It's the MTF advantage, stupid

[edouard]

The incessant "small-format-camera-X is as good as medium format and more practical" - trend starts to get annoying!...

Why can’t people stop being obsessed with sensor quality (all modern sensors, at base iso, have good enough DR and resolution since years!), small camera weight differences and other non essential points.
Photographic quality / high-fidelity is about optics! and here: Size does matter!
For the rest, you could use your phone camera ... or a 35 mm DSLR for action photography.

Larger images (transmitted by a lens) will have better micro-contrast and maximum sharpness – before even being “sampled” by a sensor / film – than “equivalent” (dof and fov – wise) images on a smaller system!

On a larger format system the image produced by the lens is better to begin with : Larger size = shift to lower spatial frequencies = using the lens in a better zone of its Modulation Transfer Function = better overall micro-contrast = higher fidelity (to use an audio term) / lifelikeness.

You could say that between equivalent “images” produced by a lens on different format systems there are more “analogical details” / better analogical information in the larger image: "It's the MTF advantage, stupid"

No need to use extremely sharp lenses to get 25Mpx max of useful details like with a D800!

Why is there such low MF "defense" even here in an MF forum!?
Maybe it deserve to die? when even Phase-One CEO can only come up with "differentiation" as the main advantage for MF! (c.f. his ~recent video interview) ;-)
or maybe it just doesn't need to be defended?

I am not a professional, I'm just taking pictures for myself (and the people important to me); for the joy of stopping time into a lifelike image, and for that there is no volupty outside MF (or bigger)

p.s. small format trolls: visit small format forums ;-)

 

[edouard]

... To have real equivalence between a larger and smaller system you would need the smaller system lens to have a proportionally better MTF / quality… which is difficult (and expensive) as you quickly reach the diffraction limit… We can’t fight against the law of physics! e.g. the difficulty / impossibility of finding lenses able to use the Nikon D800 full resolution versus using 30 year old ~cheap Zeiss, Schneider etc lenses on a MFD camera.

Too bad digital medium-format is now only 1.8-2.2x larger than ff 35mm but hugely more expensive…

 

[dougpeterson]

Why is there such low MF "defense" even here in an MF forum!?
Maybe it deserve to die? when even Phase-One CEO can only come up with "differentiation" as the main advantage for MF! (c.f. his ~recent video interview) ;-)
or maybe it just doesn't need to be defended?

If you stick around the forum long enough you'll notice this conversation happens like a broken record - almost entirely amongst those without MFD experience. Most of the MFD guys (even myself) get a bit worn down explaining the same things over and over again.

The CEO is a great guy and incredibly smart but he is the CEO. He knows photography, and spends a lot of time with customers to know the market, but his main expertise and focus is in the business operations side. If you want a really thorough technological explanation of the benefits and drawbacks to medium format digital backs it's better to ask the CTO, one of the dealers, one of the guys in R+D, or a user.

 

[Vivek]

You could say that between equivalent “images” produced by a lens on different format systems there are more “analogical details” in the larger image: "It's the MTF advantage, stupid"

Some parts of your post, I understand. That part is completely lost.

No clue at all on what "analogical details" mean.

I am all for large format. 8x10 would be great. IIRC, some medium format digital folks had claimed that a small format sensor "beats" 8x10 film. It is all in that "analogical" details, I suppose. :sleep006:

 

[Paratom]

I am convinced about the MF-advantages each time when I look at images from my Leica S and at images from other cams with smaller sensors. (By the way besides IQ I also take advantage of the huge viewfinder in a MF camera).

I believe analysis are looking way to much only at resolution and DR. There is much more about IQ, color being one of the points.
In Germany we have this "Geiz ist geil"-mentality (maybe someone can translate). So I think some people feel smart if they explain how they get the same IQ while paying only a fraction of the price. But who cares. I am happy each time when I look at images from my MF gear.
Defense? I dont feel I have to defend anything. If I look at images I trust what I see, no matter what other people write.

 

[torger]

Few say it is better, but some find it to be good enough and therefore use it. It is the same that happened to large format film, people started changing format not when mfd was better, but when it was good enough for commercial use. Not all will change from mfd to dslr now but some do. They are not trolls, they are merely professionals making a business decision.

 

[Steen]

... To have real equivalence between a larger and smaller system you would need the smaller system lens to have a proportionally better MTF / quality… which is difficult (and expensive) as you quickly reach the diffraction limit… We can’t fight against the law of physics! e.g. the difficulty / impossibility of finding lenses able to use the Nikon D800 full resolution versus using 50 year old ~cheap Zeiss, Schneider etc lenses on a MFD camera.

Too bad digital medium-format is now only 1.8-2.2x larger than ff 35mm but hugely more expensive…

For many years I've been a Nikon DSLR shooter (p.t. D800E) and I can easily agree with you, Edouard.
And what you are saying about lens implications coincides basically with what Thom Hogan says about the pixel density difference between APS-C (DX) and 35mm (FX) format on his mostly Nikon-centric blog bythom dot com if you scroll down to his Apr 23, 2013 (commentary) "DX versus FX (again)"

I'd love to be able to shoot with Medium Format sensors with their larger photosites, only they are still too expensive for my taste.
But I'm sure that someday MF sensors will come down to a more affordable price level, it can only be a matter of time and patience.

