Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 120

Thread: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    A disclaimer. This post may sound like a brain dump so I apologise in advance.

    I have been reading with 'some' interest all the discussion about the D800 v IQ180 v blah blah blah and have become really quite disheartened. I feel that many of us have been turned into sensor monkeys and have forgotten what is photographically important, in my opinion anyway. Mass production camera companies want us to be sensor monkeys, so that we continue to upgrade and pay for the next best thing. That's one reason why Dx0 exists, it keeps the marketing about sensors rolling, and creates insecurity in the customer to get the next best thing.

    In the film days people spent a lot of time arguing about which film was better, but the argument was more balanced then because people argued about lenses, viewfinders or cameras as well. The majority of debate today revolves around the sensor. It seems like that to me anyway.

    Back in the day you could buy Kodak Portra 160 for 35mm or 645. So you could put the same film in a 35mm and 645 camera. Effectively the same 'sensor' in both cameras. Film 35mm was more portable; lighter; faster; smaller; you got 35/36 images per roll instead of 16 or less; it was cheaper to process; and the quality up to a certain print size was the same. All logic pointed to 35mm.

    You could take a 35mm camera / Kodak Portra 160 / 50mm lens and put it 'in the ring against' a 645 camera / Kodak Portra 160 / 80mm lens. If you did a print at 8" x 10" and looked really closely at the results, they would be really similar. In fact looking closely no one would be able to tell the difference. But thats because our eyes are 6 inches from the print. We've forgotten about standing back and comparing the photographic differences between the images. Keeping our eyes pressed up to the print keeps the debate on the sensor and the rest of the elements don't get a look in.

    So if it was just about the quality of film, medium format would have died years ago. We have effectively been able to put the same sensor in both 35mm and 645 for years.

    So why did medium format keep being used back then? What were the differences that mattered photographically?

    I think these are the questions that the MF digital companies need to focus on. I think that they have got drawn into the sensor argument too much and forgotten about the underlying rationale for medium format from a photographers perspective. Wrestle the debate back to what, in my opinion is important. To do that I think they need to differentiate themselves more. Get back to what made MF sing. However this requires them to go out on a limb.

    To do that I offer my suggestions for a great medium format future:

    Standardise on 60MP / 80MP.
    The MF companies will eventually lose if the focus is entirely on sensor and megapixels. Sensors are controlled by the people with the biggest R&D depts. This will never be the MF guys. Keep R&D costs down by standardising.

    Make the sensor BIGGER. 6x7 would be ideal.
    The 40MP sensor size is just too close to 35mm and the 60MP / 80MP not big enough! Pull away from 35mm in physical size NOT megapixels. I would actually be comfortable if 35mm had more megapixels, as long as the sensor in my MF camera was much bigger. So much of the MF look depends on physical size, so much.

    Allow the photographer to choose a format.
    From this big sensor allow the photographer to choose a format and adjust the viewfinder automatically. Allow me to choose 6x6, 3x4, 4x5, 6x7 on the camera and when I look through the viewfinder it is automatically masked off. MF companies should take much more marketing advantage from this. I dislike the 35mm format and it is a reason I use MF. So make it even more of an advantage to me by allowing me to use all the formats I love.

    Waist level viewfinder.
    Bring back the god damn waist level viewfinder (removing this was a crazy idea, a classic example of making a medium format camera behave like a 35mm one). Stop doing this! Maybe even enhance it with auto exposure & focus. The waist level finder allows for a different perspective; the photographer / subject dynamic changes considerably and it allows for a more compact setup for hand held use. A photographer with a MF camera held to their eye is considerably more threatening than one looking down at a waist level finder. Plus the company makes money on the sales of waist level finders!

    Its all about the lens.
    Make us drool about lenses again. Its not just about sharpness. In fact in my portrait work, I take sharpness out! Concentrate on how the lens draws. Leica has been doing this for years and look at how their lenses sell. I would be happy to own 2 x 110mm lenses. One called the 110mm P (for portrait) and another 110mm L (for landscape). Glass is just so important to the overall photographic look of an image. It is no coincidence that the Hassy 110mm f/2 FE still commands such high prices. Maybe license some designs. Imagine the Zeiss 38mm Biogon or Mamiya 7 43mm lens design on a Phase DF. I'd buy them in a heart beat.

    Shutter.
    I use the 645DF and the shutter is just so loud! You can hear it go off at 100 paces. It must be easy enough to quieten down.

    Portrait to Landscape.
    Allow the sensor to be rotated in relation to the body. Its a really useful feature when doing portrait work. Really useful.

    We don't need Live View
    We need "Focus View". I've thought about this a lot. So hear me out. I use the viewfinder for composition, so I don't need the actual image on the digital back too. Thats just doubling up. I do need to know about focus, with the option of histogram too. So I would like a 'Live Focus Mask'. Plus I don't want it on the back. I want the green focus mask subtly superimposed in the viewfinder, with a button to turn it on and off again. I'm not sure it is possible, but it would be an amazing feature.

    Image Previews
    If I had a black screen with the areas of focus masked off in green with a small histogram as an alternative to a full image preview, I would use it much more often. Plus it would probably save on battery life.

