Site Sponsors
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 432

Thread: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

  1. #201
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by CSP View Post
    shooting with an single focus point is so awkward and feels so wrong after experiencing eye focus on a7r2. i´m too old to work with gear which AF did not much improve in the last 30 years and has a performance like a minolta 9000. when i shoot portraits i want to work with the people in front and not with the camera.

    also it seems this was not a really dimm location when you can shoot @iso 200 and the ambient is in balance too....
    CSP, this is not about what is right or wrong, this is about balance, we can argue and counter argue all day long because we, as with everyone else, have different needs, requirements and ways of shooting. I honestly don't care how anyone else shoots or what they shoot with, the point of my post is to show that there is always an alternative view point. I don't have an issue with shooting MF in any situation I have come across so far, that may change, you prefer using eye focus with the sony, I prefer using single point and I actually change all my cameras to single point just because it is my personal preference. I have thousands of portraits shot in a wide variety of natural and studio light, I know what I like and how I like to work.

    Maybe it's time for this thread to be put to bed, the answer is for some there is a compelling reason, for others none at all, who really cares apart from the individual? Surely nobody is daft enough to think that if they bang on about how their choice of kit is the right one, everyone else is going to agree, sell what they have and buy what's right for someone else do they?

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #202
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    But my underwear is better and cheaper than yours....

  3. #203
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    I doubt it satybhat, I go commando!
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #204
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    CSP, this is not about what is right or wrong, this is about balance, we can argue and counter argue all day long because we, as with everyone else, have different needs, requirements and ways of shooting. I honestly don't care how anyone else shoots or what they shoot with, the point of my post is to show that there is always an alternative view point. I don't have an issue with shooting MF in any situation I have come across so far, that may change, you prefer using eye focus with the sony, I prefer using single point and I actually change all my cameras to single point just because it is my personal preference. I have thousands of portraits shot in a wide variety of natural and studio light, I know what I like and how I like to work.

    Maybe it's time for this thread to be put to bed, the answer is for some there is a compelling reason, for others none at all, who really cares apart from the individual? Surely nobody is daft enough to think that if they bang on about how their choice of kit is the right one, everyone else is going to agree, sell what they have and buy what's right for someone else do they?

    Mat
    you are right this is not about what is right or wrong but it is a question of how technology has improved over the years to make live easier and focus more on the creative side of our bussiness. if you use it or not is your decision but you can not argue against it with you personal preference this makes my argument not less valid.

  5. #205
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Of course your argument is valid for you, that would never be in dispute as it relates to you. I happen to be someone who feels that advances in AF range from incredibly useful for fast moving sports users for example through to entirely pointless for landscape use and somewhere in between for every other type of photography, I use manual focus as much as anything because I prefer to.

    Advances are driven by people who want the next thing so companies develop and provide them, I don't personally feel that for the work I do having AF or not makes any difference, I don't feel that technology advancing is a bad thing at all, I just feel more enthusiasm for things that affect me, as we all do. You state "when i shoot portraits i want to work with the people in front and not with the camera" I personally don't feel that not having eye detect or moveable focussing points means that I am working any less with the people, far from it, I always know where my focus point is and never have to think about it. It would be very boring if we all worked the same way and all used the same camera, that is a fact!

    Mat

  6. #206
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Here's the other type of commercial work I perform, I shoot a lot of industrial interiors, now mainly with a tech cam so AF isn't an option but this is an outtake from a shoot a while back that I really enjoyed. Leica S, ISO800, 24mm, manual exposure, no tripod allowed and no lighting as it is a working building so had an hour escorted around where I could only shoot hand held, I know my kit enough to set focus manually just back from infinity at f4 knowing that everything from around 5m to infinity was going to be in focus and just left it, used the camera as a point and shoot in effect, viewfinder for framing and that's it. I absolutely love the shots, deep and rich, it feels like you can step in to the prints. I don't dispute technological advancements being a great thing I just don't care about the ones that don't affect me, what works for you is brilliant for you and I hope you enjoy it but it doesn't matter to me.

    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 11 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #207
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    Of course your argument is valid for you, that would never be in dispute as it relates to you. I happen to be someone who feels that advances in AF range from incredibly useful for fast moving sports users for example through to entirely pointless for landscape use and somewhere in between for every other type of photography, I use manual focus as much as anything because I prefer to.

    Advances are driven by people who want the next thing so companies develop and provide them, I don't personally feel that for the work I do having AF or not makes any difference, I don't feel that technology advancing is a bad thing at all, I just feel more enthusiasm for things that affect me, as we all do. You state "when i shoot portraits i want to work with the people in front and not with the camera" I personally don't feel that not having eye detect or moveable focussing points means that I am working any less with the people, far from it, I always know where my focus point is and never have to think about it. It would be very boring if we all worked the same way and all used the same camera, that is a fact!

    Mat
    i feel enthusiasm about, light, expression, emotion, composition.. the camera is only a recording tool i don´t care much about and everything what make live easier and result in more keepers technical wise is welcomed.

  8. #208
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Summing up:
    Some people like to write volumes
    Too many full quotes basically doubling the above
    Mf probably costs more than smaller format
    Not all write from personal experience
    Many are passionate about their gear
    It ain't about logic and data
    Not everyone agrees about the data anyway
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #209
    Senior Member Lucille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    CSP, this is not about what is right or wrong, this is about balance, we can argue and counter argue all day long because we, as with everyone else, have different needs, requirements and ways of shooting. I honestly don't care how anyone else shoots or what they shoot with, the point of my post is to show that there is always an alternative view point. I don't have an issue with shooting MF in any situation I have come across so far, that may change, you prefer using eye focus with the sony, I prefer using single point and I actually change all my cameras to single point just because it is my personal preference. I have thousands of portraits shot in a wide variety of natural and studio light, I know what I like and how I like to work.

    Maybe it's time for this thread to be put to bed, the answer is for some there is a compelling reason, for others none at all, who really cares apart from the individual? Surely nobody is daft enough to think that if they bang on about how their choice of kit is the right one, everyone else is going to agree, sell what they have and buy what's right for someone else do they?

