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!

Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

Pelorus

Member
Please read this post as having been said respectfully, because that's how it's meant.

There is no answer to the question posed. It's like asking why you drive the car you drive, why you like the woman/man who is special to you, why you like a particular colour paint for your house/boat/car...

You can search out the metrics on any camera/lens/sensor combo. Ultimately it tells us nothing about why we might want to use or not that particular combination.

Taking a photo for most of us is a matter of emotional engagement. That is engagement with the subject, with the intention, with the tools, with the process. Because it is an emotional matter, it is particular to each of us. There is therefore no external objective, measurable reality that would allow a meaningful answer to your question.

The best answer is to buy and use what you feel like. That's what most of us do. We use what engages us, what moves us, what motivates or interests us.
 
Last edited:
M

mjr

Guest
Have I missed the post where you have actually declared MF pointless? I'm waiting for the final decision so I can finally get rid of all this kit, I'm sure also that P1, Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax etc are all sitting in there boardrooms just waiting so that if you declare it as a waste of time they can all pack up and get on with their lives! haha!

Look man, as has been said hundreds of times, shoot what you like, you don't need to justify it and nobody needs to justify their decisions either, I know this is going to sound absolutely crazy but your choice of gear doesn't impact me, my clients or the gear I use, I know ridiculous right! I hope none of my clients read this and think that I am a fraud for not consulting you.

Looking at your images above, I would have to question why you are even considering full frame 35mm, why spend all that money when you could buy a fuji or something, that's where the smart money is, save the rest of your cash for hookers and drugs is my best advice, go on, live a little!

I shoot mf for 2 reasons, the first is that on screen and in print, the quality of the image as a whole is much better, I don't need to compare sharpness or shadow noise at 200% because it isn't important to me, it's unlikely to be important to you with those types of shots either. The second reason is because I want to. In this age of the sony cmos sensor, I see so many images with shadows pushed because it can be done cleanly, highlights clipped because they don't handle quite so well and you end up with thousands of images that all look the same, lacking in tone and depth, why on earth can't shadows be deep and rich??

Anyway, none of it matters, I will continue to earn a living with mf and hopefully you will step away from the discussions, buy a camera and start enjoying it.

Have a nice day!

Mat
 

satybhat

Member
That's fine and that's the reason I said that if you, or anyone says: "I shoot MF because I can", that puts the entire discussion to bed. That says to me that you do it for no practical reason, but for reasons that have to do with the feel, the zen, the this, the that, all kinds of reasons except practical ones. In that case, there's nothing to discuss, everything becomes pretty clear.



I have a feeling a lot of folks out here have had their trophy wives stuffed and their trophy heads are now hanging in the cabin, in the woods somewhere. :ROTFL:




I'm not too keen on 3:2 ratio either, but I can live with it.



Funny enough, I'm not very good with Photoshop. One of the things that I really admire about a lot of folks on these forums is their ability to use photoshop to make their photographs sing. I was following an old thread where Jack Flesher was testing iq180 and he took, what I thought was a lack luster photograph and then he massaged it and voila! That image just came alive. The guy is obviously a PS magician. One of the things that makes him a magician is that you wouldn't say that he did a lot of PS work looking at his photographs. He makes them look natural and beautiful.

Conversely, my photographs are straight out of camera. If there is a way to do them in Photoshop, I wouldn't know how. The most that I do to them is clean the spots and sometimes adjust the contrast curves.

The thing that drew me to digital format is the ability to mount the backs on tech cams and have the proper movements. Besides, since my work is mostly about color, I was hoping that MF allowed for greater color tonality. Alas, from what I have seen, I'm not sure that's the case.
For me photography is a journey of discovery..... A passage from Ansel Adams’ autobiography seems apt:

To be fully committed, an artist has to believe so strongly in his own work that it is difficult to have affinities to other artists’ production. If I truly believed in the art of another artist, I would be making it rather than what I am making.
 

