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

[Jorgen Udvang]

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.

The reality is that there are no equivalents, partly because technologies change and partly because, as you point out, there's more to this than numbers. When the Leica S delivers something that looks better than something else, it's the sum of Leica's efforts, something that nobody can calculate. Still, size matters in some ways, and I believe those who claim that the old 22MP MF sensors had something that the current Sony sensors don't have. Part of that is resolution and other measurable factors. The more resolution, the more DR, the more bit depth, the more exact colours you get, the smaller the difference between the different cameras and lenses will be, since they all move towards the same target and because they all are getting closer to that target.

The medium format look? I would look for one of the older backs. When things become to perfect, it's not a "look" anymore. Then it's up to the photographer to create it, making interesting imperfection from perfection.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

A small comparison...

Hi,

I am a landscape shooter, mostly. I also shoot architecture, nature and sometimes even street. What I almost never shoot is portraits or bokeh type images. So I guess I would try to shoot a bokeh type comparison.

I didn't have any beauties around, but my old friends Ludwig and Gustav were willing to pose. I made a small tabletop setup with my friends, adding a Swarowski cat for some specular highlights. Used two cameras P45+ with a Hasselblad 120/4 Macro and a Sony A7rII with a Sony 90/2.8 G. Both lenses were shot at full aperture. White balance was on the white coat on the chin of Ludwig (on the left).

Here are some crops, first the full image:


Next we have the focus crops:

Here focus is a bit different. i have difficulties with pin point focus on the Hasselblad. In the crop here the Sony was refocused to match the Hassy.

I also discovered that I applied less sharpening to the P45+ image in the original sample. That has been corrected in the second image.


Let's look at bokeh on the Swarowski cat:


And the bokeh on Gustav's eye:


So what do I see?

• Quite obviously, there is a bit of colour rendition difference. That is a bit of surprise, as I use my own profiles.
• I don't see a lot of difference in detail. Bokeh areas have some differences, but it probably depends more on lenses than formats.

Note: The Sony image was shot at f/2.8. That and the higher base ISO of the Sony made use of an ND-filter necessary on the Sony.


Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The 16-bitness has been a myth, until the IQ3-100MP arrived. Phase One files prior to IQ3-100MP were 14-bits, blown up to 16 bit in raw conversion. A true 16-bit file format was introduced with the IQ3-100MP.

Hasselblad files were more 16-bits like. But it was quite clear that they had only 14 bits worth of data.

So, except the the new 100 MP backs, the 16 bitness is simply a lie, or using new speak "an alternate fact".

Best regards
Erik

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]

Re: A small comparison...

Hi,

I am a landscape shooter, mostly. I also shoot architecture, nature and sometimes even street. What I almost never shoot is portraits or bokeh type images. So I guess I would try to shoot a bokeh type comparison.

I didn't have any beauties around, but my old friends Ludwig and Gustav were willing to pose. I made a small tabletop setup with my friends, adding a Swarowski cat for some specular highlights. Used two cameras P45+ with a Hasselblad 120/4 Macro and a Sony A7rII with a Sony 90/2.8 G. Both lenses were shot at full aperture. White balance was on the white coat on the chin of Ludwig (on the left).

Here are some crops, first the full image:
View attachment 129579

Next we have the focus crops:
View attachment 129580
Here focus is a bit different. Explanation in a later post.

Let's look at bokeh on the Swarowski cat:
View attachment 129581

And the bokeh on Gutav's eye:
View attachment 129582

Quite obviously, there is a bit of colour rendition difference. I may re-shoot the images with a grey card for better white balance. The two fox puppies are different colour. Right now, I won't say which is witch.

Best regards
Erik

The sony image is on the right but this test is close to absolutely useless. It is nonsensical and shows you don't understand the differences between formats. It's the sort of thing that proliferates this rubbish.

 

[Yevgeny NP]

I know that my views are not popular with the Sony megapixel etc crowd. I still believe that the P20 on my Rollei 6008 af produced the medium format quality and look when used with the best SK lenses. The files look even better now after the newest Phase One converter worked its magic on my old 16 megapixel files. Sold my Rollei DB20 last year and started looking for a clean p20 for my Contact 645.

