Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 60

Thread: MFD 'the look' conundrum

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    MFD 'the look' conundrum

    So this is a blatant troll post but I promise no further flaming, bashing your equipment choices or shouting at you.
    A thought occurred to me last night and that was if I took my 120 apo-digitar (a superior MFD lens) and stitched a couple of frames with my Sony A7r using my cambo Actus would the resulting image have 'the look' and superior dynamic range/detail/sharpness/colour separation that is evidently so apparent with MFD? After all the lens is the same and the sensor is the same.

    (As a side note the whole system cost about £3.5k with 3 lenses, one of the best investments my business has made)

    I'll also add that the new H6 might get me to wander into a dealer and have a look, especially if the new Focus software has improved usability. I'm certainly not anti mfd and have shot many jobs with it.
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    The A7R sensor is the same as "what"? A 50 meg CMOS MFD sensor? A 100 meg CMOS MFD sensor?

    What about a 60 meg 645 CCD MFD sensor? A 80 meg 645 MFD sensor?

    Not sure I get what you are after here. Stitching is limited in application compared to one shot.

    - Marc

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Well you certainly could take a stitched shot, post it declaring it as good as anything you got with MFD, you could get a load of people agreeing with you, a load of people disagreeing with you, it could go on for pages and pages of people posting crops and charts to prove why you are right or why you are wrong, or you could just concentrate on taking beautiful images and not giving a toss about proving anything to anyone and simply enjoy the experience. I guess we will see.

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    well a stitched image would be roughly 60mp and lets say 45x32mm in size.
    yes stitching is more work than a single shot.

    i think my point is that good lenses make a big difference, i’m sure somebody versed in the science/technology aspect of optics and sensors would be able to shine some light on my question.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    Well you certainly could take a stitched shot, post it declaring it as good as anything you got with MFD, you could get a load of people agreeing with you, a load of people disagreeing with you, it could go on for pages and pages of people posting crops and charts to prove why you are right or why you are wrong, or you could just concentrate on taking beautiful images and not giving a toss about proving anything to anyone and simply enjoy the experience. I guess we will see.

    Mat
    i’m not looking to prove anything, it’s up to others to prove i’m either right or wrong (i dont know the answer to that!)
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.

  5. #5
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Pixel pitch and pixel size differs between the two sensors

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    there is no mf look so it is not possible to replicate it by stitching images ! most of the todays mf gears is also just a little larger than 35mm to call this medium format is a joke anyway imho. the vague superiority beside some resolution advantage some are able to see in mf files is a perception phenomenon and normal human behavior but this belongs to psychology and not to photography.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Member AreBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Highlands, Scotland
    Posts
    171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    jlm,

    Pixel pitch and pixel size differs between the two sensors
    In film photography, is the look a function of film granularity?

  8. #8
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    guess not, i used tri-x in 35, 2-1/4 and 4x5, all the same emulsion.

    but in the context of this post, there are "mechanical" differences between stitching with a 50mpx sony and trying to match the sensor size of a 50mpx DB. more like comparing pan-x to tri-x, using your example.

  9. #9
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by CSP View Post
    there is no mf look so it is not possible to replicate it by stitching images ! most of the todays mf gears is also just a little larger than 35mm to call this medium format is a joke anyway imho. the vague superiority beside some resolution advantage some are able to see in mf files is a perception phenomenon and normal human behavior but this belongs to psychology and not to photography.
    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    Pixel pitch and pixel size differs between the two sensors
    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    So this is a blatant troll post but I promise no further flaming, bashing your equipment choices or shouting at you.
    A thought occurred to me last night and that was if I took my 120 apo-digitar (a superior MFD lens) and stitched a couple of frames with my Sony A7r using my cambo Actus would the resulting image have 'the look' and superior dynamic range/detail/sharpness/colour separation that is evidently so apparent with MFD? After all the lens is the same and the sensor is the same.