    Keep it simple
    Modern day 35mm cameras are swiss army knives to me. They have too many options, too many features and its possible to take too many pictures. So a swiss army knife merged with a machine gun. For me the beauty of MF is the lack of options and the concentration on simplicity. I can't use a 35mm camera for this reason. My thought process is sped up and I stop thinking about the end product. But thats just me. However the important point is stay focussed on simplicity. It works well.

    Ok my essay is over. Sorry for the length.

    If you have reached the end of this, congratulations! My question to you is what other MF features are needed to bring back the differentiation between the formats that made MF so popular in the film days? What would you add? What do you disagree with?

    But please please please, no Dx0 orientated pixel peeping nonsense.
    Likes 40 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Hitting the "Like" button isn't enough.

    LOVE that post.
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member yaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    38

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Some really good and very valid points there. Obviously not everything is possible due to technology/ resources limitations and also there will always be different needs for different applications...MF film had 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 612 and 617, requiring different lens and body designs, which it not easy to implement if you'd like to keep things simple.

    But we're certainly looking into and working on making MF more MF without sacrificing some basic photographic features

    One note about the DF's shutter; It is actually fairly quiet. If you ever had a chance to hear the Hartblei H-Cam firing it is almost silent (it uses the Mamiya shutter). The noise is coming from the mirror mechanism...

    I hope this thread doesn't turn into yet another "D800 is all you'll ever need: debate...

    Keep'em coming!

    yair
    Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One | Mamiya Leaf
    e: [email protected] | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | yaya's blog

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Sorry. For clarity I am not talking about the 645DF shutter. I am indeed talking about the mirror mechanism. The shutter is quiet, its just what happens afterwards!

    In terms of format, I don't think it would be possible to cover all bases. That would lead to compromise. Lets say a 7x7 viewfinder was created. This would cater for all the following formats: 6x6, 6x7, 6x4.5 and 3x4. How nice would that be. Doing a magazine cover, set it to 6x7. A portrait, set it to 6x6. It only needs an outline defining the active area in the viewfinder.

    To be honest anyone that says the D800 is all you'll ever need will immediately be discounted, in my mind. It really is a crazy thing to say.

    I'm hoping that the thread becomes a discussion about what it was that differentiated MF from 35mm and what photographers need from the format in the future.

  5. #5
    Member Aryan Aqajani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    You could not have said it better!

    All those reason plus much more different look that I get from my RZ67 with film make me shoot with it more and more each day and leave 645 AFD III with DM22 back in the bag!

    That being said, I love my MFD 645 system and can't think of replacing it with D800 or any other DSLR although it lack some important features for my type of work (max ISO 400 and 30s exposure)! Image quality apart, it is a inspiring system as well, making me feel good however, it never feels the way RZ67 inspires me!
    Aryan Aqajani - Photographer in Melbourne, Australia
    Website | Blog | Facebook | Flickr | Vimeo

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    All very true. Very refreshing read. Two remarks:

    1) I wouldn't turn my back on the 40MP market just yet. 40MP is more than enough to please the majority of the market. A lot of people would be happy enough with 22Mp or 30MP backs provided they are modern design with decent high ISO capabilities at least up till 1600.
    2) I want the flexibility to shoot film as well which is why I own a Hasselblad H4X and a Rollei Hy6. Why are MF companies throwing away that flexibility?

    Joris.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Great post I agree on the 40 mpx back. To me it's a sweet spot in the backs and yes the crop sensor does have some advantages for both tech cams and for the DSLR style body with some lenses. Okay I'm parcel to it since I have one. Besides this one is easy to make since it usually is a cut down version of the 60 backs. It also makes it a great entry point for a lot of people. Just some thoughts.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Yes, the "Like" button isn't enough! (Besides, mine does't work anymore (???).

    I've already repeatedly stated that MF needs to be more MF like, not more 35mm like ... which is a fool's errand in my opinion, and a task MF will surly fail at. If the MF companies did not see the day of super high meg 35mm DSLRs then they had to have their heads buried in the sand.

    I think in past it was important to incorporate some technologies to make MFD portable and more diverse than just being tethered to a computer, but much of that has been accomplished.

    One feature not mentioned above is CS lenses. If you look at all the classic MF systems, like the Hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ, Rollei ... they all are leaf shutter systems. In the case of the Hasselblad 200 series you had a choice of either CS or faster aperture FP Zeiss lenses ... why they walked away from that diversity still puzzles me. Phase One has made a valiant attempt to provide LS lenses, but on Get Dpi, the use of high speed sync escapes many users being a bit more of a Landscape oriented forum. The Leica S2 finally has their CS lenses, and it was worth the wait because they sync to 1/1000 instead of the original 1/500 when first announced. I think the dual shutter option should be mandatory for any future MFD system, and CS lenses are a key differentiator from 35mm systems, and always has been.

    Interchangeable finders are important for MFD users, and a key failing of the Phase One camera IMO. While my H4D/60 has a WLF, it is a chimney type as opposed to the classic pop-up kind you look down into ... a real WLF would make the H camera much more compact and lighter weight. It would also need a more powerful pop-up magnifier for critical focus situations. How hard could this be to engineer and make? ... the technology is 100 years old for crying out loud!