The p31+ was a fantastic digital back we used on the Hasselblad H1. Not too many megapixels to play with, no high ISO, but a real fat pixel file and beautiful little sensor. Again, with the new P1 program it's even better.

Most probably I am mistaken, should not trust my own eyes, I am not technically savvy to talk coherently about technology I don't understand , I am stupid and .... Russian. Lol

Yevgeny

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Re: A small comparison...

Hi,

I did not call it a test. Would you explain what is wrong with the comparison?

Best reagrds
Erik

The sony image is on the right but this test is close to absolutely useless. It is nonsensical and shows you don't understand the differences between formats. It's the sort of thing that proliferates this rubbish.

 

[aztwang]

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.

Really! Please, do tell!....You sound very committed to the death of MFD so i would love to see your supporting files because if this is so I'm going to have to make some changes to my current gear set up.

Thanks

Don

 

[Shashin]

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

Yet, the 50MP sensors did not have that look? Perhaps greater resolving power lowers contrast. Lower MP backs place a limit to resolving power resulting in capturing lower frequency detail, which by its nature has more contrast. There is even a thread here for fat-pixel digital backs where a common comment is about their dimensional look. King of interesting if you think about it...

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Yet, the 50MP sensors did not have that look? Perhaps greater resolving power lowers contrast. Lower MP backs place a limit to resolving power resulting in capturing lower frequency detail, which by its nature has more contrast. There is even a thread here for fat-pixel digital backs where a common comment is about their dimensional look. King of interesting if you think about it...

Hi,

It is a bit interesting. Two suggestions:

• If you look at actual pixels, a say 50 MP image will be magnified 1.4X compared to a 25 MP image. So it will show more detail and it will be softer. Take a 25MP image and resize it 50 50 MP (141%) and see how much difference the upscaling will do.
• The other point is that once a sensor cannot resolve all detail it will produce artificial detail. So large pixel images will show a lot of detail that are not real and have relatively high contrast. A higher resolution sensor will show the real detail, albeit at lower contrast.
• Older cameras often used Kodak CCDs which had very steep CFA filters, in part yielding a different colour rendition.

Having a Phase One P45+, I have some experience with those colours. Later Phase one backs used DALSA sensors that are said to be more main stream.

Best regards
Erik

 

[fiver]

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.

The MF look has nothing to do with resolution, the canon 50mp is nothing like medium format, it's also well know in the industry that the new canon line has the same old magenta cast as usual

What I am c onsidering is MFF on a nice sheet of provia100f maybe with a H5X or a Fuji GX645.

 

[JCL212]

Re: A small comparison...

The sony image is on the right but this test is close to absolutely useless. It is nonsensical and shows you don't understand the differences between formats. It's the sort of thing that proliferates this rubbish.

unfortunately, your comment is not very useful either...

if you have true insights, share with us. it is way better than pointlessly bashing other people.

 

[bab]

I love this thread what weighs more a pound of foam from my pillow or a pound of old socks?
But lots of good brain flexing here.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

Hi,

One reason that lens designs converge is that the objectives in lens design are very clear:

• The lens should render a point as a point, not sphere, oval or a comet like shape.
• The field should be flat.
• The lens should have no distortion.
• Fall off and vignetting should be minimal.
• All colours should have the same focal plane. (Avoid axial chroma)
• All colours should be focused in the same point. (Avoid lateral chroma)
• The lens should be diffraction limited at medium aperture. The larger that aperture is the better the design.

These objectives are clear, but they are also very hard to achieve. But all lens makers try very hard, so there is and will be a convergence.

On the other hand, there will always be a lot of compromise. You can avoid some of those compromises ny making the lens bigger or adding more elements or use special glass or non spherical surfaces. All those new technologies show up in quiet affordable lenses.

Less clear is out of focus rendering, here smooth out of focus rendition is sought. That depends much on the correction spherical aberration, but it also seems astigmatism.

But, very clearly, the objectives are clear and they are essentially the same for all the lens designers. But lens designer will always need to make compromises. Lens designers priorities may differ.

With sensors it is also pretty clear. A sensor should have large FWC (Full Well Capacity), low readout noise and reasonably small pixels, so they can render the image projected on the sensor correctly. Here, if the pixels are not small enough, an OLP filter is needed. There is probably an optimum pixel size for any set of design rules.

Again, objectives are probably similar. New technology needs large investments, like new fabs.

Colour rendition is a different thing. There is probably accurate colour, but it may only exist for a specific set of conditions. Some cameras may be designed for good colour rendition in good light.

If a camera cannot differentiate two colours, that is yields the same RGB channel response for the two, no profile will be able to separate them. So colour is an area where camera makers can take different approaches.

Best regards
Erik

 

[DrakeJ]

So, can someone scientifically tell me how a larger sensor renders out of focus falloff more smoothly than a smaller sensor?

I'm not talking about "bokeh balls" or something buzzwordy like that...

 

[DB5]

Re: A small comparison...

unfortunately, your comment is not very useful either...

if you have true insights, share with us. it is way better than pointlessly bashing other people.

In the beginning, when I was an assistant at a commercial studio, we had just got a new lens in. It was very sharp.

My boss, who had spent his long lifetime taking pictures took one look at the pictures and proclaimed "it's awful, send it back!". I screwed up my face and argued it was one of the sharpest of new lenses, it was amazing! "I hate it, the contrast is too much and it's ruins the tonality, send it back" was his insistent answer.

I couldn't believe it. This guy was crazy and can't see properly. What an idiot, the lens was astounding, so sharp. Everyone else said it was amazing. It was begrudgingly sent back and I thought the guy was an idiot.

But it always stuck in my mind and it made me really LOOK in future. 15 years later I could see what he was talking about and it was me who was the idiot. That is 15 years of hyper-critically looking at images day in and day out. Another 15 years and I'm still learning and seeing more.

Everyone wants everything on a silver platter nowadays.

 

[hcubell]

Re: A small comparison...

In the beginning, when I was an assistant at a commercial studio, we had just got a new lens in. It was very sharp.

My boss, who had spent his long lifetime taking pictures took one look at the pictures and proclaimed "it's awful, send it back!". I screwed up my face and argued it was one of the sharpest of new lenses, it was amazing! "I hate it, the contrast is too much and it's ruins the tonality, send it back" was his insistent answer.

I couldn't believe it. This guy was crazy and can't see properly. What an idiot, the lens was astounding, so sharp. Everyone else said it was amazing. It was begrudgingly sent back and I thought the guy was an idiot.

But it always stuck in my mind and it made me really LOOK in future. 15 years later I could see what he was talking about and it was me who was the idiot. That is 15 years of hyper-critically looking at images day in and day out. Another 15 years and I'm still learning and seeing more.

Everyone wants everything on a silver platter nowadays.

One thing you still haven't learned after 15 years is that not everyone you disagree with or prioritizes things differently is an "idiot" and should be treated as such.

 

[DB5]

Re: A small comparison...

One thing you still haven't learned after 15 years is that not everyone you disagree with or prioritizes things differently is an "idiot" and should be treated as such.

It seems you haven't yet learned not to assume

 

[Geoff]

Getting a little snippy here, no? Maybe it's time for a chill.

 

[DB5]

How very dull. We are living in an age where grown men have become too overly sensitive for any kind of challenge or debate and want everything handed on a platter without any sort of expectation of a character building and knowledge enriching journey through life. I can't even take the pi$$ out of myself without scorn!

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

I think that, by definition, a medium format camera should produce the "medium format look" ... :clap:

So, can someone scientifically tell me how a larger sensor renders out of focus falloff more smoothly than a smaller sensor?

I'm not talking about "bokeh balls" or something buzzwordy like that...

If you've used an f/1.4 lens on small format, you have a sharp zone of critical focus, and then it immediately goes out of focus on either side. This is most noticeable on people's noses, which have a tendency to look blurry even at web sizes when shooting at a narrow aperture, but the same effect isn't noticeable on larger formats, until you zoom in to 100% and determine the absolute level of blur to be similar.