Dogs857

New member
Looking at your images above, I would have to question why you are even considering full frame 35mm, why spend all that money when you could buy a fuji or something, that's where the smart money is, save the rest of your cash for hookers and drugs is my best advice, go on, live a little!
My problem is I bought the MF gear and the hookers and drugs. :eek:
 

dchew

Well-known member
That's fine and that's the reason I said that if you, or anyone says: "I shoot MF because I can", that puts the entire discussion to bed. That says to me that you do it for no practical reason, but for reasons that have to do with the feel, the zen, the this, the that, all kinds of reasons except practical ones. In that case, there's nothing to discuss, everything becomes pretty clear.
I'm just having trouble with your use of the word "practical." I think feel, zen, the this and the that are all very practical reasons.

They may not be "technical" reasons, but quite practical.

Practical: of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.

Dave
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Please read this post as having been said respectfully, because that's how it's meant.

There is no answer to the question posed. It's like asking why you drive the car you drive, why you like the woman/man who is special to you, why you like a particular colour paint for your house/boat/car...

You can search out the metrics on any camera/lens/sensor combo. Ultimately it tells us nothing about why we might want to use or not that particular combination.

Taking a photo for most of us is a matter of emotional engagement. That is engagement with the subject, with the intention, with the tools, with the process. Because it is an emotional matter, it is particular to each of us. There is therefore no external objective, measurable reality that would allow a meaningful answer to your question.

The best answer is to buy and use what you feel like. That's what most of us do. We use what engages us, what moves us, what motivates or interests us.
I see cameras and photographic equipment strictly as tools to get from point A to point B. Some tools allow you to do certain things and some don't. Some make it easier to do certain things and some make it easier to do other things. Therefore, I don't have an emotional attachment to my equipment just like a carpenter doesn't have an emotional attachment to his hammer. That's why I posed a question to see if there is a quantifiable, objective reason to get into MF that would justify the price.


Have I missed the post where you have actually declared MF pointless? I'm waiting for the final decision so I can finally get rid of all this kit, I'm sure also that P1, Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax etc are all sitting in there boardrooms just waiting so that if you declare it as a waste of time they can all pack up and get on with their lives! haha!

I thought that I was pretty clear when I said that if I were to declare MF pointless, it would mean for me. Other people have other reasons to dabble in MF ranging from highly specialized applications to dabbling with toys. That's their prerogative.


Look man, as has been said hundreds of times, shoot what you like, you don't need to justify it and nobody needs to justify their decisions either, I know this is going to sound absolutely crazy but your choice of gear doesn't impact me, my clients or the gear I use, I know ridiculous right! I hope none of my clients read this and think that I am a fraud for not consulting you.
I'm not looking for justification from anyone, nor am I trying to impose my point of view onto others. I'm trying to figure out if MF is for me.

Looking at your images above, I would have to question why you are even considering full frame 35mm, why spend all that money when you could buy a fuji or something, that's where the smart money is, save the rest of your cash for hookers and drugs is my best advice, go on, live a little!
I already own full frame equipment. So, to me it's not a question of deciding which format out of 5 to choose from. I thought MF might serve me well, but I need to know what I'm spending my money on. It can't be on Zen or Voodoo. I'm not a Zen or Voodoo type of a guy.

I shoot mf for 2 reasons, the first is that on screen and in print, the quality of the image as a whole is much better, I don't need to compare sharpness or shadow noise at 200% because it isn't important to me, it's unlikely to be important to you with those types of shots either. The second reason is because I want to. In this age of the sony cmos sensor, I see so many images with shadows pushed because it can be done cleanly, highlights clipped because they don't handle quite so well and you end up with thousands of images that all look the same, lacking in tone and depth, why on earth can't shadows be deep and rich??
I agree that people out there push the shadows so much as to make their images flat and lifeless. Funny enough, the age of Sony CMOS sensors is upon the MF world. So... what's different?

In any event, thank you all who have replied. I have gotten my answers.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
This thread, while a wee bit contentious, is still cathartic:thumbup:

Hopefully, photography is and will always remain very personal. Despite the proliferation of images by the trillions, despite additions to that collective by many with an occasional decent individual image (everyone gets lucky eventually:rolleyes:), despite financial haranguing, raging technophilia, and internet logic ... we are still free to express ourselves with what ever tool that we may fancy.

I don't feel compelled to convince anyone about anything regarding their own methods, thinking, or how they accomplish their photographs including what equipment they may use. The best anyone can do is express why something works for them and most importantly ... how they see things with their own eyes.