    (As a side note the whole system cost about £3.5k with 3 lenses, one of the best investments my business has made)

    I'll also add that the new H6 might get me to wander into a dealer and have a look, especially if the new Focus software has improved usability. I'm certainly not anti mfd and have shot many jobs with it.
    From what I've been able to ascertain, the MF "look", if there is one, comes from the large pixel CCD backs. There is a thread on these forums where people showcase their work from the older, large pixel (9 micron) and there seems to be that pop that people attributed to the MF. However, I think that's really the large pixel look. The original Canon 5D has it too.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Of course stitching essentially "enlarges" your sensor size and gives you identical look and result if given the same pixel density. You could save lots of money if your work allows stitching.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Stitching......
    .......
    .......
    ....... should be for tailors !
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Member AreBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Highlands, Scotland
    Posts
    171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Abstraction,

    From what I've been able to ascertain, the MF "look", if there is one, comes from the large pixel CCD backs.
    The look, if there is one, existed prior to digital capture. It was not considered to be a function of film type or grain size. Therefore, it cannot be a function of sensor type or pixel size respectively.

  13. #13
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    From what I've been able to ascertain, the MF "look", if there is one, comes from the large pixel CCD backs.
    Or huge prints.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Hi,

    A Sony sensor of similar construction as the 50 or 100 MP sensor.

    So, yes, same lens, same sensor gives same result. The result depends on how you stitch. A shift stitch would give identical results.

    It is of course not always possible to stitch, but it is a good way to explore lenses, before buying.

    I made that experiment on my A7rII, it produces something like a 48x36 image at arond 80 MP, much better detail than on the P45+, that I know. Large pixel magic, I don't know.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    The A7R sensor is the same as "what"? A 50 meg CMOS MFD sensor? A 100 meg CMOS MFD sensor?

    What about a 60 meg 645 CCD MFD sensor? A 80 meg 645 MFD sensor?

    Not sure I get what you are after here. Stitching is limited in application compared to one shot.

    - Marc
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 12th April 2016 at 07:34.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Or huge prints.
    Or great photographers. Seriously, it's not the camera.

    As Marc noted - stitching is obviously not single capture so it's a bit apples to oranges.

    BTW I'm trying something similar, coincidentally also with a 120 Apo-Digitar as well as a 100 Apo-Symmar. No movements yet.



    This is the 100 Apo-Symmar focused at infinity.
    Last edited by Lars; 12th April 2016 at 10:37.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    So what about the alleged "Brenzier" look? Supposedly the closest to MF 'look' out there.

    (and I realize that to many this isn't a new or uniquely Brenzier technique).
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  17. #17
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    I think this thread would benefit from image samples visualizing an MF look.
    The obvious challenge would be to find images where the sensor is the differentiator - vs. lens, lighting, leaf shutter, photographer, subject, or client.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    when there really would be a kind of mf look which anybody can distinguish form side by side samples i bet the mf dealers would have already used this to their advantage, no ?

  19. #19
    Senior Member JohnBrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Lars View Post
    Or great photographers. Seriously, it's not the camera.

    As Marc noted - stitching is obviously not single capture so it's a bit apples to oranges.

    BTW I'm trying something similar, coincidentally also with a 120 Apo-Digitar as well as a 100 Apo-Symmar. No movements yet.

    Lars, that is a really cool setup! Any images to post yet?

    I have a large print on the wall I took with a CFV-50c/ALPA/HR 40. For me it is a richness of color and tone that sets it apart from 35mm. I use this image as a reference. I can achieve a similar look with a D810, Zeiss Otus, focus stacked AND stitched.
    Please note I stated "similar", not same. The finished file is quite large and as noted before it's a long way from a single capture.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrew View Post
    Lars, that is a really cool setup! Any images to post yet?
    Well, it's an ongoing experiment with an extremely limited budget. The crappy mostly plastic bellows cost about $25 and flexes like crazy.
    Initially I modded a Nikon body cap to attach the lens to the bellows (that's what you see in the pic). Light leaks all over but it let me verify that at least the 100 and 120 lenses focus at infinity.
    Rev 2 is a plastic Nikon lens bayonet, I need to attach it to the rear of a copal shutter.
    Issues so far include said flex in the bellows - at the very least least a full metal bellows construction is required - and a massive amount of internal reflections due to the wide IC of the lens. Hood and internal baffles need to be added for this contraption to perform reasonably well.
    So - not yet ready for actual use.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    So this is a blatant troll post but I promise no further flaming, bashing your equipment choices or shouting at you.
    A thought occurred to me last night and that was if I took my 120 apo-digitar (a superior MFD lens) and stitched a couple of frames with my Sony A7r using my cambo Actus would the resulting image have 'the look' and superior dynamic range/detail/sharpness/colour separation that is evidently so apparent with MFD? After all the lens is the same and the sensor is the same.
    I think we already have debated these questions to death, now is the time for some real science: why don't you shoot the same subject with your Actus and a MF camera and post the results for all to see?

