Site Sponsors
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 301 to 350 of 432

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

  1. #301
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Big Island, Hawaii & Utah
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    IF you only print 11x17 then I would agree that overall you won't see the real benefit of MF digital. With my HP Z3200 I have to downrez my MF files to 300dpi and reduce the overall size to match the native size of my printer paper. However, what I get as results do pop in a way that smaller sensor files ultimately don't.

    If all you want is convenience then obviously a 35mm system is going to give you that if you travel with both MF and 35mm. Personally I find that the rigour of shooting just MF OR 35mm works better.
    I remember hearing the same type of argument back in film days. I heard claims that you couldn't tell the difference between MF and 35mm with 8x10 prints or smaller. The argument was bunk. Even 5x7 lab prints had a look that 35mm could not match.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #302
    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 Charles Wood View Post
    I remember hearing the same type of argument back in film days. I heard claims that you couldn't tell the difference between MF and 35mm with 8x10 prints or smaller. The argument was bunk. Even 5x7 lab prints had a look that 35mm could not match.
    The people arguing on the base of test charts and brick wall cannot see differences on smaller prints, because they design their tests so that all differences are equal but resolution:
    • they use a flat subject, so that out of focus zones (bokeh) are absent
    • they use relatively small apertures (f/8-f/11) so that lens aberrations are minimal
    • they take the very best lenses for 24x36 (Otus...)
    • they correct the colours with a colour-checker, thereby equalizing coulour differences between camera systems
    • they use subjects with relatively small dynamic range, so that the dynamic fits the two camera systems
    • etc...


    Conversely, the only difference the tests can show are differences in resolution. These only show on large prints. But that is not a feature of the cameras, that is a feature of the test design.

  3. #303
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hi,

    For my part, I am not really testing systems. What I say is that I don't see a difference (in the sense I can say which print is from which camera) at A2 (16"x23") size on subjects I typically shoot. Now:

    • I am mostly a landscape shooter, so my subjects are essentially flat. Infinity is flat.
    • Yes I use medium apertures mostly. I am not really interested in bokeh type shots, and I cannot focus the Hasselblad 555/ELD reliably at large apertures. All the Zeiss lenses for the V-system have a lot of axial chroma (except the Planar 100/3.5). For bokeh I use a long lens on the Sony.
    • I compare old Zeiss prime lenses to new zooms or the Sony 90/2.8G macro. I don't have any Otus…
    • In most comparisons I have not included a grey reference, I wish I had. But I seldom use one.
    • I don't avoid subjects with large illumination ratio, but it is well known that modern CMOS designs (essentially non Canon) perform better than CCD based MFD regarding DR. There are some indications that Canon's new latest sensors have greatly improved DR. (80D, 1Dx II), possibly using on sensor columnwise ACDs.
    • What I would say I compare what I normally shoot, the way I normally shoot. I don't see any MFD advantage except resolution and that resolution advantage is history with latest 24x36 except for 60-100 MP sensors on MFD.
    • I would also add that I am not that interested in extreme corners two meters in front of the camera. As long as the 24x36 mm camera outperforms the MFD over 90% of the image area I would prefer that to a camera lens combo that is better in the extreme corners but less sharp overall.


    This page should hold some decent info on my recent comparisons: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...rII/index.html

    That info is good enough for me to carry the A7rII and leave the P45+ behind.

    This is a high DR scenario:

    P45+:


    Sony Alpha 99


    Full image:


    Histogram from the above shot, made on an HDR image:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-03-29 at 08.39.13.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	20.5 KB 
ID:	117517



    Best regards
    Erik






    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    The people arguing on the base of test charts and brick wall cannot see differences on smaller prints, because they design their tests so that all differences are equal but resolution:
    • they use a flat subject, so that out of focus zones (bokeh) are absent
    • they use relatively small apertures (f/8-f/11) so that lens aberrations are minimal
    • they take the very best lenses for 24x36 (Otus...)
    • they correct the colours with a colour-checker, thereby equalizing coulour differences between camera systems
    • they use subjects with relatively small dynamic range, so that the dynamic fits the two camera systems
    • etc...


    Conversely, the only difference the tests can show are differences in resolution. These only show on large prints. But that is not a feature of the cameras, that is a feature of the test design.
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 29th March 2016 at 00:21.

  4. #304
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I got into MFD back in 2012, a pre-owned Linhof Techno with Schneider Digitar lenses with a pre-owned Aptus 75 back. Today I have the same system, but the back is now a H4D-50 and I have a bunch of additional Digitars.

    The situation has changed though, Copal shutters are discontinued, the only reasonable replacement seems to be focal plane shutters, Schneider Digitar lenses have been discontinued, and with those the symmetric small aperture distortion-free low-complexity low weight designs are, well, history. CMOS backs are here, but they even have issues with weak retrofocus lenses, and you see the dealers and manufacturers push for solutions like focus stacking, keystone correction, cropping rather than shooting with traditional "large format" techniques.

    I think cameras will converge, the time when the digital back was a drop-in replacement for a film back is fading away, and we'll see cameras become more and more electronic and similar and in the end only size will differ. Do you want a big Sony Mirrorless or a smaller one? For most people this is an excellent development.

    However, when the workflow will be essentially the same like a consumer camera and the image quality of the consumer camera matches or exceeds what even 4x5" film could do, then I don't see much of a reason to go even bigger. I do agree that MFD is really super-great concerning image quality, but I don't buy into is that 135 is super-bad and that your work would be second rate if you use it. The difference is there, it's just not that meaningful any longer. It's no longer the days when P45 was the king when you compared a 16 megapixel Canon 1DsII with the old TS-E24 with a 39 megapixel P45 with an SK35. The newer lenses and the A7r, D810, 5Ds etc has made a difference, the quality is at levels now that before was only possible with medium format digital or large format film. I won't pretend that it hasn't happened.

    As 135 format has progressed with better and better image quality (and I have become better and better at controlling color from any camera) the attraction of MFD has for me become less about image quality specifics, and more about the traditional shooting experience and elegant design tradeoffs that you find in the truly purpose-made Schneider Digitars. My "passion" in medium format is not about digital backs, it's about field view cameras and large-format-style lenses. The MFD industry has however done their best to do away with the uniqueness and focused on one thing only: become more like the user-friendly and generic 135 cameras just with more megapixels. And, they're probably doing the right thing... they can't afford to satisfy niche interests which I'm aware mine is.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #305
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Wood View Post
    I remember hearing the same type of argument back in film days. I heard claims that you couldn't tell the difference between MF and 35mm with 8x10 prints or smaller. The argument was bunk. Even 5x7 lab prints had a look that 35mm could not match.
    when discussing the benefits of mf one things is always true - the supposed benefits are over exaggerated. i have done a lot of prints color and bw from all kinds of formats on high end enlargers and lenses in the past and yes there is a difference between prints made frome 35mm and 6x45 but also in filme days it was not that huge it was subtile.

    when film stock improved in the early nineties a lot of fashion work was moved from the entry level mf to 35mm and i can´t remember one time where 6x45 users talked about the miracle 3d ness and all this other BS which was brought up as sales arguments for the struggling mf companys to fight the big players in the 35mm world.