 

[Vivek]

In Germany we have this "Geiz ist geil"-mentality (maybe someone can translate). So I think some people feel smart if they explain how they get the same IQ while paying only a fraction of the price.

That is very difficult to translate as there are no concise sayings like that (AFAIK) in English.

(take a look here: Geiz ist geil auf englisch? - Seite 2. Talk about OT, eh?:angel

This might explain it: Meet the Germans ? Typically German - The Germans and ... - bargain hunting - Goethe-Institut 

 

[etrump]

If you stick around the forum long enough you'll notice this conversation happens like a broken record - almost entirely amongst those without MFD experience. Most of the MFD guys (even myself) get a bit worn down explaining the same things over and over again.

The CEO is a great guy and incredibly smart but he is the CEO. He knows photography, and spends a lot of time with customers to know the market, but his main expertise and focus is in the business operations side. If you want a really thorough technological explanation of the benefits and drawbacks to medium format digital backs it's better to ask the CTO, one of the dealers, one of the guys in R+D, or a user.

It is the CEO's responsibility to both learn and educate his staff on he true benefits of a companies product. In this area P1 could do a lot better. Their products are fantastic but the whole industry is out flanking them in pr, networking and product promotion.

 

[Scott Tansey]

I met with Stephan Schulz of Leica at the LA Leica Store opening. As proud as Leica is of the new M and the M lenses, the best camera system including the lenses is the S system.

Scott

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well he maybe just a wee bit bias since he runs the S division. LOL
But hey that's his role too so nothing wrong with that.

 

[weinlamm]

I don't understand your post... Why do you feel harassed? - And you are right! The sensors of the newer DSLR from data are sometimes better than an MF; equal if older or newer one. But... Do you remember the step from DX to FX...? The next is to MF.

I have a Nikon FX-system for everything where I need to be mobil or where I have to use flash (the Nikon flash-system is for me one of the best).
And by a random I bought a Mamiya ZD. I love it! It's not the best at low light - at least it's over 5 years old - but it's a great camera.

I thought about buying a D800e (could see images at a friend who has this and a Leica S) - but I prefered the Mamiya. One of the reasons is that the pictures of the Mamiya are sharper than from the Nikon. Mostly. From my sight there was no glas for the Nikon which was really 100% convincing...

But... For me the Mamiya is the camera I put on a tripod - in this kind I shoot 95% of my pictures. So the low Iso is no problem for me. If I need to be flexible I mostly use my D700/D3. But sold some of my manual lenses the last time, because I didn't use them so much.
But I didn't want to loose the feeling of my Nikon with the 85/1.4 - that's a thing, the Mamiya couldn't deliver.

For me every system has it's right.

 

[edouard]

I'd love to be able to shoot with Medium Format sensors with their larger photosites, only they are still too expensive for my taste.
But I'm sure that someday MF sensors will come down to a more affordable price level, it can only be a matter of time and patience.

Yes, but let's hope enough people are / will be using and loving MFD so that it doesn't disappear before prices could come down ;-)

p.s. but let's put things in perspective, people spend a lot of money to regularly change their car for example (ok, I'm Swiss, maybe it's not like that everywhere)... they could keep their old car longer, and get a MFD back. instead ;-)

 

[edouard]

Some parts of your post, I understand. That part is completely lost.

No clue at all on what "analogical details" mean.

I am all for large format. 8x10 would be great. IIRC, some medium format digital folks had claimed that a small format sensor "beats" 8x10 film. It is all in that "analogical" details, I suppose. :sleep006:

Yes it's difficult to explain / visualize... Maybe a better term would be analogical information.
Details only exists because they contrast to other details. As they get smaller (on the projected image) this contrast starts to fade away (reduced contrast transmission at high spatial frequencies c.f. MTF ...) until everything turns to gray. It's not an all or nothing process until a maximum resolution is reached, it's progressive.
So if the projected image is bigger, for the same scene, all details will be bigger and have better contrast (and smaller scene elements could be resolved). So for the same scene their is more/better transmitted analogical information.
(I'm a scientist, but not in optics so sorry for my clumsy explanations).

The problem is that in order to have a larger image circle, lenses need to be bigger (larger + with a longer focal to keep the same fov) and are more difficult to build. So what you gain by the shift to lower spatial frequency advantage you might loose by the lense being less sharp (per millimeters on the projected image). If the lense is not too bad, you gain more from the former than loose with the latter!

Yes 8x10 is amazing! ('seen giant prints from LF images at Paris photo, impressive)
To bad there are no digital backs bigger than 54x40mm (outside of aerial and astronomical photography)!...

