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?

Abstraction

Well-known member
Yes, You can achieve a certain level of single image capture quality with the new 100MP Medium Format Digital Back that you can't with any smaller format digital camera available today. I say again, single image capture.

Is it worth it? Each person has a different answer to that question.

The main thing is there are MANY factors to consider and the fact of the matter is that Medium Format Digital offers something different, in workflow, in optics, in bodies etc. Even within Medium Format Digital there is a huge range of choices.

Choosing camera gear is almost always gonna be a matter of personal preference and hence, the endless discussions.
You are correct and if you read my subsequent posts, you'll see that I had unequivocally stated that greater resolution is the most compelling reason for owning MF.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
You’re right ... who are you to judge? so why do you persist in doing so?
Where do you see me PERSISTING in judging? How did you go from me saying "who am I to judge?" to "persisting in doing so?" Sometimes I feel as though we're not speaking the same language.

This has been hammered to death for so long by so many people it’s getting quite tiresome. While it’s a correct statement that most don’t need it, those on this forum aren’t “most”. Extrapolating that most don’t need it means that most shooting MF don’t need it is a stretch. Your persistence in constantly hammering this point home is becoming a little inconsiderate and trollish. Having a point of view is fine, but quit trying to put everyone into your world.
Once again, where do you see me "constantly hammering this point home"? I expressed this opinion once in the context of explaining my viewpoint.


Your first question tried to exclude resolution. If you don’t print, you don’t need it, but in fact the resolution is key, and you can’t exclude it from the discussion .
Please read my subsequent post regarding resolution.

... judging MF vs dSLR by looking at raw files isn’t how I make my decision. I decide by the prints.
With all due respect, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That's like saying you don't judge the quality of the image by the negative. The print is the third generation iteration of the image. RAW file is the base line. Once you've edited the RAW file, you have your second generation iteration of the image and the print is the third. So, judging the quality of the camera or the format by the print would be analogous to traveling via watching youtube videos about various places.
 
Last edited:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
You are correct and if you read my subsequent posts, you'll see that I had unequivocally stated that greater resolution is the most compelling reason for owning MF.
Increased resolution is the primary reason that maybe 25% to 30% of our clients upgrade for.

Lens quality, color, option for tech/view cameras, tethering speed/stability, tonality, sync speed, aspect ratio etc etc are examples of why the remaining 70-75% are upgrading.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
When you're looking at a print, you're looking at post processing, you're looking at the printer quality, at the printer driver settings, you're looking at all kinds of things in addition to the quality of your camera/lens/format. That much is obvious and non-controversial. If you want to judge strictly the quality of your camera/lens/format combo, you have to look at the RAW file. That's the closest you're going to come to looking at the negative in this day and age. That too is obvious and not subject to controversy.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Looking at your images I dont think you would benefit from MF.
Just my honest opinion.

As I understand it from the link, you attach Rodenstock lenses to this camera down to 28mm. There is another camera made for mirrorless, but this one in particular is for DSLRS.



If you think about it, all tech cameras are hacks since digital backs were originally designed for DSLRs. However, this particular camera is produced by Cambo, so as I see it, it's as good of a hack as any other Cambo. I would agree that it's probably a bit more limited than a Cambo made for digital backs, but my point is that it's so close that unless you're super specialized, there are solutions out there that will cover you 99% of the time



Yeah, for the most part, I got my answer.

Here are some images of the type of work that I do:










 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Looking at your images I dont think you would benefit from MF.
Just my honest opinion.
I agree with you, but I was hoping I would because regardless of what you may think of my images, they're about color and tones and if the MF delivered greater color and/or tonal quality, I would see greater subtlety, perhaps. I was hoping to see that and the ability to use tech cameras appealed to me as well.

Thank you for your feedback.
 

alajuela

Active member
With all due respect said:
This is the most silly statement I have heard in respect to photography.- We live on different planets. It is the print. Who hangs negatives on the wall? Who puts negatives in a show?

All photography is a process with result being the final step -- the print. You want to put on a laptop, get a iPhone, I even saw some billboards shot with an iphone 6+.

Maybe my response is too complicated. I'll simplify it for you It is the print--It is the print ---It is the print ----It is the print----It is the print
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Where do you see me PERSISTING in judging? How did you go from me saying "who am I to judge?" to "persisting in doing so?" Sometimes I feel as though we're not speaking the same language.
I never realized you have never argued this point before. I just sensed from reading your posts you have discussed this point of view in the past. I didn’t know this was something new to you. Sorry for making the assumption that you were like the many others that bring up this point every time they get the chance. It does get tiring.