  6. #306
    Member AreBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Highlands, Scotland
    Posts
    171
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Jerome,

    The people arguing on the base of test charts and brick wall cannot see differences on smaller prints, because they design their tests so that all differences are equal but resolution:

    • they use a flat subject, so that out of focus zones (bokeh) are absent
    • they use relatively small apertures (f/8-f/11) so that lens aberrations are minimal
    • they take the very best lenses for 24x36 (Otus...)
    • they correct the colours with a colour-checker, thereby equalizing coulour differences between camera systems
    • they use subjects with relatively small dynamic range, so that the dynamic fits the two camera systems
    • etc...
    Is it correct that there is all but no difference between MFD and 35mm for landscape photography, given that landscape photographers:

    • use small apertures, so out of focus zones (bokeh) are absent
    • use small apertures so that lens aberrations are minimal
    • use the very best lenses, regardless of format, if image quality is important to them
    • can increasingly, with modern equipment, capture the dynamic range of the scene they photograph using either format, and where this is not possible the same filters (e.g. Graduated) would likely be used


    Out-of-the-box colour from each system will, of course, vary according to equipment manufacturer. However, as torger has made clear on several occasions, colour rests principally in a profile rather than hardware.

  7. #307
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AreBee View Post
    Jerome,



    Is it correct that there is all but no difference between MFD and 35mm for landscape photography, given that landscape photographers:

    • use small apertures, so out of focus zones (bokeh) are absent
    • use small apertures (f/8-f/11) so that lens aberrations are minimal
    • use the very best lenses, regardless of format, if image quality is important to them
    • can increasingly, with modern equipment, capture the dynamic range of the scene they photograph using either format, and where this is not possible the same filters (e.g. Graduated) would likely be used


    Out-of-the-box colour from each system will, of course, vary according to equipment manufacturer. However, as torger has made clear on several occasions, colour rests principally in a profile rather than hardware.
    Bokeh is not 100% absent in landscape, but it's generally very subtle. I think I can "easily" recognize the bokeh from my SK digitars (the symmetric lenses have a special foggy look which I like), but it's a nosing/pixel peep exercise. Maybe this subtle bokeh is contributing to this special 3D-ness in large prints some people is talking about. I haven't really cared to make A/B tests on that, as I haven't seen any obvious and I don't worry about it. However while legacy lens designs was quite different from 135 (simple vs complex), the newer MF ones are the same super-high-element-count super-corrected stuff found in the smaller formats so I'm skeptical about that there would be much difference in layering today. It would be interesting to test in depth sometime. I find it interesting that the bokeh layering advantage has been a main claimed advantage of MFD format and it hasn't changed despite that lens designs and bokeh look has changed. Is it still better, or is people referring to how it was in the past? I don't know.

    Anyway in principle I agree, that landscape is a genre where many camera system specifics are evened out thanks to the small apertures. On the other hand it's a genre where you can make most use of high resolving power too, and if you have a style that employs camera movements you have much more options regarding high quality focal lengths in the MFD camp.

    Here's a 100% crop (6um pixels) from foreground and a little bit of background bokeh from a Schneider Digitar 72mm at f/16. This is an old-school simple symmetric lens design, 6 elements in 4 groups.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sk-bokeh.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	20.0 KB 
ID:	117520

  8. #308
    Member AreBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Highlands, Scotland
    Posts
    171
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    torger,

    Bokeh is not 100% absent in landscape, but it's generally very subtle...
    ...and all but eliminated when tilt, a movement synonymous with landscape photography, is applied?

  9. #309
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AreBee View Post
    torger,



    ...and all but eliminated when tilt, a movement synonymous with landscape photography, is applied?
    The example I posted above show more out-of-focus than is generally common, for demonstration purposes. My personal landscape shooting style is much about close intimate shots and less about the grand open scenic views, and in the former the depth of field is generally always a little at play. But indeed, I shoot open scenes too, like this scene I shot this weekend:

    Name:  tilt.jpg
Views: 579
Size:  213.5 KB

    (as a more or less subtle comment on hydropower's effect on the landscape) using a SK47XL @ f/16 with some fall and tilt there's nothing in it that is visibly out of focus, maybe a little pixel-peep fuzzy in some places due to atmospheric conditions and lens limitations. Depth of field layering is a non-issue here for sure. So yes, you have a point.

    As a sidenote about this lens, in the past (like back in 2012) getting a flexible tilt-shift lens with "35mm" field of view (the SK47 gives that view with my 45x37mm sensor) was not easy/possible in the 135 systems. The least bad was the TS-E 24II with a 1.4x teleconverter. That alone was a pretty strong point for some of us to get MFD for landscape/architecture photography as this field of view is one of the more important ones, not too narrow, not too wide, very natural perspective. Today I think there's better options thanks to solutions like the Actus, the mirrorless cameras and various adapters.

  10. #310
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hi,

    In my recent comparison shots I have two "bokeh crops". Both taken at equivalent apertures:

    Hasselblad 555/ELD P45+ Sony A7rII

    Best regards
    Erik
    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    The example I posted above show more out-of-focus than is generally common, for demonstration purposes. My personal landscape shooting style is much about close intimate shots and less about the grand open scenic views, and in the former the depth of field is generally always a little at play. But indeed, I shoot open scenes too, like this scene I shot this weekend:
    ...

    As a sidenote about this lens, in the past (like back in 2012) getting a flexible tilt-shift lens with "35mm" field of view (the SK47 gives that view with my 45x37mm sensor) was not easy/possible in the 135 systems. The least bad was the TS-E 24II with a 1.4x teleconverter. That alone was a pretty strong point for some of us to get MFD for landscape/architecture photography as this field of view is one of the more important ones, not too narrow, not too wide, very natural perspective. Today I think there's better options thanks to solutions like the Actus, the mirrorless cameras and various adapters.

  11. #311
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    In landscape photography with deep depth of field I rarely make use of the obvious out of focus areas. A web-sized image would be seen as 100% in focus, while on a large print you can see subtle differences between what's in the focal plane and what's outside. Possibly this could be experienced as a "3D-ness", and possibly this could differ between formats. I remain skeptical (I don't think differences is large enough to really make a real difference), but I haven't made any full-scale A/B test on it either. I wouldn't count on the effect to be there until I test and see it for myself, but I can't dismiss it entirely either. It's certainly not anything I'm sleepless about though. I've made prints from my 135 camera, even an APS-C camera and I didn't find 3D-ness particularly lacking, so if there's a difference it's not critical from my point of view.