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    I think we already have debated these questions to death, now is the time for some real science: why don't you shoot the same subject with your Actus and a MF camera and post the results for all to see?
    I think these comparisons have been done to death. There's loads of images shot on different cameras in the name of 'science'
    Even then it wouldn't prove anything to me as I'm not into 'the look' as it doesn't mean anything to the work I do.

    But my question was quite specific, would a stitched shot have the same 'look' as an MFD one on the same lens.

    I made that experiment on my A7rII, it produces something like a 48x36 image at arond 80 MP, much better detail than on the P45+, that I know. Large pixel magic, I don't know.

    Best regards
    Erik
    That's enough proof for me. I guess now the sensor is the same technology the 16/bit MFD magic is no longer there :-)
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    I'm a little slow MrSmith, so please excuse my ignorance, I just want to make sure I have this correct.

    You aren't going to shoot your stitch with your Sony because it's been done to death, you don't see any difference between MF and smaller formats yourself but your specific question is, would the shot that you're not going to take, have the MF "look" that you don't see, if you used an MF lens, is that about the sum of it?

    Mat.
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I'm a little slow MrSmith, so please excuse my ignorance, I just want to make sure I have this correct.

    You aren't going to shoot your stitch with your Sony because it's been done to death, you don't see any difference between MF and smaller formats yourself but your specific question is, would the shot that you're not going to take, have the MF "look" that you don't see, if you used an MF lens, is that about the sum of it?

    Mat.
    In the interest of consensus building, the answer is: "yes and no".

    That way, all bases are covered! Except maybe....
    www.gigi-photos.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Hi,

    The IQ3-100MP has actually 16 bit signal path and 15 bit DR, indepently measured. I don't think it makes a real difference, but it should be cleaner than older MFD.

    I have published the images, but I need to get back home to find the links.

    Best reagrds
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    I think these comparisons have been done to death. There's loads of images shot on different cameras in the name of 'science'
    Even then it wouldn't prove anything to me as I'm not into 'the look' as it doesn't mean anything to the work I do.

    But my question was quite specific, would a stitched shot have the same 'look' as an MFD one on the same lens.



    That's enough proof for me. I guess now the sensor is the same technology the 16/bit MFD magic is no longer there :-)

  26. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I'm a little slow MrSmith, so please excuse my ignorance, I just want to make sure I have this correct.

    You aren't going to shoot your stitch with your Sony because it's been done to death, you don't see any difference between MF and smaller formats yourself but your specific question is, would the shot that you're not going to take, have the MF "look" that you don't see, if you used an MF lens, is that about the sum of it?

    Mat.
    No. I have a MF lens, I have a sensor 24x36 that's the same technology and manufacture as MF digital backs.
    I'm not going to do back to back tests as there's loads of comparisons on the web and I just don't have the time plus the outcome is not going to change my working methods as I'm very happy with the sensor/camera/lens combination I currently use.

    What I'm wondering is if I double the sensor area (by stitching) will I suddenly have access to the fabled `MF look’ seeing as the sensor area and MPixels will be similar to some current MFD offerings?
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.

  27. #27
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    I thought there's no such thing as an MF look?
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Ahh, I see, that's much clearer now. Many thanks for explaining the whole thing.