    Mat
    I shoot all my Sonys with single point, except when I do use eye auto focus. But for me all the focus points on the Sony cameras never matter much, as I always revert back to good old fashion single point focus..

    I need to try medium format........sigh.....
    the HepKitty

  10. #210
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    This will be my first post to this forum, I've spent the last few days scanning the old threads in the medium format department in my quest to see how other medium format users are using the focus to nail close distance shots with short depth of field.

    Clearly, for me medium format is something different than the 35mm. Resolution aside, the transition of the out of focus areas is very pleasing. So a short while ago I was thinking of investing in used medium format gear.

    The body I tried was a 645DF+ with a P1-back, and the shots where focus was nailed were incredible. But my hit rate was about 20% I think. Focus and recompose is inherently flawed when working with a short depth of field. With a shorter lens I'm sure the hit rate would be pretty much non-existant since the plane of field changes too much.

    On my 35mm i simply place my focus point on the eye, or corner of the eye with continous focusing and it pretty much nails it all the time.

    Should I give up on medium format? Next up for me to try is the Hasselblad True Focus...

  11. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    It depends! If it's how you earn your living then you may have a different view to if it's purely for pleasure. My take is that the camera focus isn't changing when you recompose, you are moving, the camera stays where you put it so increasing your keeper rate is all about practice and technique, something that I personally find very valuable and gives me great pleasure when I get it right. It gets much easier with time, you are not trying something new, excellent photographers have been nailing wide open focus with mf for years. If you just want easier then you can trade what you like about mf for the ease of not worrying about accuracy, something that doesn't appeal to me at all, sometimes good things need some work!

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #212
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeJ View Post
    This will be my first post to this forum, I've spent the last few days scanning the old threads in the medium format department in my quest to see how other medium format users are using the focus to nail close distance shots with short depth of field.

    Clearly, for me medium format is something different than the 35mm. Resolution aside, the transition of the out of focus areas is very pleasing. So a short while ago I was thinking of investing in used medium format gear.

    The body I tried was a 645DF+ with a P1-back, and the shots where focus was nailed were incredible. But my hit rate was about 20% I think. Focus and recompose is inherently flawed when working with a short depth of field. With a shorter lens I'm sure the hit rate would be pretty much non-existant since the plane of field changes too much.

    On my 35mm i simply place my focus point on the eye, or corner of the eye with continous focusing and it pretty much nails it all the time.

    Should I give up on medium format? Next up for me to try is the Hasselblad True Focus...

    no surprise, true focus solves one side of the problem so you likely will have a higher keeper rate but you and the person you shoot still have to hold the position and freeze. the shorter the lens the bigger is the focus shift with recomposition. longer lenses are less critical. i have bought to hc 100 2.2 to later find out the i can not use it the same way as my canon 85 1.2 sure i was able to get some acceptable images but you feel really unprofessional when you have to shoot again and again just to get a sharp one.

  13. #213
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    Here's the other type of commercial work I perform, I shoot a lot of industrial interiors, now mainly with a tech cam so AF isn't an option but this is an outtake from a shoot a while back that I really enjoyed. Leica S, ISO800, 24mm, manual exposure, no tripod allowed and no lighting as it is a working building so had an hour escorted around where I could only shoot hand held, I know my kit enough to set focus manually just back from infinity at f4 knowing that everything from around 5m to infinity was going to be in focus and just left it, used the camera as a point and shoot in effect, viewfinder for framing and that's it. I absolutely love the shots, deep and rich, it feels like you can step in to the prints.
    That's a lovely photo. Of course, with your tech cam, presumably your latest efforts are even more definitive!
    The prints I've tested from the Leica S similarly produce this feeling of being able to walk into them ... it's a feeling that I've simply never had to the same extent with any 35mm FF camera, no matter what I do with post processing. I don't know what causes it (16-bit? Micro contrast of the S lenses? Sensor size? Pixel acuity? .... I really don't know), but regardless the feeling reminds me of large format film in terms of depth and richness. That depth, to me, is probably the most compelling reason to move to MF digital.
    As an aside, on their website Alpa did a promo video of their A-Series (and the Phase 100mp back) doing industrial interiors -- not sure why they chose that camera, given their TC is about the only one without movements .....
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #214
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Thanks John, I love the shot but it's a cool place so that helps a lot. I don't know what it is about the files and to be brutally honest, I just accept that there is something there I love and go with it, I don't need to understand it any further than that. The idea of charts and comparisons and 200% crops literally makes me want to stick rusty nails in my eyes, I can feel the joy and creativity for me being sucked out! But hey, that's just me, people can do what they want.

    I hope you get chance to play with an S for what you shoot, it's the only way to know and it is a really great camera.

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #215
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I doubt it satybhat, I go commando!
    Mat, I think this truly comes under the heading of TMI
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #216
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    This is a crop from a comparison shot I made using:

    • Hasselblad Planar 120/4 Macro at f/11 on a P45+
    • Sony 90/2.8 G Macro at f/8 on an A7rII


    Below are two crops from a sharpnes/osharpness transition zone. What is your take? A lot of difference and if so what difference?

    Hasselblad below ( http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...5-CF047043.iiq )


    Sony below ( http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...5-_DSC3485.dng ):


    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeJ View Post
    This will be my first post to this forum, I've spent the last few days scanning the old threads in the medium format department in my quest to see how other medium format users are using the focus to nail close distance shots with short depth of field.

    Clearly, for me medium format is something different than the 35mm. Resolution aside, the transition of the out of focus areas is very pleasing. So a short while ago I was thinking of investing in used medium format gear.

    The body I tried was a 645DF+ with a P1-back, and the shots where focus was nailed were incredible. But my hit rate was about 20% I think. Focus and recompose is inherently flawed when working with a short depth of field. With a shorter lens I'm sure the hit rate would be pretty much non-existant since the plane of field changes too much.

    On my 35mm i simply place my focus point on the eye, or corner of the eye with continous focusing and it pretty much nails it all the time.

    Should I give up on medium format? Next up for me to try is the Hasselblad True Focus...