This specific discussion skews to arguing the effect of mechanics on aesthetics ... what an image "looks like" verses what it is about (subject matter). While intertwined they certainly can be, and often are, discussed separately.

So, the net result of discussions like this usually comes down to "Do you see it, or don't you?". While no one can definitively prove MF is worth it, the counter is also true ... no one can definitively prove it isn't.

No amount of technical discussion can override what you see, or don't see. Trying to convince otherwise assumes that we all see exactly the same.

This of course begs the question ... "If we all do not see the same, do some see better?". That, my friends is the multicolored Elephant in the room:ROTFL:

Do some see more colors, or more color separations? Are our visual abilities homogeneous, or are they like vocal abilities where some have perfect pitch while others do not? To start with, science suggests otherwise ... 8 out of 100 men are color blind. Some people can see more shades of grey than others (light sensitivity). Others, especially older folks, may have the start of, or advanced, cataracts. I had cataracts removed and found images done in the last year before were too blue, and over sharpened:shocked: I recall Jack mentioning my images look "too crispy" ... he was right.

I think there are other more important considerations ... continuous exposure to images that "educate the eye" is a key differentiator IMO and experience.

How much does exposure and "educating the eye" come into play? I think a lot more than many would like to admit.

For example, a good deal of my professional career was spent as an art director. Massive exposure to images started in art school (located next to a major art museum we all frequented) ... and while working I received more photographic portfolios (mostly MF transparencies) and reels ... and collaborated with more top photographers, illustrators, designers, cinematographers, color separators, checked more proofs and progs, attended more press proofings than I could ever recount.

In short, my eye got a PHD's worth of education from the best teachers in the world.

The net result has been that in every single case, I have found MFD aesthetically delivers more of what I want to see ... or more accurately, what I am able to see. No aspersions on what other's want to see in their work, nor am I discounting the abilities of cameras like the Canon 50 meg, Nikon D810, or my own A7R-II.

MFD has been worth doing my personal best, not almost best ... and remains so to this day.

- Marc
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
To say nothing of scaring your subject... :cool:



(that's not a shot into a mirror - I have a lot less hair)

--Matt
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
That's true. I didn't consider MF's as a chick magnet. I gotta say, you whip one of these things out and everyone stops and looks as though you got something going on. :cool:
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I see cameras and photographic equipment strictly as tools to get from point A to point B. Some tools allow you to do certain things and some don't. Some make it easier to do certain things and some make it easier to do other things. Therefore, I don't have an emotional attachment to my equipment just like a carpenter doesn't have an emotional attachment to his hammer. That's why I posed a question to see if there is a quantifiable, objective reason to get into MF that would justify the price.
Btw, in my experience with carpenters or other woodworkers I've found that they very much care and have attachment to their choice of tools. Similarly talk to mechanics and other folks who use tools overall and you will find that they very often have favorite items that don't necessarily make sense in a commoditized world but do make a difference to their day to day work. If you talk to many chefs you'll find that they have attachment to their choice of knives and other items which may or may not be rational to you or me but it is to them.

You are correct though that for some people what they use isn't so important as what they produce. It just has to be good enough to get the job done.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
You are correct though that for some people what they use isn't so important as what they produce. It just has to be good enough to get the job done.
I'm one of those people. I don't attach to things.

BTW, I like the work you do. You're a good photographer.
 

MrSmith

Member
1. Nothing is as sexy as a MF selfie.
Somebody really drank that kool-aid and then went back for some more because they couldn't get enough of it.

Cameras are not 'sexy'. cameras are boxes of made by visually unaware geeks with a mechanical/electrical/optical understanding.
 

Pelorus

Member
This is just the point and well said.

Another example snapped with an iPhone. Ferran Adria doesn't live here, but there's a knife for most jobs in the kitchen and they are incredibly sharp and incredibly tactile. Do they improve the process of cooking? Absolutely.

knives.jpg

Btw, in my experience with carpenters or other woodworkers I've found that they very much care and have attachment to their choice of tools. Similarly talk to mechanics and other folks who use tools overall and you will find that they very often have favorite items that don't necessarily make sense in a commoditized world but do make a difference to their day to day work. If you talk to many chefs you'll find that they have attachment to their choice of knives and other items which may or may not be rational to you or me but it is to them.
[snip]
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
You can buy a lot of tactility from a lot of hookers for the kind of money you're gonna spend on tactile MF equipment.
 