    What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange, I checked and haven't seen any posts on the Sony/Nikon/Canon side from owners of M4/3 cameras or smaller formats suggesting that anyone who spends loads of money on full frame 35mm is a fool when simply stitching a smaller format would do exactly the same thing, surely a pixel is a pixel after all. I haven't seen any MFD owners on Sony/Canon/Nikon etc forums questioning why 35mm owners don't just work a bit harder so they can afford MFD or mocking anyone who has to stitch just to get similar resolution. I wonder why that is?

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Thanks 4 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member bab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Take the Sony Ar7ii sensor (35.9mm x 24.0mm) and the Hasselblad H5D sensor 36.7 x 49.1mm photograph an object 25mm high 25mm wide and 25mm deep. Your goal is to get it all in focus whether you stack (appx 26 images) the images or not...and try to fill the sensor with the object 1:1 or move back from the object or make your best effort to end up reproducing the best (highest) resolution image of the object you can achieve. Now crop away the background (drop out) and make two prints of just the object, one of each file fill the frame with just the object for a 30"x40" print. Then you decide what sensor is better suited for the job? (Imagine same test with 100MP) Imagine the same test shooting a landscape file and cropping out the unwanted part of the image. Imagine the same test with a 200MP multi shot back?

    bab

  30. #30
    Member AreBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Highlands, Scotland
    Posts
    171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Mat,

    What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange, I checked and haven't seen any posts on the Sony/Nikon/Canon side from owners of M4/3 cameras or smaller formats suggesting that anyone who spends loads of money on full frame 35mm is a fool when simply stitching a smaller format would do exactly the same thing, surely a pixel is a pixel after all. I haven't seen any MFD owners on Sony/Canon/Nikon etc forums questioning why 35mm owners don't just work a bit harder so they can afford MFD or mocking anyone who has to stitch just to get similar resolution. I wonder why that is?
    Strawman.
    Rob
    www.robbuckle.co.uk
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    No. I have a MF lens, I have a sensor 24x36 that's the same technology and manufacture as MF digital backs.
    I'm not going to do back to back tests as there's loads of comparisons on the web and I just don't have the time plus the outcome is not going to change my working methods as I'm very happy with the sensor/camera/lens combination I currently use.
    I see.

    What I'm wondering is if I double the sensor area (by stitching) will I suddenly have access to the fabled `MF look’ seeing as the sensor area and MPixels will be similar to some current MFD offerings?
    Then, the answer is yes. Absolutely. It will be completely the same look. In-dis-tin-gui-sha-ble. Just take our word for it.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by AreBee View Post
    Mat,



    Strawman.
    I'm sure you are making a point AreBee but I don't know what it is, I have already explained that I am a little slow, you may have to spell it out.

    Mat

  33. #33
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I'm sure you are making a point AreBee but I don't know what it is, I have already explained that I am a little slow, you may have to spell it out.

    Mat
    He's saying that you posted a strawman argument, misrepresenting with MrSmith said - and I have to agree. MrSmith said nothing along the lines of "anyone who spends loads of money on full frame 35mm is a fool" or "questioning why 35mm owners don't just work a bit harder so they can afford MFD or mocking anyone who has to stitch". That was all you.

    While I still don't fully understand why MrSmith cannot answer his own question - since I gather that he has all the components to perform the comparison himself? - he did ask a valid initial question, which deserves a respectful answer.

    Editorial: Twice now in the past couple of years, I've been absent from getDPI Medium Format forum for periods of 8 - 9 months. And each time I come back, I find the level of "narkiness" has noticeably ratcheted up. It's disappointing.

    That MrSmith felt compelled to say "I promise no further flaming, bashing your equipment choices or shouting at you" in the preamble to his question speaks to the suspicion and hostility that now hangs over even well-meaning contributions.

    Seriously, people. If you can't be helpful here, be nice. If you can't be nice, be silent.

    Ray
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Ray,

    Respectfully, what is it that you are doing by quoting just a part of my post and assuming it was directed at MrSmith? Maybe you are being helpful and showing me an example of how one would write a strawman argument by misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes?

    What I wrote quite clearly "What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange" is obviously a statement on the forum as a whole, there have been many threads started around the same thing, I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels like this. As a member of this forum, I presume it's ok for me to call it as I see it even if you don't like it? I am very rarely disrespectful and do my best to be balanced or indeed I just say nothing.

