A MF camera that produces the "medium format look".

[fiver]

Currently looking to buy some new gear, I just sold my H4D-31.

The cheapest MF digital offerings, gfx-50 and the X1d have small sensors and don't produce that Medium format look and feel like the big sensor offerings, I have had the X1d for two weeks trial and sent it back without purchasing.

The big sensor blads and PO's are £30k and out of my range. I have a mate who is offering me a used Phase One P65+ back for £5k.

It has a 40.4 X 54.9mm sensor which is imo the right size and where it gets interesting, I believe it also has CCD tech rather than CMOS, I prefer CCD colours.

 

[kdphotography]

For Phase MFDBs, the P65+ will be the least expensive full framed sensor. The P65+ was the first full framed sensor offered in medium format digital. The IQ160 uses the same sensor but with the much improved user interface. You might be able to find one in your budget range.

 

[f8orbust]

I don't think it's sensor size alone that contributes to the 'look'. IMHO it's sensor size, type + glass.

And when all those are thrown into the mix, nothing comes close to a large CCD sensor on a tech cam with S/K glass (except maybe a large CCD sensor on a tech cam with R/S glass).

Jim

 

[Erik Lundqvist]

Currently looking to buy some new gear, I just sold my H4D-31.

The cheapest MF digital offerings, gfx-50 and the X1d have small sensors and don't produce that Medium format look and feel like the big sensor offerings, I have had the X1d for two weeks trial and sent it back without purchasing.

Same sensor size as the H4D-31 though?

 

[Speedgraphic]

The MFD look is dead. It was killed by the Canon 50/1.2 and the Nikon 58/1.4 + hi-res sensors.

I get the MF look by shooting film. There are like 100 ppl world wide that need what the 100mp Sony sensor does, but 1,000,000,000 that get to simply enjoy what a Rollei + Provia does.

 

[DB5]

Any of the medium format backs give a medium format look.

It makes sense to learn what the medium format look is before you buy it though - it sounds like you just want it because you hear it's something worth having.

 

[thompsonkirk]

Yes - I looked at pictures you've posted here and couldn't figure out what sort of 'look' you'd want or need. Without knowing more, I t's sort of like discussing how to get a 'Leica look' without using a Leica.

Do you do product photography or something where excruciating detail is expected/demanded? Do you make XXL prints?

And for what you plan to do, what actually went wrong with your Hasselblad experience? Did it fail at pixel-peeping, or at particular tasks?

Kirk

 

[DougDolde]

I had an H3D-31 and wasn't too impressed with the files. They seemed pretty flat and lifeless. My IQ180 is another story, great files

 

[chrismuc]

Hi Fiver,

you may have look to my (new) website www.christoph-kuegler.com

You find images of different genres (cityscape/architecture, street life, sport, automotive) with different camera systems/sensor sizes. For each photography I have included the information on camera and lens, so you can draw your own conclusions if MF look is visible or not.

Best check on large resolution monitor, the images are uploaded in 2048 pixel on long side.

Systems/sensor sizes:
24x16: Fuji X-E1, X-E2, X-T1 (CMOS)
36x24: Sony A7RII, Canon 5DII (CMOS)
44x33: Fuji GFX50s (CMOS)
54x40: IQ180, P65 w/ Contax 645, Alpa FPS (CCD)

Regards, Christoph

 

[DB5]

Hi Fiver,

you may have look to my (new) website Christoph Kügler

You find images of different genres (cityscape/architecture, street life, sport, automotive) with different camera systems/sensor sizes. For each photography I have included the information on camera and lens, so you can draw your own conclusions if MF look is visible or not.

Best check on large resolution monitor, the images are uploaded in 2048 pixel on long side.

Systems/sensor sizes:
24x16: Fuji X-E1, X-E2, X-T1 (CMOS)
36x24: Sony A7RII, Canon 5DII (CMOS)
44x33: Fuji GFX50s (CMOS)
54x40: IQ180, P65 w/ Contax 645, Alpa FPS (CCD)

Regards, Christoph

Hi Christoph, some very nice work

How do you find the Fuji GFX compares with the IQ180?

 

[B L]

Currently looking to buy some new gear, I just sold my H4D-31.

The cheapest MF digital offerings, gfx-50 and the X1d have small sensors and don't produce that Medium format look and feel like the big sensor offerings, I have had the X1d for two weeks trial and sent it back without purchasing.

The big sensor blads and PO's are £30k and out of my range. I have a mate who is offering me a used Phase One P65+ back for £5k.

It has a 40.4 X 54.9mm sensor which is imo the right size and where it gets interesting, I believe it also has CCD tech rather than CMOS, I prefer CCD colours.