Somebody really drank that kool-aid and then went back for some more because they couldn't get enough of it.
Sorry you didn't get enough Kool-aid when you were growing up. I would be glad to ship you a case. It's actually quite pleasant.

Cameras are not 'sexy'. cameras are boxes of made by visually unaware geeks with a mechanical/electrical/optical understanding.
Get a grip man. (no pun intended) Anything can be "sexy". Its only a figure of speech much like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Perhaps it would have been clearer to say, "I enjoy being in nature and having a camera gives me a chance to share what is unfolding in front of my lens." Shooting a camera "selfie" is simply a way of passing time, waiting for the light to be just right or a wave to crash most dramatically before snapping a frame.

My preference in shooting large format or medium format comes from my earliest training in photography at age 15. My instructor handed me a 4 x 5 Speed graphic and later made me shoot with an 8 x 10 Deardorff.

Everyone who visits this site has a passion for photography and yes that involves gear which is principle in creating the photographs.
 
Last edited:

MrSmith

Member
Well I don't do saccharine pop with an ingredients list like this so will have to decline your generous offer
Sugar, Citric Acid (Provides Tartness), Calcium Phosphate (Prevents Caking), Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Artificial Flavor, Red 40, Blue 1.

As for getting a grip? I think those who buy into the myths and marketing or the desire of post purchase affirmation from their peers over making good images are the ones needing to take a step back.
Speaking as somebody who has done the 10x8 and downwards format journey I don't get the obsession of 'gear' above image making.
And I don't get the MFD thing slows you down and makes you take better images thing either, that's just a state of mind about how you go about creating imagery, the format is just the size of the tool you happen to use.

This viewpoint on MFD relates to maintaining the size of my comfort fund and the best way to keep my clients happy and coming back, I appreciate a retired dentist or lawyer has different priorities.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Oft overlooked in threads like this are the non resolution/sensor topics such as:
- flash sync based on leaf shutters rather than HSS or other psuedo sync technologies (which lose power when you turn up sync speed)
- Waist Level Viewfinder
- Simpler interface (look an XF or Contax and then look at a Sony A7R)
- Lens look (not just lens quality, though... that too)
- Option to use alternative bodies (e.g. tech camera, view camera, home made camera etc)
- Quality of raw conversion, since the hardware and software teams are under one roof
- Skin tone out of camera for the same reason
- Features like exposure calculator, clipping indicator (like exposure warning, but smarter), adjustable focus mask and several new features to be introduced very very soon (can't wait!) which are targeted at photographers who know what they are doing, rather than what seems to be a continual addition of prosumer features on most canon/nikon-sony cameras.
- ergonomics (I have to ADD weight/size/material to my X Pro 1 for it to feel like a real camera in my hands; not the case with the XF - of course personal taste)
- dealer-support/training/warranty

etc

In general I can say that around 80-90% of the people that take us up on our offer to come play with MF gear hands-on (actually taking pictures rather than philosophizing or researching specs) end up buying one. So there are, apparently, compelling reasons enough for them :). The least likely people to actually end up buying a camera in my experience are the ones that are most interested in the spec sheet rather than capturing and looking at images.

As with any "is there a compelling reason to" question the answer is "Sure, many. Whether they apply to you, or override any potential negatives (in this case, primarily, $$) is something only you can answer".
 
This viewpoint on MFD relates to maintaining the size of my comfort fund and the best way to keep my clients happy and coming back, I appreciate a retired dentist or lawyer has different priorities.
Your points are well taken. Thank you.

Except. And there always are exceptions.

Its been said "Photography is the coalescence of art and science."

I have a “gear” obsession and an “image making” obsession. No need to for the two to be mutually exclusive. If I could attach a polaroid to back of my head that would work. Until then… a camera, be it a Holga, Graflex or MFD will suffice. The gear choice depends on what I’m trying to achieve with the image.

