts on the Sony/Nikon/Canon side from owners of M4/3 cameras or smaller formats suggesting that anyone who spends loads of money on full frame 35mm is a fool when simply stitching a smaller format would do exactly the same thing, surely a pixel is a pixel after all. I haven't seen any MFD owners on Sony/Canon/Nikon etc forums questioning why 35mm owners don't just work a bit harder so they can afford MFD or mocking anyone who has to stitch just to get similar resolution. I wonder why that is?
Mat
bab
Active member
Take the Sony Ar7ii sensor (35.9mm x 24.0mm) and the Hasselblad H5D sensor 36.7 x 49.1mm photograph an object 25mm high 25mm wide and 25mm deep. Your goal is to get it all in focus whether you stack (appx 26 images) the images or not...and try to fill the sensor with the object 1:1 or move back from the object or make your best effort to end up reproducing the best (highest) resolution image of the object you can achieve. Now crop away the background (drop out) and make two prints of just the object, one of each file fill the frame with just the object for a 30"x40" print. Then you decide what sensor is better suited for the job? (Imagine same test with 100MP) Imagine the same test shooting a landscape file and cropping out the unwanted part of the image. Imagine the same test with a 200MP multi shot back?
bab
bab
jerome_m
Member
I see.
Then, the answer is yes. Absolutely. It will be completely the same look. In-dis-tin-gui-sha-ble. Just take our word for it.
M
mjr
Guest
I'm sure you are making a point AreBee but I don't know what it is, I have already explained that I am a little slow, you may have to spell it out.
Mat
ondebanks
Member
He's saying that you posted a strawman argument, misrepresenting with MrSmith said - and I have to agree. MrSmith said nothing along the lines of "anyone who spends loads of money on full frame 35mm is a fool" or "questioning why 35mm owners don't just work a bit harder so they can afford MFD or mocking anyone who has to stitch". That was all you.
While I still don't fully understand why MrSmith cannot answer his own question - since I gather that he has all the components to perform the comparison himself? - he did ask a valid initial question, which deserves a respectful answer.
Editorial: Twice now in the past couple of years, I've been absent from getDPI Medium Format forum for periods of 8 - 9 months. And each time I come back, I find the level of "narkiness" has noticeably ratcheted up. It's disappointing.
That MrSmith felt compelled to say "I promise no further flaming, bashing your equipment choices or shouting at you" in the preamble to his question speaks to the suspicion and hostility that now hangs over even well-meaning contributions.
Seriously, people. If you can't be helpful here, be nice. If you can't be nice, be silent.
Ray
M
mjr
Guest
Ray,
Respectfully, what is it that you are doing by quoting just a part of my post and assuming it was directed at MrSmith? Maybe you are being helpful and showing me an example of how one would write a strawman argument by misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes?
What I wrote quite clearly "What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange" is obviously a statement on the forum as a whole, there have been many threads started around the same thing, I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels like this. As a member of this forum, I presume it's ok for me to call it as I see it even if you don't like it? I am very rarely disrespectful and do my best to be balanced or indeed I just say nothing.
Have a nice day!
Mat
Respectfully, what is it that you are doing by quoting just a part of my post and assuming it was directed at MrSmith? Maybe you are being helpful and showing me an example of how one would write a strawman argument by misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes?
What I wrote quite clearly "What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange" is obviously a statement on the forum as a whole, there have been many threads started around the same thing, I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels like this. As a member of this forum, I presume it's ok for me to call it as I see it even if you don't like it? I am very rarely disrespectful and do my best to be balanced or indeed I just say nothing.
Have a nice day!
Mat
Dogs857
New member
Mat it was getting to me as well.
Now I just take Guy's advice and ignore the idiots and my life is a lot happier.
If you are looking for me I will be in the "fun with" thread as it seems to be the only place that isn't constantly visited by people trying to prove the same point endlessly.
I would add a chart to prove my point but can't honestly be arsed.
for what it's worth, threads such as this and the "compelling reason..." thread, for the most part, bring this forum to a low level, encouraging bombast, demagoguery, and prejudice, with a tiny smattering of useful content and a great deal of really superfluous data.
and to what end? and if the original question does get answered, (several times over), the rants go on.
move on.
and to what end? and if the original question does get answered, (several times over), the rants go on.
move on.
i actually thought it was a valid question.
same lens
same sensor tech
one 35mm sized
one MFD sized
would it have the MFD qualities.
in some way it has been answered in that doubling the sensor size would turn the image into a medium format one by the nature of lens choice/sensor size and amount of MP
the troll part of my question was purely about the ‘magic’ and ‘look’ but i was upfront and honest about that. and i thought it was an interesting proposition now the plain field is more level re sensor types.
as to my own conclusions? the magic/look is mostly just a myth that dealers/manufacturers use to sell stuff and people use to post rationalise their purchasing.
but high quality optics and good sensor technology (including good software) get you high fidelity images regardless of format.
(fwiw i’m not new to all this, been chasing that tail with 10x8, all the way down to 35mm for 20 working years)
i’ll also say this forum is far better than the ‘other one’ if you want a reasonably sensible discussion.
same lens
same sensor tech
one 35mm sized
one MFD sized
would it have the MFD qualities.
in some way it has been answered in that doubling the sensor size would turn the image into a medium format one by the nature of lens choice/sensor size and amount of MP
the troll part of my question was purely about the ‘magic’ and ‘look’ but i was upfront and honest about that. and i thought it was an interesting proposition now the plain field is more level re sensor types.
as to my own conclusions? the magic/look is mostly just a myth that dealers/manufacturers use to sell stuff and people use to post rationalise their purchasing.
but high quality optics and good sensor technology (including good software) get you high fidelity images regardless of format.
(fwiw i’m not new to all this, been chasing that tail with 10x8, all the way down to 35mm for 20 working years)
i’ll also say this forum is far better than the ‘other one’ if you want a reasonably sensible discussion.
stephengilbert
Active member
i’ll also say this forum is far better than the ‘other one’ if you want a reasonably sensible discussion.
Perhaps, but the gap is narrowing.
Perhaps, but the gap is narrowing.
ondebanks
Member
But Mat, you did direct your post to MrSmith - you started that post to him by acknowledging his reply to your question - so what else were we to think?
Fair enough - you were making a general point about the forum - but how was that point related to this thread, or the person you were replying to? Like I said, nobody in this thread has behaved in the manner you were complaining about, least of all MrSmith.
Ray
M
mjr
Guest
Ray
Honestly, do you really want to keep doing this? My reply to MrSmith was the first paragraph, where I thanked him for making things clear, I then went on, in the second paragraph to voice my frustration at the general message of posts on the forum, you can tell this by the way I didn't say to MrSmith that I didn't like his posts, I didn't mention anyone specifically, I just wrote my impression of the state of things as they appear to me.
You can take it any way you like, it makes absolutely no difference to me, whether you think I was addressing him directly or not, I just don't care. Now, if you want to continue going back and forward on this then just message me, we can keep this off this otherwise fascinating thread!
Mat
Honestly, do you really want to keep doing this? My reply to MrSmith was the first paragraph, where I thanked him for making things clear, I then went on, in the second paragraph to voice my frustration at the general message of posts on the forum, you can tell this by the way I didn't say to MrSmith that I didn't like his posts, I didn't mention anyone specifically, I just wrote my impression of the state of things as they appear to me.
You can take it any way you like, it makes absolutely no difference to me, whether you think I was addressing him directly or not, I just don't care. Now, if you want to continue going back and forward on this then just message me, we can keep this off this otherwise fascinating thread!
Mat