Once again, where do you see me "constantly hammering this point home"? I expressed this opinion once in the context of explaining my viewpoint.
my statement wasn’t about you specifically, it was in context of this very discussion that has been repeated constantly for over a decade now. Sorry I didn’t communicate that properly.

With all due respect, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That's like saying you don't judge the quality of the image by the negative. The print is the third generation iteration of the image. RAW file is the base line. Once you've edited the RAW file, you have your second generation iteration of the image and the print is the third. So, judging the quality of the camera or the format by the print would be analogous to traveling via watching youtube videos about various places.
Who would judge the quality by a negative? What difference does it make what “iteration” it is. Bottom line the only that counts is what you can get out of the file or get out of a negative in the final visual product. That’s really the crux of the entire argument ... if all we ever did was create raw files, who cares? so to determine what systems gives us what we want, we have to use a system to produce what we want ... a print. certainly information can be had via pixel peeping, but anyone that tells me a .cr2 or NEF file of a scene is every bit as good as a IQ3 80 or IQ3 100 file doesn’t get it. If all you make is 13x19” prints and you print from those files, you may very well decide the MF isn’t necessary. For me the only way to tell is to make an 8 foot print and see which one is better.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
I never realized you have never argued this point before. I just sensed from reading your posts you have discussed this point of view in the past. I didn’t know this was something new to you. Sorry for making the assumption that you were like the many others that bring up this point every time they get the chance. It does get tiring.

my statement wasn’t about you specifically, it was in context of this very discussion that has been repeated constantly for over a decade now. Sorry I didn’t communicate that properly.
I joined this forum fairly recently, so I'm not privy to older discussions on the subject. I don't even understand how this whole thing got out of hand, with egos and tempers flaring as though I insulted someone's mamma.

Who would judge the quality by a negative? What difference does it make what “iteration” it is. Bottom line the only that counts is what you can get out of the file or get out of a negative in the final visual product. That’s really the crux of the entire argument ... if all we ever did was create raw files, who cares? so to determine what systems gives us what we want, we have to use a system to produce what we want ... a print. certainly information can be had via pixel peeping, but anyone that tells me a .cr2 or NEF file of a scene is every bit as good as a IQ3 80 or IQ3 100 file doesn’t get it. If all you make is 13x19” prints and you print from those files, you may very well decide the MF isn’t necessary. For me the only way to tell is to make an 8 foot print and see which one is better.

Well, sure the most important thing is the end result, which is the print, but that's not what the discussion was about. It was about whether or not MF is worth the money and in order to judge whether it is or not, it is important to compare the output of one camera to another. Once you start massaging the files, correcting color, sharpness and so forth, you're no longer comparing the quality of the cameras or formats, you're starting to compare the quality of the massaged output. That's the reason I talked about looking at the RAW files, in order to eliminate as many variables as possible to see if MF was worth it for me . I wanted to get as close to the raw output (no pun intended) as I possibly could for a proper comparison.
 

modator

Member
Maybe Yes, maybe No.

It depend's, according to what needed, according to MF type, according to quality level, according who sees the quality level, according to your skill and capability to squeeze the best performance from the MF equipment, according if the performances are understandable by who is involved in the selection of the works, according to the market need's.

In brief : MF exist and is a way to take images and to work with.


Do Remember that: also monkeys fall from the trees.

Best regards, Domenico.
 

jagsiva

Active member
I agree with you, but I was hoping I would because regardless of what you may think of my images, they're about color and tones and if the MF delivered greater color and/or tonal quality, I would see greater subtlety, perhaps. I was hoping to see that and the ability to use tech cameras appealed to me as well.

Thank you for your feedback.

You may see differences in all those parameters if you compared prints rather than look at compressed files on screen.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
I joined this forum fairly recently, so I'm not privy to older discussions on the subject. I don't even understand how this whole thing got out of hand, with egos and tempers flaring as though I insulted someone's mamma.
It’s not just this forum. This discussion has been argued countless times over the last decade in many forums, and it seems every forum dedicated to MF such as this one on sites such as this one and Luminous Landscape sees many discussions end up with some arguing the point that no one, or hardly anyone, or most that have MF don’t need it. I think that’s why some of us get a little sensitive, it gets tiresome, especially when those who are telling us we don’t need it haven’t even ever shot MF digital. We tend to gather on these forums to discuss our chosen tools and share what we learn, and its seems we’re always trying to explain to others that have no experience in MF why we use it and why we feel we need to use it and when we do they say we don’t need it ...

So anyway, as I mentioned, myself and as well as most who use MF have full kits of other cameras systems, usually including great glass and have tried systems other than MF. For a great variety of reasons we choose to use MF digital for most of what we do, and feel using it offers us the best chance at creating what we envision when making our final product.
 

