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!

Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

6x6

Member
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.
 

yaya

Active member
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
 

6x6

Member
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.
 

Aryan Aqajani

New member
You could not have said it better! :salute:

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!
 

JorisV

New member
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.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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 :ROTFL:) ... 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 :)
 

jagsiva

Active member
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.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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 :)
 

6x6

Member
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.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
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.
 
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.

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.
 

6x6

Member
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.
 

Aryan Aqajani

New member
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!)
 

jlm

Workshop Member
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
 

6x6

Member


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.
 
S

ssanacore

Guest
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
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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.
 
Top