    As Rob pointed out this effect would only be visible on certain subjects which are layered, like tight forest scenes I often shoot, but rarely in open landscape scenes which may be focused with tilt.

    I do have a scientific approach to image quality, I must have that as I make software that work with images. If I can't point out a clear reason the quality of the image is experienced in that way or another, I can't make progress as I don't know what problem to solve. In threads like this there's always a collision between a drier scientific view and a more emotional experience of the image.

    When I'm out shooting I switch to an artist's mindset which is much more emotional and moody. Gear is then to me more about shooting process than image quality. I just don't want to worry about image quality, that is I want to use any lens and any reasonable movement without worrying that the image quality won't be good. I appreciate using the same gear year in and year out as that gives me better ability to relax and focus on the image. Constantly upgrading to stay in the forefront of technical image quality and nifty feature sets is not really compatible with my artist self. Medium format was once the place to be with that mindset, but I think it's become messed up lately, there's just too many dead ends. So today I have very mixed and confused feelings about digital medium format.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #312
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    If I had time and money to burn, I'd shoot 4x5" film and scan using my Imacon 949. I love the 4x5" workflow and particularly the aesthetics of film.

    I'd still be shooting 6x7cm film on my Linhof Techno primarily (which I did exclusively for years) if it wasn't for having a young family and simply not having time time to sit in front of the scanner, scanning, spotting and colour correcting film.

    This is why I now shoot with my Credo 60 on the Techno. The quality is supurb. Although I personally prefer the look of film, it really is a wash and the Credo has miles more detail. I'm under no illusions that the CCD chip in my back is giving me the absolute best possible results for what I'm using if for – i.e. when shooting high contrast scenes with deep shadows and exposing as to not clip highlights in the sky, for example – especially considering the LCC process kills a lot of the colour and latitude of the files on large shifts (I often stitch to 6x13 ratio, with up to 10mm of fall of the back. Then there's the stress on the lenses, where detail drop off is quite noticeable.) But I very much enjoy the working process of the technical camera and that's a very important thing to me as it makes me feel more connected to and involved in the scene I'm photographing and intimately engaged in the picture taking process.

    At the end of the day, I'd find it very hard to go back to film and I've worked enough with smaller formats with fiddly tilt-shift lenses and live view to be put off completely. DMF and technical cameras aren't for everyone, for sure. But all the above is why I chose to jump in to the DMF realm, despite what other (cheaper) technology was / is on offer.

  13. #313
    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 AreBee View Post
    Is it correct that there is all but no difference between MFD and 35mm for landscape photography, given that landscape photographers:

    • use small apertures, so out of focus zones (bokeh) are absent
    • use small apertures so that lens aberrations are minimal
    • use the very best lenses, regardless of format, if image quality is important to them
    • can increasingly, with modern equipment, capture the dynamic range of the scene they photograph using either format, and where this is not possible the same filters (e.g. Graduated) would likely be used


    Out-of-the-box colour from each system will, of course, vary according to equipment manufacturer. However, as torger has made clear on several occasions, colour rests principally in a profile rather than hardware.
    You are almost correct. First, your neglected to mention resolution, which is higher on MF and is really, really nice to have for landscapes. Second, the "very best lenses, regardless of format" are not as good on 24x36 as on MF, if you want wide-angle lenses. That is a problem with 24x36: wide-angle lenses are not so good, especially if you mount them on a 50 mpix camera. The optical engineers can only do so much. That is one of the untold reason why comparisons between 24x36 and MF cameras are usually done with 50mm / 80mm lenses, actually.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  14. #314
    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 torger View Post
    Maybe this subtle bokeh is contributing to this special 3D-ness in large prints some people is talking about. I haven't really cared to make A/B tests on that, as I haven't seen any obvious and I don't worry about it. However while legacy lens designs was quite different from 135 (simple vs complex), the newer MF ones are the same super-high-element-count super-corrected stuff found in the smaller formats so I'm skeptical about that there would be much difference in layering today. It would be interesting to test in depth sometime. I find it interesting that the bokeh layering advantage has been a main claimed advantage of MFD format and it hasn't changed despite that lens designs and bokeh look has changed. Is it still better, or is people referring to how it was in the past? I don't know.

    Maybe I can explain a bit more on that subject.

    "Bokeh", the characteristic of out of focus rendering and "how a lens draws", the characteristic of in-focus rendering/contrast, is primarily dependent on lens aberrations. That is where the sensor size matters, but not directly.

    Many lens aberrations vary with aperture, in particular spherical aberration and longitudinal chromatic aberration. These two actually vary with the second power of the aperture, so faster than linear. These two are also quite important for bokeh and lens draw.

    What happens when we use a camera with a larger sensor? If we want prints of the same size and about the same depth of field, we will need to close the aperture in linear relation to sensor size (i.e. first power of sensor size). By doing that, we decrease the aberrations and get a more "neutral" bokeh and rendering. For example: with a digital MF, one would use 80mm and f/4, with minimal aberrations. With a 24x36, one would use 50mm and f/2.8 and start to see the effect of aberrations.

    The effect is compounded in actual photographic practice: in real life, MF photographers will use smaller apertures, because they want to print big and therefore want larger depth of field. 24x36 photographers, on the contrary, will want to play with their new fast lens.

    There is another effect at play: MF lenses are usually much better corrected. The Nikon 35mm f/2.0, for example, is a relatively straightforward 6-elements lens. The focal length equivalent on my Hasselblad is the HC-50, which needs 11 elements of complex design (version II), is only open at f/3.5 and weights a ton. You don't even have a 35mm that slow in 24x36 land any more. Remember: aperture is a dimensionless number so does not scale with sensor size.

    So what does all this mean in practice? In practice, it means that the two systems will give very different results in use. 24x36 will show more lens defects, but also more "lens character". MF will have a more neutral rendering.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #315
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hi Jerome,

    I have an issue with your comparison. I would assume that we compare MFD with high end 24x36 mm. I don't think any photographer would put a Nikon 35/2.0 on his D810 as there is the 35/1.8G and 35/1.4G to choose from. The 35/1.8G has eleven lenses in eight groups. So, that lens would be a more adequate comparison.