    Sensor size: correct me if I'm wrong (as if I had to ask ) ... 645 MFD systems have lens systems that will cover a 6X6 sensor .... the rotating Leaf backs prove this I believe, so did the 645 masked film backs We change cameras and backs as technology advances, but the lenses stay. So I say standardize on a 6X6, 100 or so meg sensors and let each different maker alter the response beyond the base sensor, like how Hasselblad and Phase used the same sensor for their 39 meg backs, but added their own secret sauce to differentiate themselves. Selection of what orientation should be just a matter of selecting it from a menu ... like the ancient Kodak ProBack allowed ... Square, or 645 portrait or Landscape. It worked.

    IMO, every MFD maker should offer a T/S bellows system like the one the Contax 645 had/has ...DOF is an issue for MF close work, and the bellows with excellent enlarger optics helps a lot.

    There is more, but that's enough for now ...

    -Marc

    (Side note to Yair, there are some of us that believe the D800 is all you'll never need
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    I think a key feature, at least for me, is the integration with PP software. One of the reasons I went with phase was C1. I would like to see more/better integration with the software as well as standardization on file formats (input/WIP/output), and workflow.

  10. #10
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Good post. Sensor size is the key issue for me. A 6 x 7 sensor with a 6 x 6 crop option for Hasselblad and Rollei is probably as close to the target as it's possible to get (although I would prefer a 6 x 8 for my own needs). Oh, and yes... keep it simple. RAW only, ISO and WB. I don't need more. LCD can be tiny, just to check exposure, but option for a plug-in screen would be nice, or tethering with an iPad or similar.

    I'm not sure if one who makes a sensor like that will become rich, but there will be a cult following for sure

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Collaboration on the sensor is just such a good idea. Imagine if Leica, Pentax, Phase and Hasselblad execs objectively sat in an office with Dalsa and came up with a baseline sensor based on a 6x7 (or 6x6 if lenses restricted this due to image circle).

    Surely they would cut their sensor expenses overnight.

    They would still maintain competition because its how the sensor is used that makes all the difference.

    I do not want a medium format camera that tries to compete with 35mm. I want medium format cameras to be about big sensors, great lenses and a simple workflow. They should not try to compete on ISO or video. They should compete on the fluidity of the image. That is something that 35mm just cannot compete with because it relies on a big sensor in combination with a wonderful lens.

    Take for example Richard Avedon. He shot on 4x5 and 8x10 for many reasons, but the main one (in my opinion) is that the bigger capture area allowed for just such a striking end result. An end result that could not be achieved with smaller formats. Look at his American Midwest series, I believe shot on 8x10. If you stand in front of one of his photographs, it hits you right between the eyes. Yes the detail (or resolution) is very impressive, but it was the fluidity of the sheet film in combination with lens (and him of course) that truly has me standing there for hours just looking. I appreciate that a 4x5 sensor is prohibitive at this stage. The point is that the bigger the sensor, the closer you get to that fluid quality.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Can't agree more. This is not a pitch for the system, but rather a confirmation of the OP: many of those are the reasons the Hy6 is such a satisfying platform. Interchangeable viewfinders, WLF, leaf shutter lenses (with MLU right on the handle, usable in the field. The lack of vibration is key). Leaf backs have rotating sensors. Focus confirmation works, so you don't have to look at the back to check. Older manual (=cheaper) lenses are very usable. The only thing missing from the OP is the larger sensor size.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    691
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Good post! It's good that small cameras have reached the practical limit of usage. It is proven that the playing field is pretty much level (actually the M8 proved it years ago already). We can all print at 60x40 and be satisfied.

    Quote Originally Posted by 6x6 View Post
    Its all about the lens.
    This paragraph says it all really. Let's get onto the subject of lenses. There's bugger all information around in general let alone in MF. For example it took me over 1 year to appreciate the nuances of a Leica 50 lux pre-asph. Little surprises popped out from time to time, so many attributes in so many different situations and that is just one version of on make of a standard 50mm lens.

    I have a few images online taken with pretty famous, iconic lenses. Actually those lenses are not particular exciting specs, but they both have their own magic. The first that comes to mind is the Agfa Isolette with the 3.5 solinar and the other that really pops is a standard 80mm lens on a Mamiya 7II. (If you know these lenses they'll both invoke some kind of emotional response). There are tons of example images around taken with those cameras and lenses. But if you're interested in a Schneider 180mm or the Rodie HR-W 90 there is little if any information out there at all.

    We're doing ourselves a disservice by not documenting all of this as we go. There is so much more to photography that we're not discussing. There's definitely far more not being said than being said.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by wentbackward View Post
    We're doing ourselves a disservice by not documenting all of this as we go. There is so much more to photography that we're not discussing. There's definitely far more not being said than being said.
    This is key. It really is. If I was an executive at Phase One and I looked at internet forums full of customers talking about Dx0 and sensor resolution - I would damn well make sure my sensors had the highest resolution and achieved top marks in the Dx0 scores. In effect we are the creators of current medium format cameras.