    Have a nice day!

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

  35. #35
    Senior Member Dogs857's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Thursday Island - Australia
    Posts
    307
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    Ray,

    Respectfully, what is it that you are doing by quoting just a part of my post and assuming it was directed at MrSmith? Maybe you are being helpful and showing me an example of how one would write a strawman argument by misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes?

    What I wrote quite clearly "What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange" is obviously a statement on the forum as a whole, there have been many threads started around the same thing, I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels like this. As a member of this forum, I presume it's ok for me to call it as I see it even if you don't like it? I am very rarely disrespectful and do my best to be balanced or indeed I just say nothing.

    Have a nice day!

    Mat
    Mat it was getting to me as well.

    Now I just take Guy's advice and ignore the idiots and my life is a lot happier.
    If you are looking for me I will be in the "fun with" thread as it seems to be the only place that isn't constantly visited by people trying to prove the same point endlessly.

    I would add a chart to prove my point but can't honestly be arsed.
    Stop chasing gear, start chasing photos instead.

    Jeff, but my friends call me Dogs
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    for what it's worth, threads such as this and the "compelling reason..." thread, for the most part, bring this forum to a low level, encouraging bombast, demagoguery, and prejudice, with a tiny smattering of useful content and a great deal of really superfluous data.
    and to what end? and if the original question does get answered, (several times over), the rants go on.

    move on.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    i actually thought it was a valid question.
    same lens
    same sensor tech
    one 35mm sized
    one MFD sized
    would it have the MFD qualities.

    in some way it has been answered in that doubling the sensor size would turn the image into a medium format one by the nature of lens choice/sensor size and amount of MP

    the troll part of my question was purely about the ‘magic’ and ‘look’ but i was upfront and honest about that. and i thought it was an interesting proposition now the plain field is more level re sensor types.

    as to my own conclusions? the magic/look is mostly just a myth that dealers/manufacturers use to sell stuff and people use to post rationalise their purchasing.
    but high quality optics and good sensor technology (including good software) get you high fidelity images regardless of format.

    (fwiw i’m not new to all this, been chasing that tail with 10x8, all the way down to 35mm for 20 working years)

    i’ll also say this forum is far better than the ‘other one’ if you want a reasonably sensible discussion.
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #38
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    i’ll also say this forum is far better than the ‘other one’ if you want a reasonably sensible discussion.

    Perhaps, but the gap is narrowing.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    Ray,

    Respectfully, what is it that you are doing by quoting just a part of my post and assuming it was directed at MrSmith? Maybe you are being helpful and showing me an example of how one would write a strawman argument by misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes?
    But Mat, you did direct your post to MrSmith - you started that post to him by acknowledging his reply to your question - so what else were we to think?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    What I wrote quite clearly "What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange" is obviously a statement on the forum as a whole, there have been many threads started around the same thing, I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels like this. As a member of this forum, I presume it's ok for me to call it as I see it even if you don't like it? I am very rarely disrespectful and do my best to be balanced or indeed I just say nothing.

    Have a nice day!

    Mat
    Fair enough - you were making a general point about the forum - but how was that point related to this thread, or the person you were replying to? Like I said, nobody in this thread has behaved in the manner you were complaining about, least of all MrSmith.

    Ray

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Ray

    Honestly, do you really want to keep doing this? My reply to MrSmith was the first paragraph, where I thanked him for making things clear, I then went on, in the second paragraph to voice my frustration at the general message of posts on the forum, you can tell this by the way I didn't say to MrSmith that I didn't like his posts, I didn't mention anyone specifically, I just wrote my impression of the state of things as they appear to me.

    You can take it any way you like, it makes absolutely no difference to me, whether you think I was addressing him directly or not, I just don't care. Now, if you want to continue going back and forward on this then just message me, we can keep this off this otherwise fascinating thread!

