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?

M

mjr

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

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

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

Mat
 

CSP

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

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

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

mjr

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

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

Mat
 
M

mjr

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

 

CSP

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

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

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

jlm

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

Lucille

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

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

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

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

DrakeJ

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

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

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

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

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

mjr

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

Mat
 

CSP

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

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

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

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

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

no surprise, true focus solves one side of the problem so you likely will have a higher keeper rate but you and the person you shoot still have to hold the position and freeze. the shorter the lens the bigger is the focus shift with recomposition. longer lenses are less critical. i have bought to hc 100 2.2 to later find out the i can not use it the same way as my canon 85 1.2 sure i was able to get some acceptable images but you feel really unprofessional when you have to shoot again and again just to get a sharp one.
 
Here's the other type of commercial work I perform, I shoot a lot of industrial interiors, now mainly with a tech cam so AF isn't an option but this is an outtake from a shoot a while back that I really enjoyed. Leica S, ISO800, 24mm, manual exposure, no tripod allowed and no lighting as it is a working building so had an hour escorted around where I could only shoot hand held, I know my kit enough to set focus manually just back from infinity at f4 knowing that everything from around 5m to infinity was going to be in focus and just left it, used the camera as a point and shoot in effect, viewfinder for framing and that's it. I absolutely love the shots, deep and rich, it feels like you can step in to the prints.
That's a lovely photo. Of course, with your tech cam, presumably your latest efforts are even more definitive!
The prints I've tested from the Leica S similarly produce this feeling of being able to walk into them ... it's a feeling that I've simply never had to the same extent with any 35mm FF camera, no matter what I do with post processing. I don't know what causes it (16-bit? Micro contrast of the S lenses? Sensor size? Pixel acuity? .... I really don't know), but regardless the feeling reminds me of large format film in terms of depth and richness. That depth, to me, is probably the most compelling reason to move to MF digital.
As an aside, on their website Alpa did a promo video of their A-Series (and the Phase 100mp back) doing industrial interiors -- not sure why they chose that camera, given their TC is about the only one without movements .....
 
M

mjr

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

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

Mat
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

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

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

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

Hasselblad below ( http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/20151225-CF047043.iiq )


Sony below ( http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/20151225-_DSC3485.dng ):


Best regards
Erik



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

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

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

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

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

satybhat

Member
Hi,

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

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

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

Best regards
Erik
Erik,

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

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



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

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

Geoff

Well-known member
Hi,

This is a crop from a comparison shot I made

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

tsjanik

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

Tom
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
This is a long and crazy thread but I think the bottom line is once you've shot with a hi resolution medium format back 60 or 80 megapixels it's hard to go back to full frame 35mm
 
Top