    The other issue is that axial chroma does not vary with aperture, it simply means that parallel rays of different focal lengths converge at different focal planes. Stopping down reduces the visible effects. I have seen a lot of axial chromatic aberration on MFD lenses. The two lenses I use for "bokeh type" shots on the A7rII have virtually none, but neither of those is large aperture. The lenses are 90/2.8G and 70-400/4-5.6G. The 90/2.8 has 15 lenses in 11 groups, indicating the need of complex design for a well corrected macro lens. The Hasselblad HC Macro 120/4 II has 9 elements in nine groups, just as a comparison.

    Here is a demo image from the Leica S2 showing a lot of green fringing on the curtains in the background:
    LEICA Camera AG - S2 RAW (the image on the left)

    The image below is from Digital Transitions's studio shot (amazingly good lens otherwise):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.23.02.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	19.6 KB 
ID:	117540

    Much reduced it still there at f/4:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.27.11.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	19.7 KB 
ID:	117541

    Just to say, the Sony lens tested is even worse. But, has Phase One 80/2.8 LS LoCa at f/4? Yes, absolutely!

    Best regards
    Erik






    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Maybe I can explain a bit more on that subject.

    "Bokeh", the characteristic of out of focus rendering and "how a lens draws", the characteristic of in-focus rendering/contrast, is primarily dependent on lens aberrations. That is where the sensor size matters, but not directly.

    Many lens aberrations vary with aperture, in particular spherical aberration and longitudinal chromatic aberration. These two actually vary with the second power of the aperture, so faster than linear. These two are also quite important for bokeh and lens draw.

    What happens when we use a camera with a larger sensor? If we want prints of the same size and about the same depth of field, we will need to close the aperture in linear relation to sensor size (i.e. first power of sensor size). By doing that, we decrease the aberrations and get a more "neutral" bokeh and rendering. For example: with a digital MF, one would use 80mm and f/4, with minimal aberrations. With a 24x36, one would use 50mm and f/2.8 and start to see the effect of aberrations.

    The effect is compounded in actual photographic practice: in real life, MF photographers will use smaller apertures, because they want to print big and therefore want larger depth of field. 24x36 photographers, on the contrary, will want to play with their new fast lens.

    There is another effect at play: MF lenses are usually much better corrected. The Nikon 35mm f/2.0, for example, is a relatively straightforward 6-elements lens. The focal length equivalent on my Hasselblad is the HC-50, which needs 11 elements of complex design (version II), is only open at f/3.5 and weights a ton. You don't even have a 35mm that slow in 24x36 land any more. Remember: aperture is a dimensionless number so does not scale with sensor size.

    So what does all this mean in practice? In practice, it means that the two systems will give very different results in use. 24x36 will show more lens defects, but also more "lens character". MF will have a more neutral rendering.
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 29th March 2016 at 23:34.

  16. #316
    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
    I have an issue with your comparison. I would assume that we compare MFD with high end 24x36 mm. I don't think any photographer would put a Nikon 35/2.0 on his D810 as there is the 35/1.8G and 35/1.4G to choose from. The 35/1.8G has eleven lenses in eight groups. So, that lens would be a more adequate comparison.
    I chose the 35/2.0 as the slowest 35mm lens in Nikon mount and it is still almost 2 stops faster than the MF equivalent. I am trying to compare lenses of similar apertures. Each stop increases the complexity of the optical design.


    The other issue is that axial chroma does not vary with aperture, it simply means that parallel rays of different focal lengths converge at different focal planes. Stopping down reduces the visible effects. I have seen a lot of axial chromatic aberration on MFD lenses.
    I don't understand how you can write at the same time "does not vary with aperture" and "stopping down reduces the visible effects". Maybe you are confusing longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration? In any case, longitudinal chromatic aberration varies with aperture and lateral chromatic aberration does not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma...erration#Types

    The 90/2.8 has 15 lenses in 11 groups, indicating the need of complex design for a well corrected macro lens. The Hasselblad HC Macro 120/4 II has 9 elements in nine groups, just as a comparison.
    The Sony 90mm needs a more complex design because:
    • it is a full stop faster
    • it includes an optical group for stabilization
    • it includes a separate group for focus


    That last point is often ignored. Newest cameras with on-sensor AF use different optical designs so as to reduce the mass of the focussing group. That complicates the work of the optical engineer considerably.

  17. #317
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I've been under the impression that low complexity lenses have and advantage bokeh-wise, and that's what makes much of the older analog lenses, and indeed the symmetric lenses for my tech camera, have good properties.

    When you leave the normal symmetric designs and make retrofocus or tele constructions you need to increase the complexity though to reduce nasty side effects. However much of the corrections is to make lenses sharper, less distorted, and I've assumed it may actually be detrimental to bokeh. That is you need to make a tradeoff between sharpness and smoothness of bokeh, but I don't really know how much truth it is in that. I love the look of a Mamyia 6x7 110mm f/2.8, and it's just 6 elements in 5 groups.

    The color fringing of bokeh seems to be a problem in a lot of lenses, even high end ones. The 55mm Otus is one of few that has virtually no color fringing, a lens with 12 elements in 10 groups where a typical ~50mm has half that amount.

    I think it is a problem that the trend is towards more and more complex optical designs, largely an effect of the megapixel race where sharpness is virtually the only factor that is considered. Medium format actually had a unique position back when they had large pixel sizes, that allowed them to have lower angles of incoming light with the currently available pixel technologies, allowing unique optical designs impossible in the smaller formats. Now medium format is a small pixel format too -- in order to respond to overwhelming desire for more megapixels -- and shares the same pixel technology with the smaller format, requiring the same type of optics.

    Probably this is a necessary development, I see over and over people that upgrade in order to "keep the distance to the 135 crowd", and having a lot more megapixels is key to that, a number than everyone understands. The way I see it 135 have by increasing the pixel counts (now 50 MP!) pushed medium format into a corner. Ideally I think MFD should have stayed at lower pixel counts and waited until the pixel technology matured and could handle smaller sizes with maintained and improved the unique properties in isolation and angular response.

  18. #318
    Member AreBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Highlands, Scotland
    Posts
    171
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    torger,

    Ideally I think MFD should have stayed at lower pixel counts and waited until the pixel technology matured and could handle smaller sizes with maintained and improved the unique properties in isolation and angular response.
    It is possible that, in due course, the properties that you cherish will return, while retaining high MP count - curved sensors would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, issues that increasingly plague technical camera use, albeit a new set of lens designs would be required.

  19. #319
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Yes it's possible it will return, even likely. However the current sensor generation could stay in for a long time, if we look historically it could be 6 years or so until we see significantly new sensor technology in the MFD camp compared to what we have now. It's hard to predict though as it's the first time around with CMOS which has had a much faster technology development overall than CCD.

    I don't dare to look into the future, it's so difficult to predict. I go one year at a time.