    Mat

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    What we've been seeing on this forum recently is quite strange, I checked and haven't seen any posts on the Sony/Nikon/Canon side from owners of M4/3 cameras or smaller formats suggesting that anyone who spends loads of money on full frame 35mm is a fool when simply stitching a smaller format would do exactly the same thing, surely a pixel is a pixel after all. I haven't seen any MFD owners on Sony/Canon/Nikon etc forums questioning why 35mm owners don't just work a bit harder so they can afford MFD or mocking anyone who has to stitch just to get similar resolution. I wonder why that is?
    Actually, I have seen plenty of owners of APS-C and M4/3 cameras suggesting that anyone who spends loads of money on full frame 35mm is a fool. I have not seen them on this forum lately, but then full frame 35mm has got much cheaper lately.

    This kind of posts have always been with us. The real problem, however, is that the more interesting posts, the ones which used to provide interesting content are largely gone. I wonder why that is.

  42. #42
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    969
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Aside from the way a specific lens renders, I personally never bought into the MF look. That could be because I'm not clued into it, not sensitized to see it, not good enough in image capture / post processing (probably the case).

    Odd thing happened the other day. I printed an image from the a7rii that my wife said she liked. I printed it kinda big-ish since I had the roll paper installed and I was testing some new paper, but still about 300dpi native. The image was 22" wide. She came up and saw it on the table and said, "that's nice, but how come it doesn't look the same as some of your others?" I asked her what she meant. She said she didn't really know, it just didn't look quite as good. I have a bunch of images framed on the walls so of course I asked which ones she though looked "better." She proceeded to point out all the MF images. I just stood there and stared at her, speechless.

    Of course that story doesn't prove ****, except that different people have different perceptions, and it is not always driven by the need to justify a purchase.

    Dave
    How glorious a greeting the sun gives the mountains! - John Muir

    davechewphotography.com
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Senior Member JohnBrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Dave, if its any consolation my wife did the same!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    the magic/look is mostly just a myth that dealers/manufacturers use to sell stuff and people use to post rationalise their purchasing.
    Apart from the fact that I am finding this stereotype inappropriate IMHO it really depends what pieces of gear exactly you are comparing... and IMHO the lenses have the strongest impact on what we call "look". So if you use a "classical" MF system the character of the respective lenses pre-defines the "look". When you compare 2 systems that deliver the same resolution, say, a ~40MP Back with a 49x37mm sensor (a P45 for instance with 39MP) with Zeiss glass from the old days to a ~40MP 36x24mm camera (a Sony A7R2 for instance with 42MP) with the most recent Zeiss glass the look may be pretty different. Better or not is not the question here - but it is different!
    I use said P45 on a Contax (and a tech cam) and an A7R2 ... and personally I still clearly favor to use the P45 when the conditions are appropriate (so that I can shoot at ISO50 or ISO100). Maybe I also prefer it because I actually do like the "look" of the Kodak sensor... I don't know (really don't know!).
    In the same way we could talk about any other possible comparison of sensor / lenses ... and so we would talk about Leica-S lenses, Hasselblad H-lenses, Schneider/Phase One lenses and you name it. And as long as we talk about single shots (not about stitched images) we would always see a "difference". Whether the difference is "magic" or not is in the eye of the beholder...

    But when we talk about a smaller sensor that features actually the same tech and pixel pitch than a larger sensor ... and you flat-stitch the smaller sensor within the image circle of a large format lens to cover the same sensor size... then of course the look is the very same (same lens and "virtually" the same sensor). Then again IR filter, signal processing etc. may also play a role ... so the same sensor is not necessarily the same sensor...

  45. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by dchew View Post
    Odd thing happened the other day. I printed an image from the a7rii that my wife said she liked. I printed it kinda big-ish since I had the roll paper installed and I was testing some new paper, but still about 300dpi native. The image was 22" wide. She came up and saw it on the table and said, "that's nice, but how come it doesn't look the same as some of your others?" I asked her what she meant. She said she didn't really know, it just didn't look quite as good. I have a bunch of images framed on the walls so of course I asked which ones she though looked "better." She proceeded to point out all the MF images. I just stood there and stared at her, speechless.

    Of course that story doesn't prove ****, except that different people have different perceptions, and it is not always driven by the need to justify a purchase.
    Statistically, what are the probabilities that she would be able to point at all the MF images, excluding the others, by chance only?