    If internet forums were full of people talking about lenses, waist level finders, larger sized sensors and the like - the fictitious Phase executives would listen and these cameras would change.

  15. #15
    Member Aryan Aqajani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by 6x6 View Post
    Collaboration on the sensor is just such a good idea. Imagine if Leica, Pentax, Phase and Hasselblad execs objectively sat in an office with Dalsa and came up with a baseline sensor based on a 6x7 (or 6x6 if lenses restricted this due to image circle).

    Surely they would cut their sensor expenses overnight.

    They would still maintain competition because its how the sensor is used that makes all the difference.

    I do not want a medium format camera that tries to compete with 35mm. I want medium format cameras to be about big sensors, great lenses and a simple workflow. They should not try to compete on ISO or video. They should compete on the fluidity of the image. That is something that 35mm just cannot compete with because it relies on a big sensor in combination with a wonderful lens.

    Take for example Richard Avedon. He shot on 4x5 and 8x10 for many reasons, but the main one (in my opinion) is that the bigger capture area allowed for just such a striking end result. An end result that could not be achieved with smaller formats. Look at his American Midwest series, I believe shot on 8x10. If you stand in front of one of his photographs, it hits you right between the eyes. Yes the detail (or resolution) is very impressive, but it was the fluidity of the sheet film in combination with lens (and him of course) that truly has me standing there for hours just looking. I appreciate that a 4x5 sensor is prohibitive at this stage. The point is that the bigger the sensor, the closer you get to that fluid quality.
    I would be really surprised if such meeting take place! If some of us are really into creating that special feeling, fluid, look or whatever you call it, this is not the end of the world yet as we can still shoot 120 film, process and scan with reasonable price! Until the day such meeting really happens and they introduce 6x7 sensors under even $20000, let's shoot more film and save it from dying

    (Thanks to Kodak for putting more effort into film and not abandoning it! Thanks to Fuji for still making film cameras like GF670 and GF670W in 2011-2012!)
    Aryan Aqajani - Photographer in Melbourne, Australia
    Website | Blog | Facebook | Flickr | Vimeo
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    from what i have seen, the last stand for the MFDB is the tech camera, for the same reasons that 4x5 view camera was preferred over 6x6. Aside from the greater real estate you get from 6x6 (and SQUARE), what your list is is mostly for an SLR (welcome to Mirror Slap), and the V-blad boys have been crying for a 6x6 DB for that series for years. I would have stayed with the 205 if the CV39 back had not gone rectangular, otherwise that system had everything short of being a tech camera
    I thought Avedon shot with a Rolleifex; now that would be a cool digital platform

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...



    He may well have also shot with a Rolleiflex. Nice camera. Very nice.

    I think MFDB is fighting a losing battle if it moves in its current direction. This is because it is unconsciously aligning itself too closely to 35mm digital. Leica for example is doing great because it is transforming itself into a "Giffin good" company. People want to buy because it is so expensive. So it is becoming more isolated from this comparison.

    My list of requests really only applies to medium format. Waist level finders, big sensors etc can only be achieved by the MF companies.

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Problem with larger sensors is that it requires a complete system redesign does it not?
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  19. #19
    ssanacore
    Guest

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Although I still do not own a MF system. I probably shot with more MF and 4x5 film systems in career than most of you and loved it. I'm dying to buy an IQ180 but can't find a camera that I like to put it on.

    I can't tell you how much I miss the waist level viewfinder - it was always my first choice other than with the 645 cameras, where it just didn't work. A new high quality 6x6 body with rotating 645 back would do the trick nicely - like a miniature fuji 680?

    When I rent or test the latest MF DSLRs, my biggest disappointment is with the camera systems. Because I need extreme wide angle lenses to normal lenses the most, i am limited to the Phase and Hasselblad 645 systems for anything where I can't use a tech camera. I guess what I'm saying is, to me the biggest issue with the current MF systems is the very limited choice of camera. I think the amazing versatility and handling of the Hasselbad V or the fantastic Fuji 680 are sorely missed. Phase and Hasse may blame 35mm high MP bodies for their business problems, but maybe it's also the fact that they don't offer camera designs that many of use really want to shoot with. The tech camera's are fantastic and I love them - but I can't justify MF with only that solution.

    JMHO
    Steve

  20. #20
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Problem with larger sensors is that it requires a complete system redesign does it not?
    Also lenses as the image circles on a lot of lenses will fall short with movements on a tech cam. So you could be limiting your back to the DSLR style only. Although some have movements.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  21. #21
    ssanacore
    Guest

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by 6x6 View Post
    This is key. It really is. If I was an executive at Phase One and I looked at internet forums full of customers talking about Dx0 and sensor resolution - I would damn well make sure my sensors had the highest resolution and achieved top marks in the Dx0 scores. In effect we are the creators of current medium format cameras.

    If internet forums were full of people talking about lenses, waist level finders, larger sized sensors and the like - the fictitious Phase executives would listen and these cameras would change.
    Let's hope so. I also never understood why Leica, Hasse and Phase thought auto focus was so important? That may be their biggest mistake in their planning. Leica killing the R line was a real mistake in my book.