 

[edouard]

...
I believe analysis are looking way to much only at resolution and DR. There is much more about IQ, color being one of the points.
In Germany we have this "Geiz ist geil"-mentality (maybe someone can translate). So I think some people feel smart if they explain how they get the same IQ while paying only a fraction of the price. But who cares. I am happy each time when I look at images from my MF gear.
...

yes exactly!


(although here again, colors are probably better because of the larger format = better quality of the projected image, not only because of the sensors... that, for MF, are now not having the best color depth)

 

[edouard]

Few say it is better, but some find it to be good enough and therefore use it. It is the same that happened to large format film, people started changing format not when mfd was better, but when it was good enough for commercial use. Not all will change from mfd to dslr now but some do. They are not trolls, they are merely professionals making a business decision.

yes!

thanks god, I'm not a professional photographer:
I can enjoy the image quality, "non commerciability" and impracticality of my HB-500cm + CFV-50 ;-)

 

[torger]

yes!

thanks god, I'm not a professional photographer:
I can enjoy the image quality, "non commerciability" and impracticality of my HB-500cm + CFV-50 ;-)

Same here, I'm an amateur shooting landscapes with a Linhof Techno and loving it. I've bought most gear second hand which was a necessity for me to afford this hobby. I do like the quality advantage of the tech cam lenses, and also the workflow and the charm of the all-mechanical camera.

If I was a professional and the quality of the DSLR output would be adequate for my clients it would be more complicated though. I don't think one can create true differentiation based on camera today, the smaller formats are now so good so it's all about the images, and that's a good thing. Ie if you do better images than the next MFD guy it does not matter if you use a DSLR.

I don't really know what choices I would make. One part of me like to use this type of gear (the photographer), and one part of me really dislike to pay for overkill tools (the businessman). Assuming all-around photographic work an MFD camera is not flexible enough to replace a DSLR, so you don't choose between DSLR or MFD but you choose DSLR or DSLR+MFD. If you then discover that the DSLR has reached a good enough quality level to also do the MFD work, well... I know what the businessman thinks about that.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The I want gets in the way as well. Sometimes the business side just has to take a back seat to I want to have this regardless if it makes little sense. I have that argument with myself often. It's like having a devil on one shoulder and a angel on the other side and the debate rages on. Lol

Sometimes that little **** wins the battle.

You need to realize your in Dante's inferno here. Lol

 

[dick]

My little 15Mpx Panasonic with the f1.4 lens lets me take pictures of jumping gymnasts in normal "gym" light... and it works if I get the lighting right and do not need to adjust contrast in post... if I forget to put a white rug on the floor to give a bit of low-fill, the image falls apart as soon as I try to adjust.

The Hasselblad has to be at about f11 to get the same depth of field... so I need a load of lights.

Where you have little control of the light (landscape) the ability to adjust the contrast in post is indispensable - and that, to me, is the difference.

 

[edouard]

Same here, I'm an amateur shooting landscapes with a Linhof Techno and loving it. I've bought most gear second hand which was a necessity for me to afford this hobby. I do like the quality advantage of the tech cam lenses, and also the workflow and the charm of the all-mechanical camera.

If I was a professional and the quality of the DSLR output would be adequate for my clients it would be more complicated though. I don't think one can create true differentiation based on camera today, the smaller formats are now so good so it's all about the images, and that's a good thing. Ie if you do better images than the next MFD guy it does not matter if you use a DSLR.

I don't really know what choices I would make. One part of me like to use this type of gear (the photographer), and one part of me really dislike to pay for overkill tools (the businessman). Assuming all-around photographic work an MFD camera is not flexible enough to replace a DSLR, so you don't choose between DSLR or MFD but you choose DSLR or DSLR+MFD. If you then discover that the DSLR has reached a good enough quality level to also do the MFD work, well... I know what the businessman thinks about that.

Yes, but maybe some clients might see and enjoy a better look and feel. Moreover a modern auto-focus MF camera (Leica S, PO 645DF, HB H4/5D) is not that more impracticable than a big 35mm DSLR for most shoots!? Furthermore, in a photographer professional life, the initial gear investment should represent such a small fraction of the money he/she'll earn (or he/she should find another job!), that the higher price tag of MF is maybe not that important... (other spending such as employes, models, travels etc... would be more considerable) so it also doesn't justify a higher price tag on the client ... just my 2 cents...

For me non professional, it's an easy choice: pleasure! MF and larger images sometimes have that special / magic look and feel, that small format images never have.
Since that day when I bought a dirt cheap used 6x6 Kiev 60 camera and developed the first roll of film, I just can't enjoy small format images look and feel anymore: call me a fanatic! ;-)

Obviously you could do pretty (or trite or ugly) images with any camera, but for me there is just no voluptuousness in taking pictures with a small format camera: call me a fanatic bis ;-)
It's not that I can't enjoy other people's pictures independently of how they were produced, it's just that for myself I don't appreciate working with small format cameras.

So yes, I feel MF deserves better/more PR!