  46. #46
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    969
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Statistically, what are the probabilities that she would be able to point at all the MF images, excluding the others, by chance only?
    Good question! When I get back home I will look and do the math.
    How glorious a greeting the sun gives the mountains! - John Muir

    davechewphotography.com

  47. #47
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Hi,

    Without any specific reference to any post, I did make an experiment that is analogous to what has been suggested in the original posting. The purpose of that test was to find out how my old Hasselblad lenses would work with a 100 MP sensor.

    Method:

    Shoot a Sony A7rII on HCam Master TSII that allows around +/- 12 mm shift with the A7rII mounted vertically, shoot three images with +15, -15 and 0 mm shift and merge. This gives a 48x36 MP image at something like 85 MP. Size is very close to the P45+ sensor 49x37 mm. I also shot the same subject from the same position with the P45+ using the very same lens:

    The lens used here was the Zeiss Planar 100/3.5, one of the best lenses in the V-system for long distance shooting. A central crop of both images is below, forum software may downsize the image, here is a link to the original crops:http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...TDPI/1/SS1.jpg


    I also downsampled the Sony A7rII merged image to P45+ size, it is shown below, with the origianl crop here:http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...TDPI/1/SS2.jpg


    The raw files are here:
    http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...7-CF047086.iiq
    http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...C4360-Pano.dng

    What I see is:
    • The A7rII image renders much cleaner
    • The A7rII has much higher resoultion
    • That holds even if the A7rII is downsized to P45+ resolution


    Things like MFD look is beyond me. Processing is not identical, but you have the raw files so you can compare at will.

    Best regards
    Erik

  48. #48
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    969
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Statistically, what are the probabilities that she would be able to point at all the MF images, excluding the others, by chance only?
    14 images on the wall of various sizes (no correlation to sizes and format). 2 are film so I will throw those out, although she picked those correctly too. 8 are MFD, 4 are 135 format. None currently on the wall are stitched.

    12 possible outcomes, 50% chance on each image.
    0.5^12=0.02% chance.

    Damn. She's pretty good.
    How glorious a greeting the sun gives the mountains! - John Muir

    davechewphotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Hello,

    I have been using MDF since P65+ and I have IQ180 now.

    I shoot primary people for advertising.

    I also have Sony A7R as a walk around camera. I have used A7RII for 1 commercial shoot becoz i did not have my phase one at that time.

    My first impression with A7R2 was, the skin tone and color is not nearly in MDF league, more saturation, more unnatural color. MDF has better clarity and gradation (shadow to highlight). Nikon for example never have a nice gradation, highlight to shadow is not smooth ( i found in d800 test long time ago)

    MDF absolutely has the look. The photo looks more polish and define. But in the end of the day It still depends on the photographer. Only them can bring the full potential of their tool.

    Here is the shot I took with A7RII: Tiger Beer Campaign (talent/food/bbq) color is different from raw


    And with IQ180: Samsung Campaign (1 shot no compose, except photo frames)


    P65+ before and after:



    The images has been photoshop but you can see the different in clarity. The phase one photo looks very polish even in the original state, the sony looks more raw and needs more work in post.

    Hope this helps to give some ideas why MDF for me has the quality that the 35mm cant achieve.

    Thanks,
    Dan
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  50. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD 'the look' conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Santoso View Post
    Hello,



    My first impression with A7R2 was, the skin tone and color is not nearly in MDF league, more saturation, more unnatural color. MDF has better clarity and gradation (shadow to highlight). Nikon for example never have a nice gradation, highlight to shadow is not smooth ( i found in d800 test long time ago)
    n
    this is hilarious because your statement is followed by an un retouched phaseone images which looks rather horrible to me.......

    in the hands of an skilled retoucher or photographer every file from todays cameras can give excellent results how long it takes has more to do with the knowledge and practice than the camera the file was shot with. many high level shooters use 35mm to produce extreme wonderful photography one of them is peter lindbergh and he never touches a mf camera but look at his work !

    ( when it comes to natural color rendering and skin tones imho hasselblad does a far better job than phase )
    Last edited by CSP; 14th April 2016 at 01:51.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

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