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!
Nikon D3 with Hassy 110 f/2 FE
- Thread starter David K
- Start date
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
Please forgive me if this is a completely stupid question, but I have always wondered this: Why put a Medium Format (MF) lens on a 35mm Small Format (SF) camera in the first place ?
Isn't it so that MF sensors typically have less pixel density than SF sensors and thus the MF format lenses need less, and typically have less, resolving power, measured in linepairs per mm, than the 35mm SF optics ?
What am I missing ?
As a side note I have for some time thought that with 24 Mp SF 35mm cameras we will soon have reached the limit for the 35mm lenses' resolving power and therefore the next logical step forward will be larger sensor formats as soon as costs allow such sensor formats for mass consumption, exactly because it is easier and in principle cheaper to manufacture lenses for the pixel density on MF sensors. But in my opinion we are still not there with regards to sensor development, neither pricewise nor qualitywise.
Isn't it so that MF sensors typically have less pixel density than SF sensors and thus the MF format lenses need less, and typically have less, resolving power, measured in linepairs per mm, than the 35mm SF optics ?
What am I missing ?
As a side note I have for some time thought that with 24 Mp SF 35mm cameras we will soon have reached the limit for the 35mm lenses' resolving power and therefore the next logical step forward will be larger sensor formats as soon as costs allow such sensor formats for mass consumption, exactly because it is easier and in principle cheaper to manufacture lenses for the pixel density on MF sensors. But in my opinion we are still not there with regards to sensor development, neither pricewise nor qualitywise.
I'm really not the best equipped to answer your question, but it's certainly not a stupid one. This particular lens is one of my all time favorites and I am far from alone in regarding it highly. The shallow DOF wide open can be challenging but the bokeh is second to none and it's just got something special... some call it mojo. The posted image doesn't do the lens justice. For what it's worth, this model is very experienced and has an extensive portfolio. I shot her with a variety of lenses and with my Sinar Hy6 too. The only image she picked out to add to her port was shot with this lens (not this particular shot, but similar).
jonoslack
Active member
Steen
I had been wondering this same question - like you, I'd always understood that lpm resolving power increased as lenses became smaller (which is why the tiny lenses for camera phones and compacts are feasible).
On the other hand, a great lens is a great lens, and this does have a lovely bokeh.
With respect to resolving power and sensor size, it's an interesting discussion. It seems to me that Canon have nearly hit the buffers with the 1DS MkIII, and I'll be really interested to see how Nikon come off with their 24mp full frame sensor. My instinct is that their wide-mid lenses are actually better than Canon equivalents, and that this might just be the sweet spot for resolution on 35mm. If that is the case, then I don't think I need to go to a larger sensor - it'll do a good A1 sized print, and my feeling is that is really enough (if you want it bigger then you need to stand back a bit!) - of course, that's only me, and it's only a guess.
I had been wondering this same question - like you, I'd always understood that lpm resolving power increased as lenses became smaller (which is why the tiny lenses for camera phones and compacts are feasible).
On the other hand, a great lens is a great lens, and this does have a lovely bokeh.
With respect to resolving power and sensor size, it's an interesting discussion. It seems to me that Canon have nearly hit the buffers with the 1DS MkIII, and I'll be really interested to see how Nikon come off with their 24mp full frame sensor. My instinct is that their wide-mid lenses are actually better than Canon equivalents, and that this might just be the sweet spot for resolution on 35mm. If that is the case, then I don't think I need to go to a larger sensor - it'll do a good A1 sized print, and my feeling is that is really enough (if you want it bigger then you need to stand back a bit!) - of course, that's only me, and it's only a guess.
The theory was that MF lenses, in the days of film, didn't HAVE to resolve as fine as the larger film strata was better populated with 'randomly' deposited silver halide crystals of varying sizes vs. the much smaller 35mm negative.
The greater number of random (well pseudo-random) varied-sized light-gathering crystals in the emulsion of the MF slide captured better small detail, DR, etc, etc. The MF negatives also didn't have to be magnified as much during printing, etc.
As for the digi world, think of a MFDB back with pixel size of X. Then think of a FF DSLR with pixel size also being X (say roughly 7um to pick a number). Put a 110/2 on the MFDB and then on the DSLR in question. Take the same shot.
Other than the lack of AA filter (putting aside sensor firmware, CCD vs CMOS, etc which would vary by MFDB as well); what will be the IQ difference? Nada. If anything the edge performance of the DSLR (AA filter aside) frame will benefit as you'll be capturing the center 20mm of the 110/2's MTF. No different than a fine 35mm lens on an APS-C vs. FF body with similar sized 'pixels', etc.
I also find the larger MF lens barrels handle well on a 1 series body - nice fat focusing grips, etc.
A fine MF lens is the same as a fine 35mm lens - some MF lenses like the 110/2 (which I also use on a 1Ds2) are just stellar, some suck wind. As I've seen mentioned to some thicker folks on more fanboy-centric forums when the same topic comes up: "resolution is not a finite commodity that diminishes when put thru a larger 'pipe' ".
Put aside all the preceding jabber plus the usual mathematical debate re: lp/mm of the various formats - when you stick a nice MF lens on a nice FF body, the results speak for themselves.
The greater number of random (well pseudo-random) varied-sized light-gathering crystals in the emulsion of the MF slide captured better small detail, DR, etc, etc. The MF negatives also didn't have to be magnified as much during printing, etc.
As for the digi world, think of a MFDB back with pixel size of X. Then think of a FF DSLR with pixel size also being X (say roughly 7um to pick a number). Put a 110/2 on the MFDB and then on the DSLR in question. Take the same shot.
Other than the lack of AA filter (putting aside sensor firmware, CCD vs CMOS, etc which would vary by MFDB as well); what will be the IQ difference? Nada. If anything the edge performance of the DSLR (AA filter aside) frame will benefit as you'll be capturing the center 20mm of the 110/2's MTF. No different than a fine 35mm lens on an APS-C vs. FF body with similar sized 'pixels', etc.
I also find the larger MF lens barrels handle well on a 1 series body - nice fat focusing grips, etc.
A fine MF lens is the same as a fine 35mm lens - some MF lenses like the 110/2 (which I also use on a 1Ds2) are just stellar, some suck wind. As I've seen mentioned to some thicker folks on more fanboy-centric forums when the same topic comes up: "resolution is not a finite commodity that diminishes when put thru a larger 'pipe' ".
Put aside all the preceding jabber plus the usual mathematical debate re: lp/mm of the various formats - when you stick a nice MF lens on a nice FF body, the results speak for themselves.
Last edited:
Nice shots BTW - really like the B&W
Bondo/Jonathan - agree with you re: cameras like the 1Ds3 and D3x bumping into the workable ceiling of the 24x36mm sensor format. I think some dentists with D3s are going to be bitching big time when they start trying to shoot the D3X (which you KNOW they'll rush to buy) at asinine ISOs.
As an aside - local camera store (that has to order in anything higher-end than a D300) sold a D3 to a local Dr. His ONLY criteria - he wanted an expensive camera that he could hook up to his uber-sized HD Plasma.
Bondo/Jonathan - agree with you re: cameras like the 1Ds3 and D3x bumping into the workable ceiling of the 24x36mm sensor format. I think some dentists with D3s are going to be bitching big time when they start trying to shoot the D3X (which you KNOW they'll rush to buy) at asinine ISOs.
As an aside - local camera store (that has to order in anything higher-end than a D300) sold a D3 to a local Dr. His ONLY criteria - he wanted an expensive camera that he could hook up to his uber-sized HD Plasma.
Last edited:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Makes me want to get a Mamiya to Nikon adapter.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Just did and bought one 68 dollars total from Hong Kong . Now i need to get the 300 mamiya even more.LOL
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Crap just bought the 300mm . Kipper i am going to strangle you.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
Here's the same shot with some grain added... from a tutorial I got somewhere on the web. Do you think it's an improvement??? Left one is with grain, right is just a repost so you can see them together.
That's funny... I was uploading this as you asked your question. Did not add grain to the color image.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Hell they eat lunch here. LOL
No way you can blame this one on me
Seriously though, I have heard that the Mamiya 300 is SPECTACULAR and a veritable bargain compared to what they cost when they first came out. Great price on the adapter, mine was almost $300.David
Edit - just realized I had the shots backwards ("..Jeeves - more coffee damnit...!). Sorry about that. The higher contrast GRAINLESS shot comes across a little more 3D-like. Your eyes are drawn more quickly to her face.
That said, the addition of the grain does tend to nicely blur the OOF highlights behind her. Maybe split the difference - or up the contrast a bit in the 'grained' shot.
Edit - just realized I had the shots backwards ("..Jeeves - more coffee damnit...!). Sorry about that. The higher contrast GRAINLESS shot comes across a little more 3D-like. Your eyes are drawn more quickly to her face.
That said, the addition of the grain does tend to nicely blur the OOF highlights behind her. Maybe split the difference - or up the contrast a bit in the 'grained' shot.
Last edited:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Gotta blame someone. Seriously been looking at that 300 for awhile now so now I can sell the 200 which is really good and cheap . I'm pretty much all set with Mamiya right now just waiting for the new 150 2.8 D lens and than I will be all set. Nikon i am just going to wait and see what to do there, looking at this D3 though is killing me. Does produce a nice file
The model liked the Nikon shots better than the ones from the MF back, but she's looking at things from the perspective of what she needs/wants to add to her portfolio. There were other factors favoring the Nikon during this shoot. Several folks shooting the model at the same time makes working off a tripod with a WLF a bit tougher. Easier to move in and grab a few shots with the DSLR. With the benefit of hindsight I would have done better with my back on the Contax 645 with prism finder. I was just jumping in and grabbing shots during my friend's lighting class while the students were taking notes.
Thanks for the input... I will give that a try. For anyone who's interested, here's the link to the grain tutorial (and a grain file to download and use as a layer in PS). I think this was posted before by another forum member but can't remember who it was.
http://tinyurl.com/8jdvw