  20. #320
    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?

    Ha, being able to predict one year in advance is no mean feat!

    As with all things, knowing what you want is key, you have a great kit that you enjoy using with a db that handles what you want to do really well so I guess it doesn't matter so much? I only change kit when what I have doesn't do what I need it to do, increase in dr, pah, I really don't see the benefits for what I shoot, high ISO would be good but for the jobs I need it, a dslr is far handier so mf for me is just perfect for what it does and I am really growing to love the IQ260.

    I have no idea on the relationship between the complexity of lenses and bokeh/sharpness, I know that the Nikon 200f2 I had produced wonderful bokeh, the Leica 180 was again amazing, no idea if they are complex or simple. The tech cam lenses I never use for wide open portrait style shooting so don't really know if the bokeh is any good. The XF with the 80mm, a standard lens which cost me less than £600 ex demo and like new, is very sharp but has bad colour fringing wide open which is all but gone at f4, not a big deal and cleans up in C1 but it's there. It's all down to understanding your kit and where it works best/worst, I will say that the focus stacking in the XF is something I never thought I would use but it's actually really great and works perfectly, that's technology working for me for sure!

    Luckily for us all there are hundreds of options so it's pretty straight forward to get what we want, sticking with it and really understanding what you have goes a long way to producing "better" images, that and pointing the camera at nicer things!

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

  21. #321
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hi Jerome,

    Let's look at a practical expirement by Jim Kasson:

    Leica 90mm f/2 Apo Summicron-M ASPH at f/2. Jim shot 41 expsures at around three meter distance utilizing the full rnage of his Stackshot rail and evaluated MTF for each exposure.

    Done that he plotted MTF for red, green and blue channels. You can see that MTF has three peaks. Those represent different planes of focus.

    I would say B peaks about 2.62 and G about 3.93, so we have something 1.3 mm shift of focus.


    Next image is same lens stopped down to f/4. Here I would say the blue curve peaks at 1.31 while the green one is probable centered about 2.40. So the shift been the color planes here is around 1.1 mm.


    So the optimal color planes were 1.3 mm apart at f/2, and 1.1 mm at f/4. That is a small improvement.

    The plane of optimal focus has also shifted something like 1.5 mm., by stopping down.

    The main effect of stopping down was that the peaks got broader. That reduces the visible effect of the color plane shift. That broadening is caused by the increased depth of field but also by diffraction when stopping down beyond optimal aperture.

    Here is the corresponding graph for the Otus at f/1.4:


    And at f/4:



    The aberration is the shift of best focus colour planes. It causes colour fringing and the amount of the fringes we see is aperture dependent.

    Best regards
    Erik





    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    I don't understand how you can write at the same time "does not vary with aperture" and "stopping down reduces the visible effects". Maybe you are confusing longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration? In any case, longitudinal chromatic aberration varies with aperture and lateral chromatic aberration does not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma...erration#Types

  22. #322
    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?

    I agree with the above from mjr

    I backed off to a 37 meg larger than 135 sensor as a format and pixel size that works for me and for what I now do. I no longer had a need for 60 meg 645 or the Multi-Shot camera I once had.

    Dual shutter with high sync speed zoomed to the top of my priorities and more DR was never a particular issue for the past few camera models anyway.

    The only benefit I see from my Sony A7R-II is that of convenient size, as long as I can also keep the lenses relatively small. For that convenience I am willing to live with horrible ergonomics and unnecessary complexity. The camera offers decent speed and higher ISO but not industry leading … so it is more of a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none. In general, that is not a damning statement, but instead offers a wide appeal to a lot of folks … including myself. It is not the tool I select when IQ is the goal, but it is no slouch at that either.

    I'd venture a guess that all of us would benefit from spending more energy on what we are shooting as opposed to what we are using. Most everything out these days works pretty darned well and looking down the road won't change that … unless it is an innovation the likes of shrinking a high meg camera the way Sony did.

    - Marc

  23. #323
    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
    Hi Jerome,

    Let's look at a practical expirement by Jim Kasson:

    Leica 90mm f/2 Apo Summicron-M ASPH at f/2. Jim shot 41 expsures at around three meter distance utilizing the full rnage of his Stackshot rail and evaluated MTF for each exposure.

    Done that he plotted MTF for red, green and blue channels. You can see that MTF has three peaks. Those represent different planes of focus.

    I would say B peaks about 2.62 and G about 3.93, so we have something 1.3 mm shift of focus.


    Next image is same lens stopped down to f/4. Here I would say the blue curve peaks at 1.31 while the green one is probable centered about 2.40. So the shift been the color planes here is around 1.1 mm.


    So the optimal color planes were 1.3 mm apart at f/2, and 1.1 mm at f/4. That is a small improvement.

    The plane of optimal focus has also shifted something like 1.5 mm., by stopping down.

    The main effect of stopping down was that the peaks got broader. That reduces the visible effect of the color plane shift. That broadening is caused by the increased depth of field but also by diffraction when stopping down beyond optimal aperture.

    Here is the corresponding graph for the Otus at f/1.4:


    And at f/4:



    The aberration is the shift of best focus colour planes. It causes colour fringing and the amount of the fringes we see is aperture dependent.

    Best regards
    Erik
    Why aren't the peaks in the same order as the wavelengths on these curves? (That is: blue green red or red green blue)

  24. #324
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    It probably depends on the optical correction of the lens. I guess that there is no simple explanation on how the focal plane shifts around for different wave lengths. Also, keep in mind that R, G and B signals are integrated values over what is transferred over the CFA.

    A classic achromat would be corrected for two wave lengths that may be blue and green, but that doesn't mean blue and green signals would match.

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Why aren't the peaks in the same order as the wavelengths on these curves? (That is: blue green red or red green blue)

  25. #325
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    In my recent comparison shots I have two "bokeh crops". Both taken at equivalent apertures:

    Hasselblad 555/ELD P45+ Sony A7rII

    Best regards
    Erik
    Hi Erik,
    for me most interesting is not only the bokeh/background itself, but how smooth the sharp area goes into the unsharp.
    When I shoot with a sharp M lens (for example 75/2.0 APO) on the Leica M I feel there is a very thin very sharp area which moves quickly into an unsharp area just a view mm/cm longer distance. When I shoot the same with the Leica S at equivalent focal length and f-stop this transition seems much smoother.
    I find this specially usefull for portraits at wider f-stops. I can not explain why this happens but I can see it.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #326
    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
    It probably depends on the optical correction of the lens. I guess that there is no simple explanation on how the focal plane shifts around for different wave lengths. Also, keep in mind that R, G and B signals are integrated values over what is transferred over the CFA.