  17. #217
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    This is a crop from a comparison shot I made using:

    • Hasselblad Planar 120/4 Macro at f/11 on a P45+
    • Sony 90/2.8 G Macro at f/8 on an A7rII


    Below are two crops from a sharpnes/osharpness transition zone. What is your take? A lot of difference and if so what difference?

    Best regards
    Erik
    Erik,

    I've read your posts before and I respect you a lot. Having said that, I'm not a fan of comparative analyses, but here goes.

    You may be right to some extent, that in SOME certain shots, the appearance of MF crop may not be different from the appearance of a 35mm crop. But these are certain crops only. But the process makes the difference. See the shot below. Done with the XF, WLF, iso 6400, manual focus. Minimal PP, simply a 5% increase in contrast and slight reduction on the clarity slider. literally 3 seconds of PP. Not matter what I do, I can't get that from the canons. or XT-1, or even M240 (all of which I have). That time saved to reach a level of satisfaction, say I save 10 mins on every snap I want to keep, it adds up. I do not shoot professional, but if I were to, (and I run a medical business), my main concern would be staff cost. I KNOW for a fact that using the Phase backs vs 35mm would likely save me close to 50K a year in PP staff times. In my situation, it is another 30-40 mins of personal time that I can use for other pursuits or spending time with my family. (When I'm not on forums, that is). I wish I had MF when my son was born. I really wish that, even to this day, which doesn't mean that his portraits that I did with the Nikon D200 are any worse.



    Another reason, extrapolating it further, 35mm industry lags behind the MF by anywhere between 3-5 years when it comes to optical excellence, rendering etc. In your shots, P45 is what 7 years older than A7RII ? Those that say that they don't care about the latest gadgets are still using the latest in their own comparative thought processes. I understand that they may not have the latest backs, but its still an unfair comparison. TBH, an A7RII kit today with 2-3 good lenses would likely cost as much as a P45 kit with 2 mamiya lenses anyways. If the shots do look similar, is that not actually a win for the older technology?

    Another issue: weight. Honestly, the argument is flawed: when we travel, the delta between MF kit and non MF kit forms less than 2% of the total weight we carry. How many people here care more about their kit weights than their body weights? I know for a fact that I do.
    Just saying..
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #218
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    This is a crop from a comparison shot I made

    Below are two crops from a sharpnes/osharpness transition zone. What is your take? A lot of difference and if so what difference?
    Best regards
    Erik
    I read you had given up on medium format. No?

  19. #219
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,426
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    My suspicion has been that this is a troll post - maybe, maybe not. In any case, it has evolved into an interesting thread with a number of sincere responses. So, I'll relate one of the, possibly unexpected reasons, that I chose MFD - it was the higher quality, lower cost (relatively) alternative I bought one of the first 645D bodies in the US in 2010. I had been happy using a Pentax 67ii and 645N, but had come to the conclusion that film was becoming a real problem: I shipped my film half way across the US for processing, airline travel had become a nightmare unless I allowed my film to be subject to x-rays. Phase is out of my price range, so I considered the then top 35mm, a Nikon D3x and the 645D. The Nikon was about 6-7k and then I had to add in the cost of lenses. Additionally, the Nikon system wasn't much smaller or lighter than Pentax 645D and lenses. I looked at my collection of 20+ Pentax 645 and 67 lenses and came to the conclusion I could get a better body for my use, not carry much more weight and save money by getting the 645D. 35mm cameras have certainly improved since then, I could get a Sony A7r ii and one or two nice lenses for what I spent on a 645Z, but based on what I've seen, I get better files. The Sony body would be smaller and easier to transport; I'm not so sure that's true for the lenses (e.g. Otus). In any event, I suspect I would always wish I had used the 645Z.

    Tom
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #220
    Senior Member DougDolde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Joshua Tree, CA
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    This is a long and crazy thread but I think the bottom line is once you've shot with a hi resolution medium format back 60 or 80 megapixels it's hard to go back to full frame 35mm
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #221
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    That is a very fine shot of your son!

    Thanks for thoughtful response. For me the thing is that I don't see much of that magic in the images I am shooting. But, I am not a large aperture shooter and there are some reasons for that. The two main reasons is that I have doubts of both my and the cameras focusing ability, the other is most large aperture lenses I have owned or seen have a lot of magenta/green fringing at large apertures.

    So, if I want good bokeh I use a telephoto lens and I really like telephoto lenses.

    The way I shoot, which is essentially on tripod, medium aperture I don't see a lot of difference between my Sony kit (and I guess you can replace that for Canon and Nikon) and my admittedly old Hasselblad kit. Now, I am not doing a lot of comparison shots, but that has essentially been my finding. I think this is a piece of good info. But I am not an artist, I am just an engineer enjoying taking pictures.

    The Sony has very good live view (I regard magnified live view the best way to focus) and lots of focus points when using AF. In addition the Sony uses both Phase Detection (for speed) and Contrast Sensing (for precision) and uses the sensor itself for AF, so there is no need for AF-calibration.

    Regarding the weight argument, for me it is quite simple. I can fly everywhere in Europe from a local airport 5 minutes away as I have Ryan Air operating here. But Ryan Air allows on one peace of cabin luggage with severe size limits and a 10 kg weight limit. Flying is much convenient and economical than driving. So in practice I have a 10 kg limit. Tripod and some stuff goes in the checked luggage. With the present kit I have pretty much everything I need. Lenses from 16-400, T&S ability from 16-35 and tilts available from 16-105 mm. Macro down to 1:1.

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by satybhat View Post
    Erik,

    I've read your posts before and I respect you a lot. Having said that, I'm not a fan of comparative analyses, but here goes.

    You may be right to some extent, that in SOME certain shots, the appearance of MF crop may not be different from the appearance of a 35mm crop. But these are certain crops only. But the process makes the difference. See the shot below. Done with the XF, WLF, iso 6400, manual focus. Minimal PP, simply a 5% increase in contrast and slight reduction on the clarity slider. literally 3 seconds of PP. Not matter what I do, I can't get that from the canons. or XT-1, or even M240 (all of which I have). That time saved to reach a level of satisfaction, say I save 10 mins on every snap I want to keep, it adds up. I do not shoot professional, but if I were to, (and I run a medical business), my main concern would be staff cost. I KNOW for a fact that using the Phase backs vs 35mm would likely save me close to 50K a year in PP staff times. In my situation, it is another 30-40 mins of personal time that I can use for other pursuits or spending time with my family. (When I'm not on forums, that is). I wish I had MF when my son was born. I really wish that, even to this day, which doesn't mean that his portraits that I did with the Nikon D200 are any worse.



