Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That is a very fine shot of your son!

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards
Erik

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..

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards
Erik

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

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes and now.

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards
Erik

I read you had given up on medium format. No?

 

[torger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pradeep]

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

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

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

This thread has been interesting, it's brought out our own prejudices.

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

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

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

It would serve us all so much better if we could just be honest and say we don't care about proving the superiority of one format over another, we just like it and want to keep using it, price be damned. Period.

 

[fotografz]

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

- Marc

 

[Jager]

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

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

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

- Marc

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

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

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

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

My guess is they're out making pictures.

 

[Pradeep]

Why?

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

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

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

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

- Marc

Amen to that!

 

[gerald.d]

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time is the most valuable resource we have.

Kind regards,


Gerald.

 

[Don Libby]

I keep telling myself I'm not going down this rabbit hole...

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Me too, Don!

 

[MILESF]

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

 

[Abstraction]

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

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

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

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

 

[fotografz]

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

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

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

You are fairly new here. No one ever owns a thread on GetDPI, they may start one, but then it has a mind of its own as folks express their beliefs and exchange their ideas and experiences about photography.

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

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

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

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

- Marc

 

[Abstraction]

I'm still not sure what your criteria is other than cherry picking evidence that supports your preordained beliefs.


- Marc

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

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

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

 

[jlm]

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

 

[Abstraction]

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

I have seen a number of RAW files with scenes ranging from cityscapes to studio scenes to natural vistas.

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

 

[Geoff]

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

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

- Marc

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

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

These are significantly different.

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

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

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

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

Best regards
Erik

This might be a matter of the quals and quants, a long term quarrel. the photo equivalent of this coukd be:

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

These are significantly different.

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

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

 

[jerome_m]

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

If the idea is to compare the files between a 50 mp 24x36 SLR and a 50 mp CMOS MF, what about visiting the following pages:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-rTHMB.HTM
and
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-645z/pentax-645zTHMB.HTM?

You'll even find that raw files are available.