I recently swapped my M240 body for a H3D + 39 + HC 80,two batteries,gadget case,cables etc. I think I have done a best swap! And no, I cant afford X1D but I like it for portability as my H3D is is weight lifting tool. Other than its weight,I am please with the results.
On the other hand,if one compares H1D with a current Leica + 50 Sommilux or Noctilux, I would go with X1D.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The P65+ seems to be a reasonable choice, especially if you need full frame. What mount is it?

Personally, I don't believe there is a "MFD look". I have been shooting a P45+ with Hasselblad V and have been trough something like 8 lenses, but the only advantage I have seen with it was resolution. Used the P45+ for 3+ years and 4500 or so images. Very few of those images made it to the wall.

In a part, that depends on my way of shooting. Almost always on tripod, mostly medium apertures.

One feature of MFD is large bokeh, here MF used to have an advantage, as MF glass was often quiet usable at full aperture while say 24x36 was less good opened up fully. But now days we have plenty of lens option offering near perfect rendition fully open.

My own usage of the P45+ has dvindled 1940 exposures in 2014 to 162 this year.

The GFX and the X1D make a lot of sense to me. Both are designed around the 44x33 sensor with lenses optimized for that sensor size. Lenses are probably designed for 100 MP sensor resolution. Jim Kasson has most of the GFX lenses and they are excellent. So Jim has sold off all his Hasselblad H lenses and Hasselblad V lenses.

CCD vs. CMOS has been discussed to death. But reality is that CCD is almost dead. Folks understanding sensor design and colour science are very clear that there is no difference in colour between CCD and CMOS. On the other hand, almost all CMOS sensors used in MFD are coming from Sony while CCD-s were coming from Kodak or DALSA, and there may be a Kodak colour.

The sensors are monochrome. Colour is supplied by a colour filter array in front of the pixels. So, the pixels are similar.

The great difference between CMOS is readout. With CMOS the voltage over the photodiode is measureed in place, with the CCD the charge is popped out raw for raw column for column to a set of chip converters. That process is noisy. CMOS readout can be something like 5-10 times less noisy. That is the reason CMOS offers better high ISO and significantly higher DR. Less noise in the shadows.

A great advantage with CMOS is live view. LV gives great flexibility for viewing and it allows for very precise focusing when magnified for actual pixels.

The Hasselblad back you used had Kodak sensors, combined with Hasselblad's colour processing at least if you used Phocus. With P65+ you are in DALSA territory with Capture One. (corrected, P45+ uses Kodak and P65+ uses DALSA)

A P65+ back alone doesn't make any pictures. You need a camera body and lenses to match. If you cannot afford spending 30k$US for high end digital the GFX may be a good option, especially as it can use almost any lens, although there are some exceptions.


Best regards
Erik

Currently looking to buy some new gear, I just sold my H4D-31.

The cheapest MF digital offerings, gfx-50 and the X1d have small sensors and don't produce that Medium format look and feel like the big sensor offerings, I have had the X1d for two weeks trial and sent it back without purchasing.

The big sensor blads and PO's are £30k and out of my range. I have a mate who is offering me a used Phase One P65+ back for £5k.

It has a 40.4 X 54.9mm sensor which is imo the right size and where it gets interesting, I believe it also has CCD tech rather than CMOS, I prefer CCD colours.

 

[DB5]

In a part, that depends on my way of shooting. Almost always on tripod, mostly medium apertures.

It's also why you don't see the medium format look as much either. If you are shooting everything stoped down, at distance, on a tripod then you will see it less except for when pixels is the only thing greater. But many confuse extra pixels for the medium format look.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The MFD look is dead. It was killed by the Canon 50/1.2 and the Nikon 58/1.4 + hi-res sensors.

I get the MF look by shooting film. There are like 100 ppl world wide that need what the 100mp Sony sensor does, but 1,000,000,000 that get to simply enjoy what a Rollei + Provia does.

Not only is the MFD look dead, it's being actively killed by the camera industry and a majority of MF photographers.... and Sony. Most photographers have been striving for perfection more or less since the beginning of photography. As long as the medium itself, and the tools we used to create images, were far from perfect, that was not a problem. Technical skills were needed to overcome the limitations of the gear. A good photographer transformed the grain of high-ISO film from being a handicap to becoming a feature.

However, with computer designed lenses and image sensors that deliver increasingly clean and true-to-life images, helped by all kinds of advanced software and on-board computer hardware, the results will be more uniform for each year. Add to that the sad fact that one supplier is close to getting a sensor monopoly, and sometimes even buys competitors who are threatening their position, like Sony did with Toshiba's sensor division, and we're left with a world where everybody and his aunt drive Range Rovers with the on-road abilities of a Formula 1 car.