    Another reason, extrapolating it further, 35mm industry lags behind the MF by anywhere between 3-5 years when it comes to optical excellence, rendering etc. In your shots, P45 is what 7 years older than A7RII ? Those that say that they don't care about the latest gadgets are still using the latest in their own comparative thought processes. I understand that they may not have the latest backs, but its still an unfair comparison. TBH, an A7RII kit today with 2-3 good lenses would likely cost as much as a P45 kit with 2 mamiya lenses anyways. If the shots do look similar, is that not actually a win for the older technology?

    Another issue: weight. Honestly, the argument is flawed: when we travel, the delta between MF kit and non MF kit forms less than 2% of the total weight we carry. How many people here care more about their kit weights than their body weights? I know for a fact that I do.
    Just saying..
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 23rd March 2016 at 00:01.

  22. #222
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    Yes, that is a good argument, maybe (*). But I think the guy who started the thread is more considering entry level solutions and he explicitly ruled out the resolution thing.

    Young photographers entering MFD would probably start on the low end.

    (*)
    On the other hand you could check this video that compares IQ 160 and A7rII: https://youtu.be/12HI8gps4zA . Yes, I think he is a bit over enthusiastic but he covers a lot of interesting points.

    The other point is that I am aware of two architecture shooters who went from MFD to Sony A7xx. One is Chris Barret who sold of his IQ-260 stuff and now happily shoots A7r on Arca Universalis. The other one is Rainer Viertlböck, a German architecture photographer who shoots A7r using T&S adapters. On LuLa he posted that 95% of his work is now on the A7r.

    Chris Barret even started a thread about his switch on LuLa. My understanding was that he started using the systems in parallell and found out that the A7r got the job done and offered a more efficient workflow and more flexibility with shifts.

    I don't know if Chris and Rainer have upgraded to the A7rII. The A7r had issues with shutter vibrations, I have seen enough evidence to believe that. The A7rII solves that by having electronic first shutter curtain.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    This is a long and crazy thread but I think the bottom line is once you've shot with a hi resolution medium format back 60 or 80 megapixels it's hard to go back to full frame 35mm
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 22nd March 2016 at 23:57.

  23. #223
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    Yes and now.

    What I see is that there is little benefit of shooting MFD (with my old equipment) and the Sony solution offers the capabilities I need at a very reasonable cost. Also, I can get the Sony stuff to a shooting location with much less fuss. But, keep in mind that I am an amateur traveling light.

    On the other hand, I enjoy the Hasselblad kit and have no plan to sell it. I guess that I have spent something like 20k$US on it and I don't think I can sell it for decent money. Also, I like shooting with it and I can use the lenses on A7rII, too. So lenses are a keeper, and it is nice to be able to shoot with the camera they were intended for. But, it makes little sense shooting with the Hasselblad as the Sony is sort of simpler, more accurate and flexible.

    When the CMOS backs arrived I sort of considered the CFV-50c and a technical camera but I felt it was to much money for to little benefit. A major issue for me is the lack of ultra wides with a crop factor back. My original plan was to acquire the HCam B1 (I think). This is a device somewhat similar to the Alpha FPS, but with a motor driven sliding back combined with the Canon 24/3.5 and 17/4 TS lenses.

    The Sony A7rII was in my view the first A7-series camera that filled the bill, so I jumped on it. So far, so good. So, Hasselblad goes into semi retirement. But, still fun to shoot with.

    Now, it could be discussed if I would buy a technical camera if I had say 50k$US in the bank, but that is way of theoretical. Right now I don't think I would.

    Best regards
    Erik





    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    I read you had given up on medium format. No?
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 23rd March 2016 at 02:48.

  24. #224
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Managed to stay out of the discussion for a long while, but just a quick comment.

    Different people have different reasons. It's interesting to hear about other people's reasons to either use the format or not use it, but you will eventually need to make up your own mind what matters to you.

    If your reason is solely that you want the best image quality around, but only if it's "sufficiently better" then we're in for an endless discussion where you can come to different conclusions as it's a taste-based discussion. Some think it's significantly better, others don't. Deal with it.

    My own reasons are not for magic look or whatever, it's for the shooting process. I wanted to shoot large format film but was too lazy to use film, so I got a Linhof Techno and a legacy CCD back that can handle the (nowadays legacy) Schneider Digitars. A digital drop-in replacement for traditional large format field camera. Now when the future of MFD tech cams seems to go away from traditional "large format style" and more to things like automatic focus stacking and keystone corrections to make what movements did before the attraction goes away for me. When it's all about resolution and post-processing I could just go back using my stitching head with the DSLR. But I wanted away from all that and shoot in a more traditional way.

    As I can use my system for a long time from now there's no immediate desire to jump ship though, but I see no attractive upgrade path that fulfills my desires (the XF is just a big boring DSLR to me), other than maybe I should try out large format film for real sometime.

    But that's just one view of many. Loving the larger viewfinder, and finding the standard post-processing software easier to use or making use of the fast leaf shutters in flash photography are just as valid although they don't apply to my photography.

  25. #225
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Managed to stay out of the discussion for a long while, but just a quick comment.

    Different people have different reasons. It's interesting to hear about other people's reasons to either use the format or not use it, but you will eventually need to make up your own mind what matters to you.

    If your reason is solely that you want the best image quality around, but only if it's "sufficiently better" then we're in for an endless discussion where you can come to different conclusions as it's a taste-based discussion. Some think it's significantly better, others don't. Deal with it.
    This thread has been interesting, it's brought out our own prejudices.

    I think it would be hard to convince everyone that MFDB does offer unequivocal improvement in image quality that is so superior that a lay person would identify it instantly - for isn't that the final destination of all our work, to be viewed and admired by the man in the street?

    No matter if you are a pro or an amateur, you want your work to be seen by everyone and appreciated by them, even if it is just the family or close friends. None of those people are capable of understanding what 'bokeh' means or if the tonal gradations are perfect, and certainly do not care whether the photographer struggled for 5 hours or just took a snapshot in 5 seconds.

    All other improvements in the photos are subjective and our own personal preferences.

    It would serve us all so much better if we could just be honest and say we don't care about proving the superiority of one format over another, we just like it and want to keep using it, price be damned. Period.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #226
    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: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    As an extension of the original question: "Is there a compelling reason to move to MFD?" … I asked myself whether there was a compelling reason to stay with MFD? I do have an A7R-II, and at least a few excellent lenses.

    Setting aside my use of lighting, and even setting aside meg count because I now use a Leica S rather than the 60meg MF camera I once used, "Would I still stay with a larger sensor camera and the system it supports?"

    To answer that I looked back at past choices I've made, in any format, and what the criteria was not only for choosing something, but why stuck with it … often in the face of technical advancements that should have compelled me to move on.

    The answer came down to a one word summation … success.

    Of course, part of success is operational … does the system fit my way of making photos, and does it work reliably? However, I've stuck with systems that were a PITA, and worked out issues that would send others running.

    Why?

    Because "success" for me has always been the end result and what it looks like. What gear puts a smile on my face most often, and most consistently? Not what someone else thinks … ME! I need that end reaction to not only feel pleasure and satisfaction from what I do, but also to feel confident in it. Nothing inspires like confidence.

    When I couple that consistent aesthetic success with the more important expression of an idea, or a revealing observation of the world around me, I tend to directly associate it with the tool I selected to do it. There doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason, just repeated success.

    So, it isn't a process of evaluating metrics, science or engineering … and attendant charts and graphs as proof, nor pundits with blogs that have sprung up on every corner of the internet like Starbucks. They are valuable as a hint, but not an artistic decision IMO.

    I applaud their role in understanding possibilities, but I am a raging skeptic as to their role in my aesthetic end game … because far to often, I've been profoundly disappointed in what is deemed "best" by charts, graphs, and pundits. On paper, they may be best, but more frequently than not, that paper hasn't been printing paper.

    - Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #227
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post


    When I couple that consistent aesthetic success with the more important expression of an idea, or a revealing observation of the world around me, I tend to directly associate it with the tool I selected to do it. There doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason, just repeated success.

    So, it isn't a process of evaluating metrics, science or engineering … and attendant charts and graphs as proof, nor pundits with blogs that have sprung up on every corner of the internet like Starbucks. They are valuable as a hint, but not an artistic decision IMO.

    I applaud their role in understanding possibilities, but I am a raging skeptic as to their role in my aesthetic end game … because far to often, I've been profoundly disappointed in what is deemed "best" by charts, graphs, and pundits. On paper, they may be best, but more frequently than not, that paper hasn't been printing paper.

    - Marc
    This. I'm firmly in the camp that looks holistically at output; rather than the broken-down-into-piece-parts 'tests' that are all too often the dominant part of photography discussions. Brick walls and MTF graphs and crop-this versus crop-that may give a hint at things. But they rarely reveal the whole truth.

    Undeniably one gets attached to one's tools. I love my Leicas and my Hasselblads in the same way I love my Tom Morgan fly rod or my Anschutz rifles or my Harley and BMW motorcycles. But in all those things it's the outcome they deliver that first prompted me to grow fond of them.

    They all share one other trait, beyond the excellence of what they do... they perform their mission with an elegance and a grace that is too often missing in their more pedestrian counterparts. I won't pretend that I don't love that aspect, too.

    There is one other curiosity in all this... where are all the women? Notice how rarely they choose to take part in photography forums, where most the talk is about gear?

    My guess is they're out making pictures.

  28. #228
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Why?

    Because "success" for me has always been the end result and what it looks like. What gear puts a smile on my face most often, and most consistently? Not what someone else thinks … ME! I need that end reaction to not only feel pleasure and satisfaction from what I do, but also to feel confident in it. Nothing inspires like confidence.

    When I couple that consistent aesthetic success with the more important expression of an idea, or a revealing observation of the world around me, I tend to directly associate it with the tool I selected to do it. There doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason, just repeated success.

    So, it isn't a process of evaluating metrics, science or engineering … and attendant charts and graphs as proof, nor pundits with blogs that have sprung up on every corner of the internet like Starbucks. They are valuable as a hint, but not an artistic decision IMO.

    I applaud their role in understanding possibilities, but I am a raging skeptic as to their role in my aesthetic end game … because far to often, I've been profoundly disappointed in what is deemed "best" by charts, graphs, and pundits. On paper, they may be best, but more frequently than not, that paper hasn't been printing paper.

    - Marc
    Amen to that!
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

  29. #229
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by satybhat View Post
    <snip>

    But the process makes the difference. See the shot below. Done with the XF, WLF, iso 6400, manual focus. Minimal PP, simply a 5% increase in contrast and slight reduction on the clarity slider. literally 3 seconds of PP. Not matter what I do, I can't get that from the canons. or XT-1, or even M240 (all of which I have). That time saved to reach a level of satisfaction, say I save 10 mins on every snap I want to keep, it adds up. I do not shoot professional, but if I were to, (and I run a medical business), my main concern would be staff cost. I KNOW for a fact that using the Phase backs vs 35mm would likely save me close to 50K a year in PP staff times. In my situation, it is another 30-40 mins of personal time that I can use for other pursuits or spending time with my family. (When I'm not on forums, that is).

    <snip>
    I think you brought up a really important issue here that doesn't get discussed often enough.

    I've been shooting Phase One MF for such a long time now that I've almost forgotten what it's like to have to post process Canon files. A couple of weeks back I shot a few hundred frames from an iXU-1000 aerial camera (basically an IQ3 100 in a different chassis) that we were testing out.

    I showed a guy on my team at work - who I respect hugely for his post processing skills (he shoots pretty much everything for the Dubai 360 site these days) - the files in Capture One. Just scrolling through them, double clicking every now and then to demonstrate the resolution that had been captured. I was really just showing off the resolution, and not thinking about much else.