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    I believe it belongs to the "blessings" of digital technology that it always needs to be more than what it currently is. Get used to it. It doesnt matter which format you use - the only difference is that MF is slower in recycle time. You may not change your MFDB as often as a DSLR, but you will continue to change, because not your need determines your need, it is the competition that determines what you need.

    With film it was very peaceful by comparison: Just buy that newly released film and ready you were.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    As a tech cam user I'm pretty much focused on resolution and lenses that support it with shift. With the current lens lineup from Schneider and Rodenstock I think the fairly small 36x48mm format is quite nice, I'm not sure if a larger sensor would help that. Difficult to make large sharp lenses too. It would be cool with a 4x5" sensor with 100 megapixels, but probably the same kind of resolution can be extracted from a smaller system.

    I think it is a bit sad that newer sensors actually work less good with tech cameras (lens color cast) than older ones, but I think it is due to a conflicting goal with making them good for MF SLR.

    It may be the case as the original poster says that the way forward for medium format is to concentrate on making a new RZ type of system for professional portrait photographers, make it all about lens look for portraits and then it will be more about sensor size than resolution. This will require technology that allow such large sensor sizes without astronomical cost.

    For me personally I hope for continued good support for technical cameras though. Long exposure, reduced lens color cast and live view would be quite attractive features (there's so much possible to improve with ground glass though so I don't think Live View is absolutely necessary). 36x48mm 50 megapixels is a quite suitable size with today's lenses.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Actually when reading the posts again it seems like many want to shoot 6x7 film but not having to mess around with the film development. Not sure it is a great idea.

    Digital is far less forgiving than film concerning focusing and lens aberrations. I think it would be hard to sell a system with rather poor pixel-peep lens performance (which it probably will have when optimizing for "look") and manual focus that many would think is "impossible to nail" after pixel-peeping the results.

    Maybe it is better to actually shoot on film and scan?
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    I, for one, do not wish to go back to film. The advantages of digital are simply too great to go back. However that is simply my perspective. I recognise there is a growing place for it amongst my peers.

    I think it would be hard to sell a system with rather poor pixel-peep lens performance (which it probably will have when optimizing for "look") and manual focus that many would think is "impossible to nail" after pixel-peeping the results.
    This is not really what I was getting at from a lens perspective. I would not want a lens that tried too hard for a "look". That would only suit a select few people. Rather I would hope that the lens companies made a choice when they designed a lens. So for example an 80mm optimised for sharpness, or one optimised for wide apertures. Leica successfully markets several flavours of the same focal length. e.g. 50mm summilux, summicron and summarit. I personally liked the summicron over the others even though the summilux was the more expensive lens. However they all give a slightly different look.

    I have also been looking around for the image circles of the Phase One LS lens range. I cannot find them. However I would expect they covered the 6x6 range. Admittedly with less range for movements.

    Lastly if we could vary the capture area that was used on the sensor, wouldn't this answer the technical lens (with movement) issues? Lenses with smaller image circles could simply use a smaller capture area. Also wouldn't this then allow some extreme movements for creative application? I maybe too simplistic here, but I do not often use movements in my work.

  26. #26
    Senior Member yaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    38

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by 6x6 View Post
    Lastly if we could vary the capture area that was used on the sensor, wouldn't this answer the technical lens (with movement) issues? Lenses with smaller image circles could simply use a smaller capture area. Also wouldn't this then allow some extreme movements for creative application? I maybe too simplistic here, but I do not often use movements in my work.
    This already exists to a degree with our SensorFlex technology on the bigger backs. We even make a multi-crop focusing screen for the DF (54x41 80MP, 48x36 60MP and 41x41 60MP)

    BTW shifting a large sensor and then cropping yields the same results as shifting a smaller sensor, providing that you apply the same amount of shift...

    Regarding lens image circles: 645 lenses are designed with a certain focal flange distance. Typically this will be for a 645 body, so using it on a bigger sensor means moving it farther from the sensor and by that loosing infinity focus.
    Some 645 lenses have an image circle that is actually smaller than 645 so to cover a larger sensor will require new optical and mechanical designs...

    Larger image circle, in general = larger lens, a larger shutter etc. and this can affect the max shutter speed, weight of the lens and then weight and size of the body that supports it...

    Leica were able to create different lens looks on 35mm (with high price tags) but not on the 45x30 format of the S2

    Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to dismiss the great points that you bring up here, I'm just sharing some of the challenges involved with designing a new camera system

    Then there is the financial side and what sort of price tags will the market be able to to bear
    Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One | Mamiya Leaf
    e: [email protected] | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | yaya's blog

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Ok I understand, good points.

    More on the technical camera perspective (well, my perspective on technical cameras). I'm (almost) starting to think that resolution has already gone too far.

    IQ180 delivers so high resolution that people are starting to focus stack at f/8 to avoid the angst you get when you see fuzzy pixels at 100%.

    Rodenstock has dropped traditional symmetrical large format designs to do highly corrected retrofocus designs to support those high resolution backs. Some so large and heavy that the copal shutters are at risk of breaking.