Charles Wood

New member
Ansel Adams, like most of us here, would likely take issue with the concept of judging a camera strictly on the look of an unprocessed (no post) RAW file.

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” – Ansel Adams

“The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.” – Ansel Adams
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
At the risk of waking the horde of well wishers who never fail to seize an opportunity to proclaim how much my work sucks, I will agree with you. In the end, the format doesn't matter, the lenses don't matter past a certain point and we spend most of our time splitting hairs. However, given that most gear oriented forums are about splitting hairs, we may as well indulge.
I was somewhat disappointed to see that and I'll offer up apologies on behalf of the majority of us here on the forums who believe that one man's art is ... Err, well their art. I never judge because often it's the unusual and abstract art that produces that image that captivates me much more than just another rock or another sunrise/sunset etc etc.

As Dogs said, it's all good and we welcome everyone here. Really :eek:
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
My reflections coming from P45+ (and without reading the thread)

Hi,

Just to say, I am known as a medium format skeptic. I have been shooting for the last 2.5 years with a Hasselblad V system combined with a P45+ back in parallell with a Sony A99 camera.

What I would say that I did not see a lot of difference between the two system using my standard processing toolchain, LR6/LR CC. The P45+ had an obvious advantage in resolution. Colour is a more tricky thing. Both systems were capable of pretty accurate colour with good colour profiles. Much depends on taste.

What I have also found that the none of the three Distagons I have been trough have not been very good on the edges/corners. My DSLR zooms actually outperform the Distagons on the borders of the image. The Sonnar 180/4 is sharp across the field and so is the Planar 100/3.5. The Planar 120/4 is made for close work and performs well at that distance but has a lot of field curvature at infinity. I had two samples of the Planar 120 a CF and a CFi. I have a feeling they could do with a bit more of contrast. The Distagon 60/3.5 CF is OK, but doesn't keep up with my Canon 16-35/4 at 35 mm and f/8.

I did not see a resolution advantage with the Hasselblad/P45+ combo at A2-sizes, but I think a clear advantage was visible at A1.

Now I have moved to a Sony A7rII, what I have seen is that the A7rII performs on par with the Hasselblad/P45+ combo also on axis (close to centre).

I am using the Sony A7rII with HCam Master TSII, a pocket size T&S adapter that takes both Canon lenses and my Hasselblad and Pentax 67 lenses. That works reasonably well.

So, from my experience MFD is a bit of a looser, unless 60-100 MP is needed. PhaseOne and Hasselblad also have leaf shutters, and there are cases where a leaf shutter is needed.

The Hasselblad V lenses are CF/CFi generation, they were made for film. The new Hasselblad H lenses generally seem to be better, according to MTF curves published by Hasselblad. They seem to be very good.

Something that matters to me is that I can get a lightweight and transportable kit.

I have something like this just now:

A7rII
Canon 16-35/4LS
Canon 24-105/4L (better than it's reputation)
Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII
Sony FE 90/2.8G
Sony 70-400/4-5.6G
Metabones and Sony adapters
HCam Master TS

The above kit fits in a Kiboko Bataflae with some room, and weights around 10 kg, which is weight limit on many flights.

I can also add some MF (Hassy or Pentax) lenses to the mix when weight is not an issue.

Regarding the suggestion that recent MF lenses are better than 24x36 mm lenses, there may be something to it. But there are a lot of truly great 24x36 mm lenses emerging, like the Otus and Batis lines from Zeiss and the greatly improved Milvus 85/1.4 and 50/1.4 and the Sigma Art series.

BUT, if you need 100 MP, MFD is the way to go. With 50 MP I am clearly skeptical and keep in mind that 50 MP is cropped frame MF, 44x33 mm.

I may also add that I am keeping the Hassy/P45+ combo, unless someone gives a really good bid :). The reason is I enjoy shooting with it. It is a great camera giving great images.

Best regards
Erik
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Yes,

That is something that needs to be taken into account. But, 35mm lenses used to be better than MF-lenses. Now some MF lenses are very good, especially those made for technical cameras.

On the other hand, cropped format MF is not that larger than 24x36 mm and some of the new 35 mm lenses are awesome, like the Milvus 50/.14, Milvus 85/1.4, Batis 85/1.8, Batis 25/2 (?), Sigma Art 35/1.5, Sigma At 50/1.4 and the three Otus lenses.

Best regards
Erik


One could argue that the lens for 35mm format has to be even better than the Mf lens, as more enlargement would be required to make the equivalent print size. Speaking about resolution primarily.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Re: My reflections coming from P45+ (and without reading the thread)

Hi,

Just to say, I am known as a medium format skeptic. I have been shooting for the last 2.5 years with a Hasselblad V system combined with a P45+ back in parallell with a Sony A99 camera.

What I would say that I did not see a lot of difference between the two system using my standard processing toolchain, LR6/LR CC. The P45+ had an obvious advantage in resolution. Colour is a more tricky thing. Both systems were capable of pretty accurate colour with good colour profiles. Much depends on taste.

What I have also found that the none of the three Distagons I have been trough have not been very good on the edges/corners. My DSLR zooms actually outperform the Distagons on the borders of the image. The Sonnar 180/4 is sharp across the field and so is the Planar 100/3.5. The Planar 120/4 is made for close work and performs well at that distance but has a lot of field curvature at infinity. I had two samples of the Planar 120 a CF and a CFi. I have a feeling they could do with a bit more of contrast. The Distagon 60/3.5 CF is OK, but doesn't keep up with my Canon 16-35/4 at 35 mm and f/8.

I did not see a resolution advantage with the Hasselblad/P45+ combo at A2-sizes, but I think a clear advantage was visible at A1.

Now I have moved to a Sony A7rII, what I have seen is that the A7rII performs on par with the Hasselblad/P45+ combo also on axis (close to centre).

I am using the Sony A7rII with HCam Master TSII, a pocket size T&S adapter that takes both Canon lenses and my Hasselblad and Pentax 67 lenses. That works reasonably well.

So, from my experience MFD is a bit of a looser, unless 60-100 MP is needed. PhaseOne and Hasselblad also have leaf shutters, and there are cases where a leaf shutter is needed.

The Hasselblad V lenses are CF/CFi generation, they were made for film. The new Hasselblad H lenses generally seem to be better, according to MTF curves published by Hasselblad. They seem to be very good.

Something that matters to me is that I can get a lightweight and transportable kit.

I have something like this just now:

A7rII
Canon 16-35/4LS
Canon 24-105/4L (better than it's reputation)
Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII
Sony FE 90/2.8G
Sony 70-400/4-5.6G
Metabones and Sony adapters
HCam Master TS

The above kit fits in a Kiboko Bataflae with some room, and weights around 10 kg, which is weight limit on many flights.

I can also add some MF (Hassy or Pentax) lenses to the mix when weight is not an issue.

Regarding the suggestion that recent MF lenses are better than 24x36 mm lenses, there may be something to it. But there are a lot of truly great 24x36 mm lenses emerging, like the Otus and Batis lines from Zeiss and the greatly improved Milvus 85/1.4 and 50/1.4 and the Sigma Art series.

BUT, if you need 100 MP, MFD is the way to go. With 50 MP I am clearly skeptical and keep in mind that 50 MP is cropped frame MF, 44x33 mm.

I may also add that I am keeping the Hassy/P45+ combo, unless someone gives a really good bid :). The reason is I enjoy shooting with it. It is a great camera giving great images.

Best regards
Erik
Your posts are always well thought out and well stated. I always appreciate your comments, and normally have little to disagree with.

The main issue I have with your position here is you are comparing what is perhaps a camera body and lens system that aren’t optimal for a digital sensor, and more importantly a digital back which is now about 6 or more generations old. While the p45+ was certainly one of the stellar digital backs made and still can produce imagery which at least competes with the best smaller format systems in some situations, I would most likely also choose my Sony a7rII setup over the MF kit you describe as well. But current MF gear has advanced far beyond that, my current IQ3 80 and current lenses (rodenstock on Arca Swiss and Schneider on the Phase XF) far out performs my sony in resolution. Granted the gap has closed considerably and with the sony I’m somewhat comfortable printing up to 40”, but considering that’s only a little larger than my standard test print, I still can’t consider it for my main system and my goals when shooting.

I have no doubt that under many circumstances with stitching I could achieve similar image quality to what I get with my MF gear, but considering 70% of my images are stitches from an IQ180, doing 2 or 3 times the captures to get the same information (and having to deal with 2 row stitches instead of single row) means I’ll stay with MF. And of course the remaining captures which are single shots I still want to be able to print 60 to 72”, something the sony files will struggle with. The only time I find myself using the sony gear are those occasions where I’m simply scouting, so I’m not planning on using any images (and in fact probably only have 2 zooms and no tripod), or on occasions where the hike is somewhat daunting for my aged body and I have to lighten the pack, Even then I may choose the Arca system and only take 2 or 3 lenses, which weighs less than my sony kit or I’ll drag along one of my two very fit son-in-laws as a sherpa and pack my gear .. they are always asking to come along anyway and don’t mind carrying the bag.

The good news is new systems have brought higher quality to many who yearned for it but found it out of their budget. I’m fortunate in that through out my photography career of 40 years I did well and it allows me to use this equipment. But I’m glad technology continues to bring quality improvements to others to enjoy. Whether we will ever reach a point in time that a very small sensor can deliver outstanding large prints remains to be seen, but I’ll never underestimate the scientists and engineers who keep striving to improve things - as one of my employees always says “it’s a great time to be alive if you are a photographer”.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Re: My reflections coming from P45+ (and without reading the thread)

Hi Wayne,

Your thoughtful response is much appreciated. I have written in my original post that MFD is the way to go if you need 60-100 MP and I think that is consistent with your writing.

What I would ask if you would consider that present generation cropped frame MFD in the 40-60 MP interval used on a DSLR type body still makes a lot of sense over a well configured 24x36mm 40-50 MP system?

The reason I am asking is that I don't have such a system, but I guess that many folks go into low end MTF and it could be they would be better served with high end 24x36 mm. With the new CMOS sensors, all made by Sony, the sensor side should be pretty similar.

For large prints, I am easy to persuade that larger formats are beneficial. For my part I don't have the wall space for very large prints and I also don't have the economic means for high end MFD. My reservations are about low end MFD, like the stuff I own. I actually enjoy shooting with it, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to buy old MFD stuff.

Best regards
Erik

Your posts are always well thought out and well stated. I always appreciate your comments, and normally have little to disagree with.

The main issue I have with your position here is you are comparing what is perhaps a camera body and lens system that aren’t optimal for a digital sensor, and more importantly a digital back which is now about 6 or more generations old. While the p45+ was certainly one of the stellar digital backs made and still can produce imagery which at least competes with the best smaller format systems in some situations, I would most likely also choose my Sony a7rII setup over the MF kit you describe as well. But current MF gear has advanced far beyond that, my current IQ3 80 and current lenses (rodenstock on Arca Swiss and Schneider on the Phase XF) far out performs my sony in resolution. Granted the gap has closed considerably and with the sony I’m somewhat comfortable printing up to 40”, but considering that’s only a little larger than my standard test print, I still can’t consider it for my main system and my goals when shooting.

I have no doubt that under many circumstances with stitching I could achieve similar image quality to what I get with my MF gear, but considering 70% of my images are stitches from an IQ180, doing 2 or 3 times the captures to get the same information (and having to deal with 2 row stitches instead of single row) means I’ll stay with MF. And of course the remaining captures which are single shots I still want to be able to print 60 to 72”, something the sony files will struggle with. The only time I find myself using the sony gear are those occasions where I’m simply scouting, so I’m not planning on using any images (and in fact probably only have 2 zooms and no tripod), or on occasions where the hike is somewhat daunting for my aged body and I have to lighten the pack, Even then I may choose the Arca system and only take 2 or 3 lenses, which weighs less than my sony kit or I’ll drag along one of my two very fit son-in-laws as a sherpa and pack my gear .. they are always asking to come along anyway and don’t mind carrying the bag.

The good news is new systems have brought higher quality to many who yearned for it but found it out of their budget. I’m fortunate in that through out my photography career of 40 years I did well and it allows me to use this equipment. But I’m glad technology continues to bring quality improvements to others to enjoy. Whether we will ever reach a point in time that a very small sensor can deliver outstanding large prints remains to be seen, but I’ll never underestimate the scientists and engineers who keep striving to improve things - as one of my employees always says “it’s a great time to be alive if you are a photographer”.
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I have to think that for every advance made to small sensor cameras, the same advances are applied to the newer larger sensors ... and to produce even better results. That's not even considering the latest Phase LS lenses and the Rodenstock technical camera lenses. :thumbup:

What I would ask if you would consider that present generation cropped frame MFD in the 40-60 MP interval used on a DSLR type body still makes a lot of sense over a well configured 24x36MP system?

Best regards
Erik
I'm not Wayne but in my experience of shooting A7RII, RX1RII against my Phase One IQ150 I'd certainly say yes because of the complete system of the sensor, bodies and lenses. The Sonys are excellent but don't really compare at the end of the imaging chain, perhaps with the exception of my Canon TSE lenses that I use with my Alpa FPS. The latest Phase One / Schneider 35mm LS is turning out to be a great leveller of technical camera lenses vs those for the Phase One DSLR platform. (I love mine!! But I still prefer my 32HRw for rise/fall).

42mp vs 50mp is practically irrelevant.
 
Top