    A classic achromat would be corrected for two wave lengths that may be blue and green, but that doesn't mean blue and green signals would match.

    Best regards
    Erik
    Put these lenses behind a monochromator and we may see what is really going on. I don't think we can deduce much from the little info that is shown here.

  27. #327
    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 jerome_m View Post
    Put these lenses behind a monochromator and we may see what is really going on. I don't think we can deduce much from the little info that is shown here.
    Abstraction, all kudos for ringing the cat's bell and drawing out the old-timers.

    To me, the more valid question is this:
    What really differentiates the big backs from the small backs / cameras ?
    For eg. why does Phase demand a 40-50K premium, when with slight compromises, one could have a 645z with 10-12K. Or by how much or what do the phase backs really beat the Leica S? Is it about purely ergonomics - a kinaesthetic addiction- as Torger says? Reliability perhaps? IF anything, the fat pixel backs should demand a classic-car premium.

    One thing I am settled on. MF really truly beats the 35mm experience, whether in IQ, bokeh, or usage aesthetics. Just like the 35mm FF beats the M43, which in turn beats the point and shoots, which in turn trump smartphones.

    Regards,

  28. #328
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Phase one demands that premium because they can. They are the only ones on the market with 100 mega pixels.

  29. #329
    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?

    Yes, as it's a commercial organisation and not a charity, you would presume that if nobody felt there was value in their products at the prices they charge then they'd simply go out of business, which they obviously haven't. For the revenue they create for me personally, I think the kit I have was a steal!

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

  30. #330
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by satybhat View Post
    What really differentiates the big backs from the small backs / cameras ?
    For eg. why does Phase demand a 40-50K premium, when with slight compromises, one could have a 645z with 10-12K. Or by how much or what do the phase backs really beat the Leica S?
    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Phase one demands that premium because they can. They are the only ones on the market with 100 mega pixels.
    For clarity that premium (list price difference of $39,290) exists for the IQ3 100mp over the Pentax 645Z but I'd argue this is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. A Credo 50 kit with XF is $20k and a refurb Credo 40 kit with DF+ is $10k. Regardless, the Pentax 645Z is definitely the least expensive, and depending on what you're comparing it to, by a good bit. So why might someone consider an IQ3 series over a different medium format option? I'd offer a short list below that have nothing to do with resolution or the current exclusivity on 100mp. All are unique to Phase One.
    - 5-year warranty
    - Loaner during any repairs or service, including back/body/lenses
    - XF Body features (e.g. auto focus stacking, hyperfocal mode, time lapse, WLF)
    - Flash sync up to 1/1600th
    - Fastest, robust, professional tethering speed and features
    - Uber lenses (e.g. Schneider 35LS Blue Ring)
    - Built-in flash transmitter
    - Capture One co-development (more than just "support" - they are made for each other)
    - Built-in Wireless including live view, camera control, and ratings
    - Touch interface on Retina LCD (e.g. tap to check focus on a specific point)
    - Review features like focus mask, adjustable exposure warning, hard-clipping indicator, zone system analysis

    If you're comparing specifically to the 645Z or S2 then you can add (some of these are not unique to P1 and would apply to Hassy as well)...
    - WLF
    - Option to use with a view camera
    - Option to use with a tech camera
    - Modular upgradability
    - Wide availability in major rental houses and production studios
    - Wide availability of Phase One Certified Professional techs with advanced training

    Some might find this list easily worth the difference, others might find it not worth a dime, others might find some of the unique features of the Pentax (e.g. weather sealing, somewhat lighter) worth more than the phase for their particular needs even if they were the same price. They are very different cameras with very different pros and cons (and obviously different price points).
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  31. #331
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Yes Phase One has been and still are excellent to be first with the greatest, and of course they charge extra for that. However unfortunately some of the bad reputation concerning MFD pricing is because everyone looks at the latest products from Phase One, forgetting about the other brands out there, and indeed the many pre-owned options.

    If you really need to "keep the distance from the 135 crowd" in as many aspects as possible, well then you should to be on the Phase One constant upgrade program, but if you find other qualities in the format there are many other alternatives that are more economical.

    And when the format becomes economical enough, there's less need to "justify". I know a few that use legacy medium format just for the fun of using something different, appreciating the good quality they get but not really caring if the latest DSLR with the latest lenses is better or worse.

  32. #332
    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 torger View Post
    Yes Phase One has been and still are excellent to be first with the greatest, and of course they charge extra for that. However unfortunately some of the bad reputation concerning MFD pricing is because everyone looks at the latest products from Phase One, forgetting about the other brands out there, and indeed the many pre-owned options.
    Indeed. My first MF was an H3D-31, bought in 2012. At the time, the Nikon D800 was all the rage. The H3D-31 cost me about the same as the then brand new D800. Of course, the D800 was just out and the H3D-31 was ancient.

    Interestingly, I was able to compare the two cameras and posted about it at the time. The results were not that different, even in low light (where the D800 should have been much better, but Phocus noise reduction was better than I expected).
    The resolutions were also comparable.

    In the end, I preferred the H, because
    • colors were more pleasing (not more accurate: more pleasing to me)
    • the rendering between the lenses was considerably more homogenous in Hasselblad than in Nikon (a weakness of Nikon)
    • the H had a more accurate AF (slower but more accurate, keep in mind that the D800 was also known for AF problems)
    • the obvious advantages of the D800 (faster, stabilized and faster lenses, etc...) were of no interest to me
    • I liked the handling of the H better (grip and viewfinder, menu system)


    I've also read earlier in this thread that MF cameras were supposed to impress the chicks. Frankly, that was not true at all: most people would think that I had a large camcorder from the 80s.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #333
    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 satybhat View Post
    Abstraction, all kudos for ringing the cat's bell and drawing out the old-timers.
    Old timers?? I think I've awoken the dead! This is the Zombie Apocalypse!

    To me, the more valid question is this:
    What really differentiates the big backs from the small backs / cameras ?
    For eg. why does Phase demand a 40-50K premium, when with slight compromises, one could have a 645z with 10-12K. Or by how much or what do the phase backs really beat the Leica S? Is it about purely ergonomics - a kinaesthetic addiction- as Torger says? Reliability perhaps? IF anything, the fat pixel backs should demand a classic-car premium.

    One thing I am settled on. MF really truly beats the 35mm experience, whether in IQ, bokeh, or usage aesthetics. Just like the 35mm FF beats the M43, which in turn beats the point and shoots, which in turn trump smartphones.

    Regards,
    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Phase one demands that premium because they can. They are the only ones on the market with 100 mega pixels.

    Yeah, I think Jerome hit the nail on the head: Because the can. I am not sure they'll be able to charge this much longer. The writing's on the wall. With Sony fast becoming the sensor supplier for almost all of the camera manufacturers, and with the pixel pitch of the 100mp back equating to the 42mp sensor on the 135 format, thus stressing the lenses just as much, there's becoming less and less of a differentiation among the formats. Furthermore, with Pentax squeezing Phase on the MF market as well, Phase will wind up doing one of two things: Either they will have to make their systems more affordable (at least introduce a line of affordable cameras/backs to compete with Pentax) or they will become so niche and so specialized that the sales figures they're seeing now, will seem like the golden age of digital MF. It seems they're milking the cow while there's still a cow to be milked.

  34. #334
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    So there's no compelling reason, is that right?

    If so, why need it be said over and over? GetDPI used to be clearly different than LuLa. Not so much anymore.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #335
    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 stephengilbert View Post
    So there's no compelling reason, is that right?

    If so, why need it be said over and over? GetDPI used to be clearly different than LuLa. Not so much anymore.
    I kept quiet for a long while until someone mentioned me and I replied. There's no saying the same thing over and over. I've never belonged to LuLa, so I have no point of reference.

  36. #336
    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?

    Abstraction, aren't you the guy who a few short weeks ago embarked on this journey without any idea about what mf backs were available, what their costs were or what was involved? And now in that time you have managed to get a handle on the whole market and a view on the future for Phase, Pentax and the rest? Got to love the internet, experts overnight! Haha!

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #337
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hi 'Paratom',

    You rise an interesting point. Now, I am not really a bookeh guy, so I have little input on this, except I don't see a lot of difference in out of focus rendition between my P45+ using classic Zeiss lenses and my A7rII using a brand new lens design. But, that clearly relates to my kind of shooting.

    Now, the point you make is very interesting, because you compare two cameras with very similar pixels, at least if you are comparing the M (typ 240) with the S (typ 007). Comparing the CCD models the sensor pixels would be similar, both coming from Kodak. Comparing a CCD model and a CMOS model, microlenses may be different.

    Thanks for sharing!
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    Hi Erik,
    for me most interesting is not only the bokeh/background itself, but how smooth the sharp area goes into the unsharp.
    When I shoot with a sharp M lens (for example 75/2.0 APO) on the Leica M I feel there is a very thin very sharp area which moves quickly into an unsharp area just a view mm/cm longer distance. When I shoot the same with the Leica S at equivalent focal length and f-stop this transition seems much smoother.
    I find this specially usefull for portraits at wider f-stops. I can not explain why this happens but I can see it.

  38. #338
    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?

    Besides many, many and somewhat redundant postulations, the answers to the original question are in the first four posts
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #339
    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 mjr View Post
    Abstraction, aren't you the guy who a few short weeks ago embarked on this journey without any idea about what mf backs were available, what their costs were or what was involved? And now in that time you have managed to get a handle on the whole market and a view on the future for Phase, Pentax and the rest? Got to love the internet, experts overnight! Haha!

    Mat
    Not quite. I knew which backs were available and their cost, hence my initial question in this post. If you're referring to my other thread, it had to do specifically with tech cameras. So, your presumption isn't correct.

    As far as getting a handle on the market, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to do a bit of market research, to see who the players are, what the sales figures are and where the trends are heading. It doesn't necessarily make me an expert, but it does give me a pretty good understanding of where things stand.

  40. #340
    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
    Yeah, I think Jerome hit the nail on the head: Because they can. I am not sure they'll be able to charge this much longer. The writing's on the wall. With Sony fast becoming the sensor supplier for almost all of the camera manufacturers, and with the pixel pitch of the 100mp back equating to the 42mp sensor on the 135 format, thus stressing the lenses just as much, there's becoming less and less of a differentiation among the formats.
    1: Kodak has been the sole sensor supplier for all MF manufacturers for years and there were more of them at the time. The prices were still different.
    2: The lenses may be stressed as much, but twice the sensor size equates twice the pixels. Some people need more resolution and can pay for it


    Furthermore, with Pentax squeezing Phase on the MF market as well, Phase will wind up doing one of two things: Either they will have to make their systems more affordable (at least introduce a line of affordable cameras/backs to compete with Pentax) or they will become so niche and so specialized that the sales figures they're seeing now, will seem like the golden age of digital MF. It seems they're milking the cow while there's still a cow to be milked.
    Phase One has had a line of more affordable cameras for years. They are not as affordable as Pentax, but their price point is chosen to be the same as Hasselblad's. Haven't you noticed?

  41. #341
    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 Abstraction View Post
    Not quite. I knew which backs were available and their cost, hence my initial question in this post. If you're referring to my other thread, it had to do specifically with tech cameras. So, your presumption isn't correct.

    As far as getting a handle on the market, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to do a bit of market research, to see who the players are, what the sales figures are and where the trends are heading. It doesn't necessarily make me an expert, but it does give me a pretty good understanding of where things stand.
    My apologies, I was talking about the first thread where you asked about this sort of thing, 4 weeks ago I believe...

    "I think that for maximum flexibility, I'd prefer to go with the non-crop / CMOS sensor. Is it safe to say that all Phase One backs with 60mp and up use a non-crop sensor and their IQ 2x line and higher use CMOS?

    What about Hasselblad backs or other manufacturers? Is there anything out there at this moment that would meet the criteria without breaking the bank (assuming around $10k?)

    But you are right, a smart guy like you can certainly master the whole shebang in a month, no problem, my presumption was that you had done so without holding a mf kit or ever having taken a shot for yourself with one, I'm a big boy, I can admit when my assumptions are wrong!

    Have a good day.

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

  42. #342
    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
    Old timers?? I think I've awoken the dead! This is the Zombie Apocalypse!

    Yeah, I think Jerome hit the nail on the head: Because they can. I am not sure they'll be able to charge this much longer. The writing's on the wall. With Sony fast becoming the sensor supplier for almost all of the camera manufacturers, and with the pixel pitch of the 100mp back equating to the 42mp sensor on the 135 format, thus stressing the lenses just as much, there's becoming less and less of a differentiation among the formats. Furthermore, with Pentax squeezing Phase on the MF market as well, Phase will wind up doing one of two things: Either they will have to make their systems more affordable (at least introduce a line of affordable cameras/backs to compete with Pentax) or they will become so niche and so specialized that the sales figures they're seeing now, will seem like the golden age of digital MF. It seems they're milking the cow while there's still a cow to be milked.
    That "Writing on the wall" prediction, almost verbatim, has been made for years and years now. The FF 35mm sensors where supposed to be the beginning of the end for MFD. They weren't. The Nikon D800 was supposed to be the death knell for MFD. It wasn't. Mirrorless FF high-meg was supposed to be the knife in the heart of traditional 35mm DSLRs and MFD. It wasn't.

    Two years ago the naysayers were lowering Hasselblad into a shallow grave …

    Reminds me of all the obituaries written for Leica since the advent of the SLR.

    All I see here are "Zombie Lemmings" pushing for soulless uniformity and homogenization … like grey uniformed cult members marching in unison toward the tent where the Kool-Aid is dispensed.

    Personally, I cheer for diversity and choice. Art never fares well in a regimented environment where party lines must be followed or risk being beaten into submission with boring charts and mind-numbing test shots.

    Artistically I see a vast difference in Image Qualities when using a larger sensor camera. It isn't my problem if others can't see it, nor do I feel worried about debating it, because I equate it to describing a sunset to a blind person.

    I am delighted I have that artistic option, and am not forced to do everything with tools I see as being a lesser choice for what I do.

    - Marc

  43. #343
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    That "Writing on the wall" prediction, almost verbatim, has been made for years and years now. The FF 35mm sensors where supposed to be the beginning of the end for MFD. They weren't. The Nikon D800 was supposed to be the death knell for MFD. It wasn't. Mirrorless FF high-meg was supposed to be the knife in the heart of traditional 35mm DSLRs and MFD. It wasn't.

    Two years ago the naysayers were lowering Hasselblad into a shallow grave …

    Reminds me of all the obituaries written for Leica since the advent of the SLR.

    All I see here are "Zombie Lemmings" pushing for soulless uniformity and homogenization … like grey uniformed cult members marching in unison toward the tent where the Kool-Aid is dispensed.

    Personally, I cheer for diversity and choice. Art never fares well in a regimented environment where party lines must be followed or risk being beaten into submission with boring charts and mind-numbing test shots.

    Artistically I see a vast difference in Image Qualities when using a larger sensor camera. It isn't my problem if others can't see it, nor do I feel worried about debating it, because I equate it to describing a sunset to a blind person.

    I am delighted I have that artistic option, and am not forced to do everything with tools I see as being a lesser choice for what I do.

    - Marc
    wow so for example peter lindbergh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSeW0Voiwkg must be one of this "Zombie Lemmings" a jerk not able to see who low his work is shot with a soulless nikon.

  44. #344
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    Not quite. I knew which backs were available and their cost, hence my initial question in this post. If you're referring to my other thread, it had to do specifically with tech cameras. So, your presumption isn't correct.

    As far as getting a handle on the market, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to do a bit of market research, to see who the players are, what the sales figures are and where the trends are heading. It doesn't necessarily make me an expert, but it does give me a pretty good understanding of where things stand.
    Consider that there are several stages to learning about MF digital gear and how it works:

    1) market research
    2) holding the pieces in your hands and seeing how they work
    3) using them in the field, and seeing how your workflow adapts and adjusts to them
    4) post processing the files, and adjusting not only the files, but your work process, etc.

    Its easy to do the first step, and think that's enough. But actually, steps 3 and 4 are the most important. The change in workflow, and how you work with a very different set of tools, is a subtle change, one that is difficult to assess. It can only be done hands-on.

    The forum is filled with people who have all made reasonable decisions based on steps 1 and 2 (research, holding in a shop, and thinking that's enough) only to find that their needs and wants changed once using the gear.
    www.gigi-photos.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #345
    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 CSP View Post
    wow so for example peter lindbergh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSeW0Voiwkg must be one of this "Zombie Lemmings" a jerk not able to see who low his work is shot with a soulless nikon.
    Read the quote I was responding to … not out of context. And please do not embellish by implying I called anyone a Jerk … that is YOUR word, not mine.

    The difference is that Peter isn't trying to sell me on his choices nor implying my aesthetic choices should be like his … like what is going on here with comments implying MFD users are the walking dead, and the MFD companies are corpses except they don't know it yet.

    Big difference.



    - Marc

  46. #346
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    181
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I vote that we shoot this thread and then kick it to make sure it's dead.

    Let's just go and take pictures.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #347
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Read the quote I was responding to … not out of context. And please do not embellish by implying I called anyone a Jerk … that is YOUR word, not mine.

    The difference is that Peter isn't trying to sell me on his choices nor implying my aesthetic choices should be like his … like what is going on here with comments implying MFD users are the walking dead, and the MFD companies are corpses except they don't know it yet.

    Big difference.



    - Marc
    what lame arguments i never said things like you suggest the opposite ist true i too hope that this companies survive. but this whole talk how superior mf is is just ridiculous considering how much great work is shot and published from smaller formats by top level photographers. real photographers know that only the combination of tools and skills light and post production makes great images and this simplified view you just need to pick the right camera is amateurish at best. furthermore is think most of the users here which feel the need to talk down 35mm actually never have used a high mpx 35mm camera with adequate high quality glass.

  48. #348
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

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

    This thread just keeps on trucking.

    So there are real photographers who took great photographs with 35 mm and there are also real photographerswho took great pictures with MF or large format camera's.
    And they all used the best cameras for their purposus.

    I like both but for the work I do now I prefer MF because it delivers wonderful spacious files which I can print bigger.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #349
    Senior Member Jamgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    516
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CSP View Post
    furthermore is think most of the users here which feel the need to talk down 35mm actually never have used a high mpx 35mm camera with adequate high quality glass.
    I understand that you trying to make an argument but that is hilarious.
    At least this thread has some entertainment value.
    IQ3 100 • Cambo 1600 • Rodenstock 23,32,50,90 • Zeiss 350SA
    UnTroubled Land
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  50. #350
    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 mjr View Post
    My apologies, I was talking about the first thread where you asked about this sort of thing, 4 weeks ago I believe...

    "I think that for maximum flexibility, I'd prefer to go with the non-crop / CMOS sensor. Is it safe to say that all Phase One backs with 60mp and up use a non-crop sensor and their IQ 2x line and higher use CMOS?

    What about Hasselblad backs or other manufacturers? Is there anything out there at this moment that would meet the criteria without breaking the bank (assuming around $10k?)

    But you are right, a smart guy like you can certainly master the whole shebang in a month, no problem, my presumption was that you had done so without holding a mf kit or ever having taken a shot for yourself with one, I'm a big boy, I can admit when my assumptions are wrong!

    Have a good day.

    Mat
    I had shot with med format film and I had shot professionally with med format film. I know how the cameras handle. In the end, we're photographers talking about cameras. There's nothing here that can't be gotten a handle of in a month.




    Quote Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek View Post
    This thread just keeps on trucking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelorus View Post
    I vote that we shoot this thread and then kick it to make sure it's dead.

    Let's just go and take pictures.
    This thread IS the apocalypse zombie. It can't be killed. It eats brains.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

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