The debate of what it takes gear wise and otherwise to make compelling imagery has been discussed hotly since the “Pictorialists” first squared off against “The Group F/64” in the late 1800s. (I can’t even imagine how they did it without the internet—Thank you Al Gore…) And it still lingers to today. No resolution. Either you have taken some images to put in a 4 x 6 inch photo album, perhaps made wall size images for a gallery presentation or not. It still takes gear.

Much like you I shoot photographs to feed the beast and maintain the size of my comfort fund. I have been blessed to have met some of the retirees and weekend artists on the forum. To be frank, they shoot some awesome photographs. And the passion they bring to the art of photography is refreshing. It’s inspiring to meet someone who just started shooting and has fresh eyes on the prize who produces great images all without “Art School” “Brooks Institute” “RIT” or any of the institutes of higher learning or photography courses we had to take to become “commercial or advertising” photographers..

I appreciate these early adapters to new tech because they do the heavy lifting in testing the gear and looking at every nook and cranny of any newly released photography equipment.
 
Last edited:

Abstraction

Well-known member
Oft overlooked in threads like this are the non resolution/sensor topics such as:
- flash sync based on leaf shutters rather than HSS or other psuedo sync technologies (which lose power when you turn up sync speed)
- Waist Level Viewfinder
- Simpler interface (look an XF or Contax and then look at a Sony A7R)
- Lens look (not just lens quality, though... that too)
- Option to use alternative bodies (e.g. tech camera, view camera, home made camera etc)
- Quality of raw conversion, since the hardware and software teams are under one roof
- Skin tone out of camera for the same reason
- Features like exposure calculator, clipping indicator (like exposure warning, but smarter), adjustable focus mask and several new features to be introduced very very soon (can't wait!) which are targeted at photographers who know what they are doing, rather than what seems to be a continual addition of prosumer features on most canon/nikon-sony cameras.
- ergonomics (I have to ADD weight/size/material to my X Pro 1 for it to feel like a real camera in my hands; not the case with the XF - of course personal taste)
- dealer-support/training/warranty

etc

In general I can say that around 80-90% of the people that take us up on our offer to come play with MF gear hands-on (actually taking pictures rather than philosophizing or researching specs) end up buying one. So there are, apparently, compelling reasons enough for them :). The least likely people to actually end up buying a camera in my experience are the ones that are most interested in the spec sheet rather than capturing and looking at images.

As with any "is there a compelling reason to" question the answer is "Sure, many. Whether they apply to you, or override any potential negatives (in this case, primarily, $$) is something only you can answer".

I have shot with medium format equipment, albeit film, not digital, so the "feel" of the "real camera" is familiar to me. There is no Zen like feeling in it for me. Cameras are tools, nothing more.

As far as interfaces and the simplicity are concerned, any camera is as simple as you want to make it. You can take any camera with manual exposure capability and use it as such. You can turn off autofocusing on any camera, you can turn off TTL flash, you can turn off the meter and use a hand hand incident meter. In other words, you can take ANY camera and break it down to its bare bones and use not just like a manual camera, but like a view camera.

Initially, I thought that the most compelling reason for getting MF was the ability to use tech cameras. However, given that there are offerings out there that accommodate not just mirrorless, but SLR bodies, even that point becomes moot (as are the lenses, since the same lenses are used on tech cameras regardless of the bodies)

Additionally, since the new generation of backs has embraced the Sony CMOS sensor, it seems to me that the ONLY truly compelling reason to get the MF equipment is resolution. If one needs resolution north of 50mp, then MF is the way to go, no question about it. The resolution difference is real, EASILY seen, and objective.

The rest... meh. At least, that's my own take on it. People buy all sorts of stuff for all sorts of reasons. That's not an indication of anything, other than marketing, perhaps.

I don't mean to beat up on people who like MF. Some of them really need it, I think most of them don't, but they're the ones spending their own money, so who am I to judge? In the end, having seen a number of RAW files and done a number of comparisons, *I* don't think the image quality difference justifies the price. Since I thought that having a digital back was the only way to use a tech camera, I entertained the idea, but since that's not the case either, I can't see a COMPELLING reason for ME to jump on the bandwagon.

Having said all that, I'm glad the MF equipment is out there. I definitely like these forums and the folks here tend to be more civilized and generally, better photographers.
 
Top