    But then he asked me how much time I'd spent post-processing the files. And when I told him I'd done absolutely nothing at all, he simply could not believe it.

    We came across a file that needed the shadows lifting a bit, just dragged the slider, let him look at the result. Again - he was bordering on incredulous at what he was seeing. This is a guy who understands post-processing better than anyone I've come across in the last decade. He knows LR inside out, is an expert with pretty much every piece of HDR processing software that has ever been released (and some that are still in alpha or very early betas), and a Photoshop wizard pretty much beyond compare.

    And he was blown away by a file that had zero processing.

    Time is the most valuable resource we have.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #230
    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: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    I keep telling myself I'm not going down this rabbit hole...
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  31. #231
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Me too, Don!

  32. #232
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    For me it's as simple and as complicated as this: over 20 years I have derived huge pleasure from MF - from the somewhat eccentric Fuji GX617, Mamiya 7 or Arca R series to the gradually evolved excellence of the Hasslblad V and to the long term vision of the team at Phase One which I first heard described in 2009 and which I feel is now finally being realised. None of them are or were perfect - some were short term infatuations and others have led to stable long term relationships - but they've always given me a sense that engineers and designers had tried to create something different and challenging for the inquisitive and curious photographer. Others will get equal pleasure from other formats, technologies and products and this is fine but some of these have struck me as a bit cold and clinical in their obsession with features and marginal improvements. Aren't our relationships with our cameras somewhat akin to romances and therefore hard to analyse in objective terms ? I just don't think there are measures around which we can agree on what constitutes a 'compelling reason' for one form over another. Isn't it a case of finding what works for each of us, experimenting, learning and enjoying it to the max without feeling a need to justify our choices or worrying about those of others?
    Miles Flint
    http://www.milesflint.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #233
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by MILESF View Post
    For me it's as simple and as complicated as this: over 20 years I have derived huge pleasure from MF - from the somewhat eccentric Fuji GX617, Mamiya 7 or Arca R series to the gradually evolved excellence of the Hasslblad V and to the long term vision of the team at Phase One which I first heard described in 2009 and which I feel is now finally being realised. None of them are or were perfect - some were short term infatuations and others have led to stable long term relationships - but they've always given me a sense that engineers and designers had tried to create something different and challenging for the inquisitive and curious photographer. Others will get equal pleasure from other formats, technologies and products and this is fine but some of these have struck me as a bit cold and clinical in their obsession with features and marginal improvements. Aren't our relationships with our cameras somewhat akin to romances and therefore hard to analyse in objective terms ? I just don't think there are measures around which we can agree on what constitutes a 'compelling reason' for one form over another. Isn't it a case of finding what works for each of us, experimenting, learning and enjoying it to the max without feeling a need to justify our choices or worrying about those of others?
    It has never been my intention to get people to justify their choices when I started this thread. I wanted to get opinions from those who took the plunge into MF to gauge as to whether that was something worth while for me. My mistake had been in assuming that my definition of "compelling" as in image quality and the ability to do things that are impossible to do with other formats was self evident and shared by all those who chose MF as their choice of photographic equipment. I believe that's the reason for contention on this thread - I didn't fully qualify my criteria.

    If there are those who own MF equipment because simply owning it gives them pleasure, that's all well and good, but that's not for me. If there are those who own it because of the feeling of quality they get from handling the camera, that may be great for them, but that's not for me either. If there are those who enjoy technological advances for their own sake, wonderful! However, that's not me either.

    I have gotten the answers I was seeking. I apologize to those whose feathers I may have inadvertently ruffled and I thank those who took the time to do the painstaking comparisons, who were able to be objective in their testing methodology and their findings and for those who were able to clearly explain how they use their camera systems and how that choice has made their lives easier or how those choices turned out to be expensive mistakes.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  34. #234
    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: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    It has never been my intention to get people to justify their choices when I started this thread. I wanted to get opinions from those who took the plunge into MF to gauge as to whether that was something worth while for me. My mistake had been in assuming that my definition of "compelling" as in image quality and the ability to do things that are impossible to do with other formats was self evident and shared by all those who chose MF as their choice of photographic equipment. I believe that's the reason for contention on this thread - I didn't fully qualify my criteria.

    If there are those who own MF equipment because simply owning it gives them pleasure, that's all well and good, but that's not for me. If there are those who own it because of the feeling of quality they get from handling the camera, that may be great for them, but that's not for me either. If there are those who enjoy technological advances for their own sake, wonderful! However, that's not me either.

    I have gotten the answers I was seeking. I apologize to those whose feathers I may have inadvertently ruffled and I thank those who took the time to do the painstaking comparisons, who were able to be objective in their testing methodology and their findings and for those who were able to clearly explain how they use their camera systems and how that choice has made their lives easier or how those choices turned out to be expensive mistakes.
    You are fairly new here. No one ever owns a thread on GetDPI, they may start one, but then it has a mind of its own as folks express their beliefs and exchange their ideas and experiences about photography.

    As this thread advanced it seemed clear that "self evident" reasons to use MFD for others wasn't acceptable criteria for you. I'm still not sure what your criteria is other than cherry picking evidence that supports your preordained beliefs.

    In fact, all of the criteria you list as "not for you", aren't for me either

    That simply may be due to the difference between slicing and dicing image output verses viewing holistic output from a synergistic system with eyes that are also looking for image qualities that move them … which is harder to explain because it deals with the very personal art of photography as opposed to the parsed metrics of photography. That is not an exclusive criteria for MF alone, but highly valid depending on one's approach to photography and creative expectations of an end product.

    Cutting to the chase … I am compelled to use MFD because I find it more consistently beautiful than any other choice I can currently use … and I always have.

    - Marc

  35. #235
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I'm still not sure what your criteria is other than cherry picking evidence that supports your preordained beliefs.


    - Marc
    I didn't have any preordained beliefs when I asked the question.

    My criteria is image quality - the image quality difference has to be obvious and apparent. I didn't see a very apparent quality difference (other than resolution, which is obvious and apparent), so given that 35mm formats are hovering around 50mp, I wanted to find out what is it about 50-60mp MF backs that attracts folks more than a 40-50mp 35mm format.

    My second criteria is the unique ability of the MF format to do things that other formats cannot. In this case, it became apparent that the movements and lenses offered by technical cameras seemed to offer a unique application of the format. However, I found out later that tech cameras can accommodate 35mm format, therefore that unique application no longer existed. I wanted to find out more about that. Then it turned out that Canon TSE lenses were used on tech cameras and med format backs. That blurred the lines even more, so the case for unique application could no longer be made at all. That really confused me because from my way of thinking, MF made no practical sense at all. In fact, from what I could see, there was nothing within MF (other than resolution of over 60mp) that could possibly justify such an expense. And that's pretty much when poop started flying...

  36. #236
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    One could argue that the advantages of higher image quality might be contrnt dependent, some scenes better able to make use of mf, for example. With the images abstraction has shown, for example, image quality does not seem to be a factor. Does not mean one can generalize about comparative value from that criterion

  37. #237
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    One could argue that the advantages of higher image quality might be contrnt dependent, some scenes better able to make use of mf, for example. With the images abstraction has shown, for example, image quality does not seem to be a factor. Does not mean one can generalize about comparative value from that criterion
    I have seen a number of RAW files with scenes ranging from cityscapes to studio scenes to natural vistas.

    The work that I showed wasn't shot on MF and wasn't meant as an example for comparison.

  38. #238
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    That simply may be due to the difference between slicing and dicing image output verses viewing holistic output from a synergistic system with eyes that are also looking for image qualities that move them … which is harder to explain because it deals with the very personal art of photography as opposed to the parsed metrics of photography. That is not an exclusive criteria for MF alone, but highly valid depending on one's approach to photography and creative expectations of an end product.

    Cutting to the chase … I am compelled to use MFD because I find it more consistently beautiful than any other choice I can currently use … and I always have.

    - Marc
    Sorry to extend this, but this might be a matter of the quals and quants, a long term quarrel. The photo equivalent of this could be:

    - the quants are looking for gear that takes better pictures.
    - the quals are looking for gear that helps them take better pictures.

    These are significantly different.

    It's difficult to show a quant why a different set of values other than measurable and quantifiable results might be worthwhile.

    Given recent advantages in technology, it's likely some advantages, on a strictly item-by-item comparison, have been surpassed by newer, smaller, cheaper gear. But for those of us who enjoy some particular qualitative aspect of the experience of shooting with medium format gear, it's the whole thing that matters.
    Last edited by Geoff; 24th March 2016 at 13:45. Reason: Spelling
    www.gigi-photos.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #239
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Yes,

    And there are a lot of smart people who make best use of the gear they own.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    This might be a matter of the quals and quants, a long term quarrel. the photo equivalent of this coukd be:

    - the quants are looking for gear that takes better pictures.
    - the quals are looking for gear that helps them take better pictures.

    These are significantly different.

    It's difficult to show a quant why a different set of values other than measurable and quantifiable results might be worthwhile.

    Given recent advantages in technology, it's likely some advantages, on a strictly item-by-item comparison, have been surpassed by newer, smaller, cheaper gear. But for those of us who enjoy some particular qualitative aspect of the experience of shooting with medium format gear, it's the whole thing that matters.

  40. #240
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    My criteria is image quality - the image quality difference has to be obvious and apparent. I didn't see a very apparent quality difference (other than resolution, which is obvious and apparent), so given that 35mm formats are hovering around 50mp, I wanted to find out what is it about 50-60mp MF backs that attracts folks more than a 40-50mp 35mm format.
    If the idea is to compare the files between a 50 mp 24x36 SLR and a 50 mp CMOS MF, what about visiting the following pages:
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...-5ds-rTHMB.HTM
    and
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...x-645zTHMB.HTM?

    You'll even find that raw files are available.

  41. #241
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Thanks! I've seen those. That's a good resource.

  42. #242
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    Considering the price of entry, I think it is absolutely a reasonable question to ask.

    The obvious advantage of medium format is larger sensor size. Assuming equivalent technology, like Sony CMOS on both, the advantages of larger sensors are twofold: They collect more light and make lesser demands on the lenses. If you take one of those 33x43 mm sensors they have 1.68 times the area of a 24x36 mm sensor. That means they can collect more photons. If you expose a 24x36 Sony sensor fully ETTR at 100 ISO, the 33x44 sensor will give the same noise levels 168 ISO. The full frame sensor will have the same noise levels 270 ISO. This should apply pretty exactly for same generation sensors, say Sony A7rII, IQ 250 and IQ3-100MP.

    The other factor is that a larger sensor makes less demands on the lens. The task of the lens is to provide a correct image. Now, if you transfer information from the subject to the sensor some information will be lost in transition. For large detail very little information will be lost. For smaller details more and more information will be lost. Check the image below, at 0 lp/mm the MTF is 100% and it drops to small values at high lp/mm. This applies to any lens ever made on this planet. Now, let's assume that you need 40 lp/mm for a large print from a 24x36 mm sensor. That would give you an MTF of 0.56 with this lens. Moving to a 33x44 mm sensor and assuming same short dimension on that print we would need 40 * 24 / 33 = 29 lp/mm. This would give around MTF = 0.7.





    Now, we could assume having a sharper lens on our 24x36 mm camera, like in the image below:


    In this case the green curve cuts 40 lp/mm at around 71%. The lenses here are a Zeiss Planar 100/3.5 at f/8 measured on a P45+ and a Sony 90/2.8G at f/5.6 measured on the A7rII. So using the Planar on 33x44 sensor would give about the same image quality as the Sony lens on the A7rII. (*)

    Now, I don't have a 33x44 sensor, but I have a P45+ with 37x49mm sensor. If we look at the long dimensions instead the ratio between the two sensors is 1.36, so our sensor would need 29.4 lp/mm on the larger sensor and 40 lp/mm on the smaller one. So, both sensors would give the same result.

    How does this look in practice?