    I'm no optical expert, but it seems to me that there is a resolution sweet-spot where you can use (fairly) traditional symmetrical large format designs still deliver excellent corner-to-corner performance with shift, and work with traditional view camera techniques (tilting, using quite small apertures) without getting too much pixel-peep angst. My guess is that this is around 50 megapixels 50x40mm. If you need higher resolution - stitch for those special occasions.

    But megapixels sell. I see many get the IQ180 for their tech cams, although I'd say IQ160 is better suited for the task.

  28. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Regarding lens image circles: 645 lenses are designed with a certain focal flange distance. Typically this will be for a 645 body, so using it on a bigger sensor means moving it farther from the sensor and by that loosing infinity focus.
    Some 645 lenses have an image circle that is actually smaller than 645 so to cover a larger sensor will require new optical and mechanical designs...

    Larger image circle, in general = larger lens, a larger shutter etc. and this can affect the max shutter speed, weight of the lens and then weight and size of the body that supports it...
    Thanks for your post Yair. Do you happen to know what the image circles of the LS lenses are? Are they tied to the IQ180 sensor size, without any possibility of handling a larger sensor? If so ... ouch. I guess there is no business opportunity for Phase One in this case because people would be pretty angry if they had to buy new lenses too. I was kind of hoping there was some lateral movement in the image circles of LS lenses that would allow Phase designers to come up with a larger sensor.

  29. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    I think this is a really tricky thread. It is useful however. But if they do make a 6x7 camera we will see threads like D900 vs IQ645-100 vs IQ67-120 in the future… I shoot people. Would I want a 6x7 sensor? Yes. Would I want a 645 sensor? Yes. Not a fan of 35mm however. What I think Phase/Mamiya should do next: Drop the crop sensors altogether. Give us a 40MP fullframe. I think the DF type camera body is fine, but they should have a different type body more resembling the Hy6/RZ, which will mount the same back, have it rotate, and keep the lenses. That way you can choose which you prefer, and if you want both, its still one system. On 6x7 all they need to do is update the RZ body with things such as a metered WLF and some basic autofocus would be nice. They already have some of the finest lenses ever made. I prefer their look to the 645 glass. No idea if any of the above is possible, but its worth thinking about
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Phase One is my current setup and so if, for example, they released a camera with:

    - A Bigger Sensor
    - 40MP (Ideally 60MP)
    - Rotating Back
    - Waist Level Viewfinder
    - Live Focus Checking
    - A Quieter Mirror
    - Ability to crop the viewfinder for different ratios
    - Ability to use the LS lenses

    I would pay $25,000 for it. Yes I am mad saying that, but I would.

    For portraits it would be fantastic and the waist level viewfinder would allow me to carry it around and use it handheld.

    I know I am dreaming, but I am having a terrible post production day - this helps me through it!

  31. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    But if they do make a 6x7 camera we will see threads like D900 vs IQ645-100 vs IQ67-120 in the future… I shoot people.
    Me too! I guess I would like the MF companies to start going out on a limb and start differentiating themselves from the 35mm people. Competing on resolution is a strategy destined to fail.

    If a 6x7 camera is too far a stretch, 6x6 would be a compromise ...

    Also don't Phase One, through their acquisition of Leaf own some rights to the Leaf AFi camera design. That camera at least meets most of what I am after from a portrait perspective.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    As far as I understand, Yair could confirm, the challenge with sensor is that it is complicated to make it large -- costs increases exponentially.

    Making a 54x41mm 40 megapixel sensor would be more expensive than a 60 megapixel 44x33mm sensor. Manufacturing cost is saved by using smaller sensor area, not reducing megapixels. What would a digital back with a 6x7 (56x70mm) sensor cost with today's technology? I don't know but my guess would be something like $70,000 regardless of number of megapixels. The very high manufacturing costs are what concerns me most, in my most pessimistic scenario the whole digital MF market disappears because it becomes financially impossible to make sensors large enough to get sufficient distance from high resolution 24x36mm.

    (Personally I'm actually quite amused with MF vs DSLR comparisons. Competition is good. And now with all the D800 interest we actually are beginning to see what the real differences between the formats are)

  33. #33
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    For me, that focus mask in the finder, or live focus checking would be absolutely perfect. I agree with the OP's post completely. Add the rotating back (6 x 7) and I'd be in heaven with a single normal lens. +1 waist level finder, too.

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    I am sorry, but trying to frame an arguments as something rational based on purely subjective criteria does not really work for me. Especially when you don't really present the world as it is. There were/are many MF cameras that were not waist level--SLRs, rangefinders, viewfinders, and view cameras. I am all for different camera types having used Mamiya 6s, Horseman SW612, Widelux F8, Wista technical cameras, TLRs, and a host of stuff, but they need to be economically viable. Many waist-level cameras had a prism to make them eye level. Perhaps no one really wants waist level cameras anymore than when film was around.

    Thank you, but I don't want more than 40MP.