The first time some reviewers published a comparison between an iPhone and a Hasselblad, most photographer laughed. Now, mobile phone software is mimicking shallow depth of field and that "MF look". The question isn't if the electronics giants will succeed in doing it perfectly, but if it will take 1, 3 or 5 years.

Yes, the MF look of the future will remain a feature of MF film, and the further towards perfection digital sensors move, the more attractive the imperfections of film will look. Unless of course we as humans have become so uniform in our way of thinking, and so influenced by gadget marketing and commercialism, that we start to fear originality and creativity.

 

[DB5]

Shooting a high res 35mm camera with low depth of field and calling it medium format is like taking a sheep and dressing it as a giraffe and saying it's the same.

A 35mm sensor will never be the same as medium format one. Nor will medium format ever be the same as large format. But stopped down, on a tripod, with the subject at distance they can look similar - especially when viewed as low res jpgs over the internet. Shot with low depth of field, they can look similar too, or mores share similar traits. But the differences are still there and once you see them you can't unsee them and they become really quite obvious.

Take the gap between 35mm and 10x8 and the look is more obvious, it smacks you in the face. But it's on a living scale all the way down the film or sensor size and a high res 35mm camera with good lenses has certainly changed that and it has also changed how we use cameras and what we deem acceptable. But to say the MF Look is dead is :loco:

 

[fiver]

The dimensional MF look comes about with large MF sensors, that's why I sent the X1D back, the files look flat.


The megapixel count is irrelevant, my Mamiya ZD only has 22mp but the sensor is large and the files are beautiful.

I with I could upgrade my ZD to a faster and better AF but keeping the sensor.

I traded the H4d-31 in for URSA-mini as I have moved more over to video.

As for CCD vs Cmos, some will say that CCD has richer colours, I know there was quite a bit of uproar when Leica used Cmos in the latest compact.

As for now there is a Medium format look, it has to do with dimensional range in the files and very close to what how own eyes see the world.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Shooting a high res 35mm camera with low depth of field and calling it medium format is like taking a sheep and dressing it as a giraffe and saying it's the same.

A 35mm sensor will never be the same as medium format one. Nor will medium format ever be the same as large format. But stopped down, on a tripod, with the subject at distance they can look similar - especially when viewed as low res jpgs over the internet. Shot with low depth of field, they can look similar too, or mores share similar traits. But the differences are still there and once you see them you can't unsee them and they become really quite obvious.

Take the gap between 35mm and 10x8 and the look is more obvious, it smacks you in the face. But it's on a living scale all the way down the film or sensor size and a high res 35mm camera with good lenses has certainly changed that and it has also changed how we use cameras and what we deem acceptable. But to say the MF Look is dead is :loco:

The most popular MF sensor at the moment, the 50MP, 44x33 mm Sony CMOS sensor is roughly 70% larger than a 35mm sensor. It has a pixel pitch of 5.3 micron. A 24MP Nikon has a pixel pitch of 5.9 micron, a D810 4.88. The fastest lens made for the MF sensor is f/2, and there's usually only one of those for each system. For 35mm, there's an abundance of f/1.4 and faster lenses that offer shallower DOF and better light gathering despite the smaller 35mm sensors. Are the lenses for 35mm as good as medium format lenses? Some of them, like the Otus lenses from Zeiss, probably are. Even the 100MP, 53x40 mm Sony sensor is only 145% larger than a 35mm sensor, and now we are down to 4.6 micron pixels, smaller than with the D810 and barely larger than the new D850 (4.35).

10x8 is 58 times the size of 35mm. Yes, I believe you when you say that the difference in look is more obvious. 10x8 is also 17 times the size of the 100MP Sony sensor. A 10x8 sensor with the same pixel density as the 100MP Sony would be 1.7GP.

I like medium format, and I wouldn't mind shooting digital MF, but the only relevant future use I can see is for applications where very high resolution is needed. That won't stop photographers from buying it, and if I had the money to waste, I would probably do that too. But if I want to stand out from the crowd, I'll shoot medium format film.

Except for very large prints, only photographers and a few art directors see any significant difference between images from 35mm cameras with 36-50MP sensors and those from the current crop of digital MF. In the future, the difference will decrease further, since the technological progress will be more visible with smaller sensors. But the difference between film and digital will continue to increase, and the more it increases, the more attractive film will look. Not because it's better, but because it's different. And you can still get it in 10x8 you know

 

[Charles S]

My 2 cents are that 16 bittiness of the files have something to do with it as well.

On a related note, I moved a couple of months ago from a V series Blad with a fat-pixel back to an H3D-31, because of the AF. However, I feel I lost something in the process; the images are clean etc, but they don't "feel" the same. It might be because of the glass or it might be the sensor / pixel pitch.

 

[DB5]

The most popular MF sensor at the moment, the 50MP, 44x33 mm Sony CMOS sensor is roughly 70% larger than a 35mm sensor. It has a pixel pitch of 5.3 micron. A 24MP Nikon has a pixel pitch of 5.9 micron, a D810 4.88. The fastest lens made for the MF sensor is f/2, and there's usually only one of those for each system. For 35mm, there's an abundance of f/1.4 and faster lenses that offer shallower DOF and better light gathering despite the smaller 35mm sensors. Are the lenses for 35mm as good as medium format lenses? Some of them, like the Otus lenses from Zeiss, probably are. Even the 100MP, 53x40 mm Sony sensor is only 145% larger than a 35mm sensor, and now we are down to 4.6 micron pixels, smaller than with the D810 and barely larger than the new D850 (4.35).

10x8 is 58 times the size of 35mm. Yes, I believe you when you say that the difference in look is more obvious. 10x8 is also 17 times the size of the 100MP Sony sensor. A 10x8 sensor with the same pixel density as the 100MP Sony would be 1.7GP.

I like medium format, and I wouldn't mind shooting digital MF, but the only relevant future use I can see is for applications where very high resolution is needed. That won't stop photographers from buying it, and if I had the money to waste, I would probably do that too. But if I want to stand out from the crowd, I'll shoot medium format film.

Except for very large prints, only photographers and a few art directors see any significant difference between images from 35mm cameras with 36-50MP sensors and those from the current crop of digital MF. In the future, the difference will decrease further, since the technological progress will be more visible with smaller sensors. But the difference between film and digital will continue to increase, and the more it increases, the more attractive film will look. Not because it's better, but because it's different. And you can still get it in 10x8 you know

But these linear numbers in terms of % or "times of", don't relate in the way that you would think numbers should. Even the cropped backs and the Leica S, the differences are clear to see. The most common thing you read in places like dpr or forums is things like "it's not even real medium format!". It is clear these people have never used these backs and can't see the differences for the life of them. They just hear the numbers and assume it's not much.

To be fair, on the other end, there are people who say that medium format digital now looks like Large Format. For the same reasons, it's untrue, but of course resolution can get fairly close, but that's a small part of it.

Making large prints is a bonus but that is not the reason I use it. The visual differences in aesthetic to me are obvious. 35mm looks harsh and abrupt in comparison. The benefits of medium format you can see, even in small jpgs online. Though as I said earlier - some shots all cameras can look similar (like stopped down, at a distance etc)

It's like certain words in a vocabulary - you carefully choose words to say what you want to say. If you really have no need for it in your work then that is fine and fair.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think the question is about yielding an MFD look and your advise may cause folks spending their money. There should be some responsibility attached.

The largest MFD sensors are 54x40 mm, the one I have tested is 49x37 mm somewhere half way the full frame MFDs and the smaller 44x33 mm MFDs.

Talking about 4x5" and 8x10" is irrelevant, as the OP is asking about digital cameras and sensors are not available at that size. When the P45 was released many 4x5" users switched to it. The P45+ is next generation P45, so it should be a worthy replacement for 4x5".

There are a couple of good reasons to shoot on tripod. Personally, I am mostly a landscape shooter and it makes sense to shoot medium apertures. Most lenses perform best at f/5.6 or f/8, some excellent lenses may perform optimal at f/2.0. But those lenses performing best at f/2.0 are not made for medium format. For landscapes I would need some DoF. Also, I may use tilt to get an infinite plane of focus. But, I don't do "bokeh" type photography, so I cannot say about that.

It is quite true that I normally don't print very large, my normal print size is 16"x23" with something like 31"x47" maximum. But cropping an image into half and printing at 16"x23" corresponds to 32"x46" and that is the image size I have used for my comparisons.

I would suggest that photography is more about images than gear and if you are on a small budget, which the OP seems to be it may be better to spend money on shooting opportunities than gear.

Best regards
Erik

Shooting a high res 35mm camera with low depth of field and calling it medium format is like taking a sheep and dressing it as a giraffe and saying it's the same.

A 35mm sensor will never be the same as medium format one. Nor will medium format ever be the same as large format. But stopped down, on a tripod, with the subject at distance they can look similar - especially when viewed as low res jpgs over the internet. Shot with low depth of field, they can look similar too, or mores share similar traits. But the differences are still there and once you see them you can't unsee them and they become really quite obvious.

Take the gap between 35mm and 10x8 and the look is more obvious, it smacks you in the face. But it's on a living scale all the way down the film or sensor size and a high res 35mm camera with good lenses has certainly changed that and it has also changed how we use cameras and what we deem acceptable. But to say the MF Look is dead is :loco: