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?

Charles Wood

New member
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.
 

jerome_m

Member
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.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
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/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/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:
Screen Shot 2016-03-29 at 08.39.13.jpg



Best regards
Erik






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:

torger

Active member
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.
 

CSP

New member
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.
 

AreBee

Member
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.
 

torger

Active member
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.

sk-bokeh.jpg
 

AreBee

Member
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?
 

torger

Active member
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:

tilt.jpg

(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.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
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
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.
 

torger

Active member
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.
 

tjv

Active member
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.
 

jerome_m

Member
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.
 

jerome_m

Member
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.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
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):
Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.23.02.jpg

Much reduced it still there at f/4:
Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.27.11.jpg

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






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:

jerome_m

Member
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/Chromatic_aberration#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.
 

torger

Active member
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.
 

AreBee

Member
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.
 

torger

Active member
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.
 
M

mjr

Guest
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
 
Top