    An actual pixel crop from the P45+ looks like this:


    While the Sony A7rII gives this results both processed same way and with pretty conservative (low) sharpening. Theory say they should be very close, but you are the judge:


    Now, in normal processing we also have sharpening and sharpening increases noise. All factors identical the larger sensors would have a better signal noise ratio. If we assume that Signal Noise Ratio is around 240 on the A7r, the IQ 250 would have an SNR of 311, that would allow a bit more sharpening before noise is obtrusive. Older sensors like the P45+ have lesser full well capacity. FWC is not that difficult to measure, but the SNR 18% plots from DxO-mark give some indications:

    The figure below shows that the A7rII has a bit higher SNR than the P45+. So sensor development has compensated for the size advantage of the P45+. DxO has not reported on latest generation MFD. The latest ones are the IQ-180 and the Leica S2. The Leica sensor is similar to P45+ sensor I happen to have. The IQ-180 is a bit better. The P45+ sensor is slightly larger, which would give it some advantage in noise and the Leica sensor probably has micro lenses that increase light capture efficiency, shifting the curve to the right, giving higher ISO.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 21.31.39.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	19.3 KB 
ID:	117418

    The IQ-180 has better SNR ratio at base ISO than the A7rII
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 21.35.03.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	19.9 KB 
ID:	117421

    I guess that this post demonstrates a few things:

    • There is a significant advantage of size for the larger formats
    • New and improved technology may compensate for that advantage to some extent
    • It would be very hard to keep up with a high resolution full frame back with the best lenses, so the guys who say that full frame 645 rules are probably right.


    Best regards
    Erik









    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    I didn't have any preordained beliefs when I asked the question.

    My criteria is image quality - the image quality difference has to be obvious and apparent. I didn't see a very apparent quality difference (other than resolution, which is obvious and apparent), so given that 35mm formats are hovering around 50mp, I wanted to find out what is it about 50-60mp MF backs that attracts folks more than a 40-50mp 35mm format.

    My second criteria is the unique ability of the MF format to do things that other formats cannot. In this case, it became apparent that the movements and lenses offered by technical cameras seemed to offer a unique application of the format. However, I found out later that tech cameras can accommodate 35mm format, therefore that unique application no longer existed. I wanted to find out more about that. Then it turned out that Canon TSE lenses were used on tech cameras and med format backs. That blurred the lines even more, so the case for unique application could no longer be made at all. That really confused me because from my way of thinking, MF made no practical sense at all. In fact, from what I could see, there was nothing within MF (other than resolution of over 60mp) that could possibly justify such an expense. And that's pretty much when poop started flying...
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 24th March 2016 at 23:50.
    Homepage: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
    Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/in.../photoarticles
    Portfolio: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
    Thanks 3 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #243
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Thank you for the best possible explanation that I've read. This gives a very good baseline of theoretical expectations and a better appreciation of what to look for in comparable images.

  44. #244
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Newer lenses are better, let's check the Hasselblad HC 35/3.5:
    Attachment 117342

    The Otus 28/1.4 on the other hand is really great:
    Attachment 117343

    Here in Sweden both cost around 44000 SEK around 5000$US.

    But, for the A7rII Zeiss also offers the Batis 25/2.0, that is pretty good, looking at Zeiss and Hasselblad lenses is nice because they post similar MTF data.
    Attachment 117344

    I would guess that a 40+ MP 24x36mm camera using either the OTUS 28/1.4 or the Batis 25/2 would outperform a 40-50MP Hasselblad using the HC 35/3.5 except for the sweet spot of the lenses, based on the MTF data. With the Batis 25/2 you could probably buy the A7rII and the lens at about the same price you pay for the HC 35/3.5.
    I had the curiosity of making a simple back of the enveloppe calculation. These curves are given for a maximum of 40 cycles/mm. With cameras like the Sony A7RII or the Canon 5DR, the sensor resolves around 100-120 cycles/mm. Maybe we need curves computed at a different resolution?

    Bonus question: where do the following lenses MTF transmission sit on the following curve for the two cameras cited?


  45. #245
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    Thanks! I've seen those. That's a good resource.
    Good. Can you then tell which camera is which? First center, then border:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	center.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	34.2 KB 
ID:	117425Click image for larger version. 

Name:	side.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	35.9 KB 
ID:	117426

  46. #246
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,426
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    ...............DxO has not reported on latest generation MFD. The latest ones are the IQ-180 and the Leica S2. The Leica sensor is similar to P45+ sensor I happen to have....................
    Best regards
    Erik

    You may find this of interest Eric. Apparently DxO has reported on the 645Z and has since removed the ranking...?


    http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles...rk.html?src=hs
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #247
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Erik,

    Would I be correct in assuming that a 35mm camera with around 20mp and 6 micron pixel pitch would have the same noise at base ISO as a MF back with about 50mp and the same 6 micron pixel pitch? If that's the case, then a 100mp back will have the same noise at base ISO as the 35mm at around 40mp given that both will have about a 4.5 micron pixel pitch. Am I correct? If I am, then my understanding is that the 100mp back will tax the lenses the same way as a 40mp 35mm camera.

    So, the 100mp back will have the same noise and tax the lens the same way as a 40mp 35mm camera. That also leads me to assume that in terms of noise and thereby tonality, the lower resolution backs/cameras should theoretically be better than the higher resolution ones.

  48. #248
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Good. Can you then tell which camera is which? First center, then border:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	center.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	34.2 KB 
ID:	117425Click image for larger version. 

Name:	side.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	35.9 KB 
ID:	117426
    I assume the top one is MF because the corners look a bit better, but for the most part, it seems like a wash

  49. #249
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    You may find this of interest Eric. Apparently DxO has reported on the 645Z and has since removed the ranking...?


    http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles...rk.html?src=hs
    I have wondered why this happened. DxO has never listed then pulled a camera before that I can remember. I assumed they were retesting but this happened a while ago and they never relisted the Z.

    Paul C

  50. #250
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,190
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    Yes, I am aware of it, don't know why. On the other hand, there is good data on the BClaff site: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

    Keep in mind that BClaff uses nominal ISO while DxO-mark uses saturated based measured ISO. Vendors can have different ISO ratings.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    You may find this of interest Eric. Apparently DxO has reported on the 645Z and has since removed the ranking...?


    http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles...rk.html?src=hs

Posting Permissions

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