    As far as the options go, you simply don't need to use them. You can setup any modern camera to work just like a Pentax Spotmatic. I also like the idea of customizing my cameras--engineers don't always get the way I like. I can also make so one camera can work like another. Of course, you don't believe the camera should be simple as you also listed requirements for options you want. I certainly don't want a camera needlessly limited to fit some parternaistic idea that "real" photographers don't need this or that. BTW, most of the cameras I have used during my career have been completely manual and I can use them as easily as any automated one so my objection has nothing about not having the skill to use a simple camera, just against an irrational argument for simplification. Besides, an innovation a engineer might have may be useful for my. Camera design is a creative pursuit and I would not want that to stop because someone does not like a button or a menus option they don't use.

    Costs have nothing to do with standardization. The M9P is not cheaper than the M9. The M9M is expensive as well. The cameras are basically identical, yet price does not move.

    BTW, my Pentax 645D mirror is quiet. Why not buy a 645D? The option is out there, but you need to take it.

    What I would like to see is neither here nor there. Manufacturers don't care nor can run a business that way. That is the reality. However, I do like the manufacturers that do take a chance and try to push the envelope. But they will not do it for me.

    And how does the saying go? A good craftsman always blames his tools?

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by 6x6 View Post
    I, for one, do not wish to go back to film. The advantages of digital are simply too great to go back. However that is simply my perspective. I recognise there is a growing place for it amongst my peers.
    Well said!
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  36. #36
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    I think that the only chance of seeing a new MF system that has all or most of the things brought up in this thread is if Fuji decides to make it.

    They have the camera to base it on.. the Fuji GX680.
    They have the lens designs with tilt and shift from 50mm to 500mm
    THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN SENSORS
    They make film, so have a vested interest is still supporting film.

    Fuji also has another big reason why it could be a good idea to make the RollsRoyce of cameras even if it were not directly very profitable. It would give the brand prestige that would help sell the many many other cameras they make.

    Also I just don't see Mamiya or Hasselblad having the R&D and new product development capacity. Both have not made anything radically new for over 10 years.

    One thing is coming up with a new camera system.. it's a whole other thing to develop the product.

    Fuji has been coming out with new cameras all the time, so it has a nice large RD staff in full swing.

    Also Fuji is a giant company compared to Hasselblad or Phase

  37. #37
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by yaya View Post
    Leica were able to create different lens looks on 35mm (with high price tags) but not on the 45x30 format of the S2
    I'm sure that Leica designed the S2 lenses exactly as they wanted them to be. Why make a scaled up M9 look camera????

    The S2 was designed to be a hyper sharp camera and the lenses were designed that way for the S2.

    As a very smart company they came up with a very handy solution to give S2 users a second option for lenses. They came up with the Hasselblad H lens adapter. The Hasselblad H lenses (Fuji) give the S2 a full range of lenses with a distinct look compared to the Leica S2 lenses.

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by FredBGG View Post
    They have the camera to base it on.. the Fuji GX680.
    Actually, they don't have a camera. The GX680 is out of production. Putting back into production would be very expensive even if they had the engineers that would know how to do it--and that is really important. I would imagine the GX680 engineers are retired by now.

    However, Fuji is a company that comes out with surprising products. They would be crazy enough to go into MFD and possibly a MFD/MFF hybrid. But it most likely won't be resurrecting the GX680. I see them more likely to make a MFD mirrorless or rangefinder.

  39. #39
    Senior Member yaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    38

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    I see them more likely to make a MFD mirrorless or rangefinder.
    If anything made sense that would be it, but I don't think it does...for various reasons...
    Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One | Mamiya Leaf
    e: [email protected] | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | yaya's blog

  40. #40
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Here we go again ... "The sky is falling, the sky is falling". This thread was supposed to give that mantra a rest ... if even for just a brief moment. There are those still very interested in MF even if you aren't Fred.

    Yair, when you say bigger sensor means redoing everything, did you mean bigger than 6X6? While I know some existing 645 lenses won't cover a whole 6X6 frame, that's true for 645 now ... the HCD lenses for example ... but we still use them with a bit of a crop. There aren't that many of those crop frame type optics compared to the lenses that will cover 6X6.

    So my vote is for a 6X6 camera that takes all the lenses we already invested in ... and allows full use of some terrific older 6X6 lenses from Zeiss and Rollei.

    Heck, Hasselblad could do a 60 meg 6X6 CFV Back, dust off the 203FE with added focus confirmation, and I'd be happy. Maybe my favorite camera system of all time.

    -Marc
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    I don't see Fuji entering the MFD market. The X series cameras seem to define the market Fuji is trying to create. Even their film MF is going from systems to fixed lens rangefinders, although I doubt it is very sustainable, certainly not creating a sustainable market.

  42. #42
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    6x6 was developed for a very practical reason--it was for waist-level cameras that were hard to shoot on their side and you would crop to landscape or portrait. While 6x6 has admirers, it really is not a very popular format--the Mamiya 6 was dropped because of the more popular Mamiya 7. There was a square MFD chip, but the 4:3 chip was much more popular. Since most images go to a rectangle, most photographer don't want to waste the image space to what needs to be cropped--easier to crop to a square. Unfortunately, the 6x6 is an evolutionary dead-end.

  43. #43
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Houston TX USA
    Posts
    273
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    The larger sensor is it!

    No matter how you slice it, a bigger sensor gives a different look and feel. Having shot 4X5 film, 645 film, and 35mm film, I know this to be true! If you work hard, you can make images that look similar, but it's less work to make them look really different!

    6X7 would be a great sensor size

    Make the camera mirror-less, and give me an EVF that is pretty big and bright, then make it removable so that if I choose, I can use my screen like a WLF. when I say removable, not some flimsy little thing, bolt it down when its on, some people will never want a WLF ... It now becomes a matter of clever computer code to get the next latest algorithm in the view finder, not a hardware issue.

    At the end of the day, we know that we are not sport shooters, so as long as we have all the big boys in the room, lets have them make a basic box to hold a sensor module ( already been done, thanks Ricoh ) Then make a focus adapter + brains that drives whatever AF lens you choose ( already been done, thanks Sony ) This allows a bunch of legacy lenses to be used, + a whole new batch to be sold to the masses. Keep the flange distance short, then a whole slew of adapters become viable.

    With a few bolt on bits, we can configure this hypothetical box just about however we want. RF size, SLR sized and maybe even some tech camera features.

    Working together on a standard is about the only way that any economies of scale can be reached ( Thanks Oly/Panasonic )

    MF is far from dead if the manufactures can agree on a standard or two that still allows for good differentiation.

    My take on it

    Dave
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #44
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by yaya View Post
    If anything made sense that would be it, but I don't think it does...for various reasons...
    A fixed lens MF rangefinder with an expensive sensor behind one lens or few lenses is a non starter.

  45. #45
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    I think the idea of a second phase body that is RZ-like is brilliant... one that also takes their current 645 lenses so that you have the choice of a "box" camera or an "SLR" form factor (current body), but can re-purpose the 645 lenses on either according to your shooting style or job requirements. I'd look very hard at getting back into MF with a body like an RZ that didn't feel as cumbersome when teamed with digital.

    More to the point... the MF companies should really make themselves as different from 35mm as possible at this point. Full frame sensors only, better bodies (and multiple type bodies with same back/lens mount). With the used market so flooded, why not make fewer back choices but with more compelling body choices?

    Did I say that I thought an RZ styled 645 body that takes Phase lenses/backs was a brilliant idea?

    Seems like a great time for them to differentiate. I bet even a 22mp back with the latest electronics/screens/interface would sell if at a good price. When I come back to an MF body in the future, I won't need 80mp... I just want the look/draw of the lenses and those beautiful colors and details I got from my previous aptus @ 28mp (or 40).

  46. #46
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    There are those still very interested in MF even if you aren't Fred.

    -Marc
    Actually I am very interested in MF, but larger medium format and with medium format/large format functionality I am used to. Tilt shift, various viewfinders, rotating backs and film support (or film body option).

    A good 6x7 or larger sensor and I'm game. I would very much like something that gets closer to the look of either the mamiya 67 or Fuji gx680 but shooting digital. That said the Nikon 85mm 1.4 is pretty darn close with the right work in post and under certain conditions.

    Keep in mind that I make 70% of my still photography money shooting Medium format. Nearly all my personal projects are either 6x8 MF or larger.

  47. #47
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    But it most likely won't be resurrecting the GX680. I see them more likely to make a MFD mirrorless or rangefinder.
    I could see Fuji making a mirrorless system with interchangeable tilt shift lenses.

    Their current sensor technology scaled up with the addition of phase detection on the sensor.

    I can see Fuji achieving this in about half the size of the Fuji GX680.

    Another important point is that Fuji has demonstrated that they can achieve a very nice look with a small sensor and their own lens designs. Scaling up what they did with the X-Pro 1 would make for an amazing MF digital camera.

  48. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    The absolute best thing about this thread is that we have not mentioned pixel, peep, mtf curve, or lines per blah blah once. Not once.

    This is a debate about cameras and what photographers need as their tool of choice. I compromise every day with my 645df, but I love it, even if it plays up sometimes. I just want to help the MF players make a better product. They really can't do it without us shouting advice.

    Surely a new camera body that allowed legacy backs and existing lenses to still work in some way would be a good idea. I know there are loads of backs on eBay and loads of people who would prefer to use MF if they could afford to.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Why not take something like this:

    1. Make it a little less clunky
    2. Give it an optional mirrorbox and finders (Waist or Eye) -- modular is key
    3. Make liveview usable so it can be used directly off the sensor w/o a VF or mirror box
    4. Kick-*** AF (no need fora gazillion point, just 3 or 9 would do)
    5. Lens mount adapters (Leica's decision is quite admirable, expecially for such an arrogant company ...but they sure see the future better than most)



    Photo from Phase site

  50. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

    Quote Originally Posted by 6x6 View Post
    The absolute best thing about this thread is that we have not mentioned pixel, peep, mtf curve, or lines per blah blah once. Not once.
    It's the most important part of this thread I think together with the "Its all about the lens" topic. I have made this bokeh test with the Phase DF and RZ lenses. I'm using the RZ most of the time, that image is what I'm looking for as a photographer. Why do we need 80mpx when the lens has only 5 blades and ugly bokeh?
    Attachment 59454
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •