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!

  • We are looking for a committed forum member who would like to help with administration and moderation of our forum. Good communication and writing skills would be appreciated. Please message Olaf if you are interested.

Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

Abstraction

Active member
Depends on how you look at it. You might say that we have cut through a lot of obfuscation and gotten to the core of the price/performance ratio. Everything became much clearer and simpler once we got there.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
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.
I can. Will that bed it down?
 

Jamgolf

Member
You might say that we have cut through a lot of obfuscation and gotten to the core of the price/performance ratio. Everything became much clearer and simpler once we got there.
Really glad to hear that you finally got your answer. Great success !
 

thomas

New member
You have thoroughly showed us what it can't do. I offer you a challenge. Lets see what it can do, what are it's strengths?
now, this is really a great thought and also a nice challenge :thumbs:

Personally I use quite a similar kit. P45 non plus! (and P21+) in conjunction with Contax 645 and Cambo WRS and a Sony A7R2 (and A7R). I use the Sony when I need its speed (both AF speed compared to the Contax and the much higher sensitivity compared to my prehistoric backs) and for some kind of "point and shoot" scenarios. But when the conditions are appropriate to shoot the P45 I use it without even thinking about. Whenever I directly compared the A7R/2 to the P45 the Sony images looked somehow flat and lifeless. The P45 images look deeper and more nuanced ... also show finer textures in "flat" surfaces (though I am using Zeiss glass on both the Contax and the Sony). The image aesthetics is simply different (appart from DR and/or noise and/or resolution or so ... and therefore not so obvious in 100% crops) and personally I clearly favour the good old P45. Now, I could sell my whole MF kit and buy a nice set of the very best lenses and tilt/shift adapters available for the Sony. But if at all, I'd sell the Sony kit and would live (again) with the limitations of the MF kit. Fortunately I can use both...
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I had my first day of that challenge. Weather was quite boring, but still a good learning experience. I was actually shooting with both cameras. One thing I noticed that the histogram on the Sony has lured me into very short exposures, because the bright sky.

Here are the first images from that shot, with full size jpegs and raw files: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/WeldonChallenge/

Best regards
Erik






now, this is really a great thought and also a nice challenge :thumbs:

Personally I use quite a similar kit. P45 non plus! (and P21+) in conjunction with Contax 645 and Cambo WRS and a Sony A7R2 (and A7R). I use the Sony when I need its speed (both AF speed compared to the Contax and the much higher sensitivity compared to my prehistoric backs) and for some kind of "point and shoot" scenarios. But when the conditions are appropriate to shoot the P45 I use it without even thinking about. Whenever I directly compared the A7R/2 to the P45 the Sony images looked somehow flat and lifeless. The P45 images look deeper and more nuanced ... also show finer textures in "flat" surfaces (though I am using Zeiss glass on both the Contax and the Sony). The image aesthetics is simply different (appart from DR and/or noise and/or resolution or so ... and therefore not so obvious in 100% crops) and personally I clearly favour the good old P45. Now, I could sell my whole MF kit and buy a nice set of the very best lenses and tilt/shift adapters available for the Sony. But if at all, I'd sell the Sony kit and would live (again) with the limitations of the MF kit. Fortunately I can use both...
 

jerome_m

Member
Here are the first images from that shot, with full size jpegs and raw files: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/WeldonChallenge/
This is quite surprising. On the full-sized jpegs, the A7RII jpegs appear to have a narrower dynamic range and a noticeably higher noise level. The A7RII image looks busy and over-sharpened. I would not have expected the difference to be that large, actually. OTOH, the Sony lens is impressive.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Jerome,

The lenses used on the Sony are all Canon lenses 16-35/4, 24/3.5 TS and 24-105/4L.

I agree on the Sony having higher noise and less DR. Two of the Sony images were significantly underexposed. But the second row of images has the same exposure. The exposures were based on the histograms and blinking highlights on both cameras. I have observed that the A7rII histograms are way to conservative, while the A99 I used before was quite accurate. One of my colleagues used to say: "Do it again and do it right!"

I had the same sharpening on both Sony and Hasselblad. Essentially, I agree with you observations. Nice to hear that we see the same things.

Best regards
Erik

This is quite surprising. On the full-sized jpegs, the A7RII jpegs appear to have a narrower dynamic range and a noticeably higher noise level. The A7RII image looks busy and over-sharpened. I would not have expected the difference to be that large, actually. OTOH, the Sony lens is impressive.
 
Last edited:

Shineofleo

New member
I don't think there is many situation with a compelling reason to do anything... (Well, except for life-and-death decision maybe)

First of all the resolution is not the reason, because A) 35mm system get higher and higher resolution (which actually may not be that good since the density is higher and pixel size is smaller) B) For certain use, 35mm system digital solution is enough.

Other factors, dynamic range, details are making difference between MF and 35mm. Yes there is difference, but how much? To justify the price increase?

Most of the products come to this end: expensive cost to bring tiny improvement. So the question is, do you care? If you view all the photos on iPad, the answer is no; if you client request a high quality product shot, the answer may be yes.

Personally, with a good used equipment deal, I think it is worth getting into MF. Just like driving a car: even a tiny improvement, you will feel all your previous experience is off, and you just don't want to get back...
 

thomas

New member
35mm system get higher and higher resolution (which actually may not be that good since the density is higher and pixel size is smaller)
which brings us back to the situation of film days... somehow.
When the sensors today utilze more or less the same pixel pitch (or the same resolution with a larger pixel pitch on the larger sensor) ... so when digital cameras use more or less the same "film"... then the larger formats will have the same advantages over the smaller formats they always had.

The captures Erik posted have no relevance in terms of a "comparison", IMHO.
The captures are focussed differently and have gone through interpolating post processing.
They may show what is (potentially) possible in terms of composition and/or "look", though. But this is also related to the tools used (primarly the lenses)... and the "look" is also related to the software used to process the files.
We all know the tool of choice to process Phase One files is Capture One... especially with older generation DBs.
That someone who invests hours and hours of testing tiny differences in image-details and who is more than anything else concerned about technical aspects of photography ... that this person is using a software that clearly produces more artefacts (color aliasing and halos) and that clearly extracts less details from the files totally escapes me.
But so be it...
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I don't think that interpolation is done on my images. I almost always post images at actual pixels, unless clearly stated. The P45+ and the A7rII have essentially same resolution when cropped to P45+ resolution around 39MP. So you cancompare images at actual pixels and there will be a very good match in size.

It is a bit hard to know which images you are referring to, but I generally put great effort into focusing on the Hasselblad, I always use a Zeiss 3X monocular which gives me a 9X magnification, but achieving exact focus is still a challenge. On the Sony I have 12.5X magnification on the sensor and not on a ground glass serving as a proxy for that sensor. So focusing is clearly more accurate.

It may be that LR produces more artefacts than C1, but C1 one does not eliminate them. You may check these three links:

Demosaic - Quick comparison of three raw converters and four algorithms
Demosaic - Quick comparison of three raw converters and four algorithms
Demosaic - Quick comparison of three raw converters and four algorithms

Short version is that I complain about artefacts in an image. Mark Segal makes a large print and finds that those artefacts are not visible with the naked eye but visible with a good loupe. I make an even larger print and can see the artefacts at 20-25cm with the naked eye, but I am near sighted. With progressive glasses I cannot see them. But i certainly feel that Adobe-s raw converter is in need of improvement regarding demosaic artefacts.

What I would say is that if I would make a large print I would convert the image in RawTherapee and use FocusMagic to do capture sharpening and still handle the resulting TIFFs in Lightroom that works much better than C1 one for me. C1 one has done quite a lot of progress with C9.

I don't say C1 is a bad product but it doesn't work for me. I would never ever buy a camera that forced me to use a certain tool for processing the images.

Check the images below. This was a very simple test, a flower shot. The bottom images shows the correct colours of the petals and the green leaves. How I know they are correct? I measured with a spectrometer. So, yes C1 is a great product, but it has a quite a few issues of it's own (I can post a few other bad samples). Much preferable to have a camera that delivers a good raw image that you can use with the raw converter of your choice.
Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 19.58.23.jpg

The way I see it, it is very clear that if we compare similar technology the larger format almos always wins. The present MF CMOS sensors are all made by Sony and they use similar technology. That technology is clearly coming from Sony. The signals coming out from those sensors are bits and not voltages. A larger sensor clearly gives advantages.

So, very clearly a full frame 100 MP sensor will deliver superior results to a 42 MP 24x36mm sensor. There is one exception and that is when you need to stop down for depth of field. If you shoot f/16 on the 100 MP but can do with f/8 on the 24x36 mm sensor most of the advantage of the large sensor will be lost.

On the other hand, it is not very clear that a cropped MF sensor will produce superior results to a 24x36 sensor with good lenses.

As a final note, I have some issues with folks complaining about other folks tests. Share your own stuff and be prepared to take some flak.

Best regards
Erik






which brings us back to the situation of film days... somehow.
When the sensors today utilze more or less the same pixel pitch (or the same resolution with a larger pixel pitch on the larger sensor) ... so when digital cameras use more or less the same "film"... then the larger formats will have the same advantages over the smaller formats they always had.

The captures Erik posted have no relevance in terms of a "comparison", IMHO.
The captures are focussed differently and have gone through interpolating post processing.
They may show what is (potentially) possible in terms of composition and/or "look", though. But this is also related to the tools used (primarly the lenses)... and the "look" is also related to the software used to process the files.
We all know the tool of choice to process Phase One files is Capture One... especially with older generation DBs.
That someone who invests hours and hours of testing tiny differences in image-details and who is more than anything else concerned about technical aspects of photography ... that this person is using a software that clearly produces more artefacts (color aliasing and halos) and that clearly extracts less details from the files totally escapes me.
But so be it...
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Jerome,

I have checked out the images a bit more. Let's take this pair:

P45+ stitchedSony A7r single exposure and shift

Now, let check out the raw images in RawDigger:

Here is the raw image from the P45+ (note that it is stitched), it has significant clipping in the sky:
Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 20.33.47.jpg

And here is the Sony image, it has no clipping and is exposed one step under ETTR:
Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 20.35.11.jpg

Very clearly, the histogram on the Sony made me underexpose the image. Actually, I was a bit confused by the short exposure time when shooting the image.

Best regards
Erik




This is quite surprising. On the full-sized jpegs, the A7RII jpegs appear to have a narrower dynamic range and a noticeably higher noise level. The A7RII image looks busy and over-sharpened. I would not have expected the difference to be that large, actually. OTOH, the Sony lens is impressive.
 

jerome_m

Member
Very clearly, the histogram on the Sony made me underexpose the image. Actually, I was a bit confused by the short exposure time when shooting the image.
I don't understand what is going on here. I see the clipping in raw digger, but the sky in the P45 image shows more details in the clouds than the sky in the Sony image.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I don't say C1 is a bad product but it doesn't work for me. I would never ever buy a camera that forced me to use a certain tool for processing the images.

Check the images below. This was a very simple test, a flower shot. The bottom images shows the correct colours of the petals and the green leaves. How I know they are correct? I measured with a spectrometer.
Erik

now you know that you are guilty of picking THE worst color to check with a spectrometer vs the eye.

Bluebells or the flowers you showed typically do not photograph well due to UV/IR and what you show are the classic blue vs purple/pink rendering that technically 'correct' rendering vs what the eye sees. I have hundreds of images of pink/purple bell flowers that only a specific qualitative filter/rendering presented as the correct color that I saw. I see the same thing happening with the C1 rendering vs adobe.

Lets see a more neutral comparison without full spectrum influence.
 
Top