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!

Why is (small) MF color/IQ better than FF?

Paratom

Well-known member
Ok,
I am a user of various different sensor sizes (dx/FF and small medium format).
One reason for me to use MF has allways been color, IMO better skin tones and better tonality.
But why does this have to be the case? Why shows (for example) the Leica S007 better color and tonality than the SL and the M10? Is it 16bit? And if so, why cant they make a FF sensor with 16bit?
The small MF options are still way less flexible to use and slower to use than FF. If there as a FF sensor wit the same IQ like a small MF, just with a little less resolution, this would be great IMO. Can we expect this in the near future?
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I've done some testing on this (One FF and 3 MF cameras, professional portrait photog (i.e., not me) doing lighting and shooting). The results were just a matter of profiles. Modern sensors capture plenty of information. The question is: what do the system designers choose to do with it? We're terribly biased by the default Adobe or C1 profiles, and it's hard not to identify their look with the camera system itself.

I think the difference in profiles between FF and MF is driven by the kinds of tests done online. FF tests show us how many stops shadows can be lifted. MF tests show us beautiful renditions. But this is speculation. A certain popular system has what strikes me as a color-by-numbers look. There are no subtle gradations, only regions of one color or another. But if you take the RAW from this camera, set it to a low contrast, mildly unsaturated state, and then rebuild the look you want, it can produce lovely images.

Just my 2p,

Matt
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hi Matt,
I am also one of those relying on the profiles from Lightromm (or Phocus or c1); Tried to do own profiles with the passport, but these seemed to not be flexible.
Building anything else is beyond my knowledge (plus I dont like to spend too much time with it).
Also MF-files seem to be much easier to bring to the right point than those from smaller sensors. I dont know why this is the case?
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
The MF profiles get me closer to where I want to be. The irony is that the output from, say, a Leica S is so beautiful that I fail to explore the possibilities and so give it less of my look.

Matt
 

earburner

Member
The only thing I would say is the likes of Phase one only make and sell top quality stuff, the next model is better than the last. There is no budget cheap arse stuff that can creep into the top end design. There is a good chance the mainstream players reuse tech across the board, so maximizing profit... so if canon slip out a slightly shonky camera, its not be the end of the world, if Phase one were to do the same, they would get torn apart. You only have to look at the IQ4 150 with its emotional issues with firmware... fortunately the image quality is stunning.. :D
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
People naturally want a simple single-factor explanation for why they like the images coming from one camera system more than another. It's very very rarely that simple.

The image that pops out of a camera is the result of a long technical chain of components and engineering decisions: [Lens coating > Lens elements/design > Aperture blade design > internal body coating > microlens size/shape > Anti aliasing filter > IR filter thickness, rolloff and cutoff characteristics > CFA design (see also p1 trichromatic) > sensor photo well size/design > sensor read-out (heat-sinking and/or active cooling very important here) > A/D converter type/quality > A/D converter bit-depth and control parameters > (read-out of black calibration file from sensor recorded as adjunct to the image) > debayering algorithm > color profile intention > color profile quality > deconvolution / detail finding algorithm > noise reduction based on black calibration file > noise reduction based on image data > sharpening.]

The simplest answer, therefore, is not a technical one but a business one (as made by earburner above): the higher-end camera makers can spend considerable time and money refining the total performance of their high-end cameras, and can rely on their (niche) customer base to appreciate (i.e. be willing to pay for) the results.

In the case of Phase One, they own the entire pipeline including the software, and can spend a truly crazy amount of time fine tuning each component, including changing the R+D of the hardware based on how raw files from early prototypes behave in the software.

It's similar to asking "why does an expensive car drive (typically) better than a cheaper car"; the (complete) answer isn't one thing but rather the accumulation of a hundred technical decisions made in the design and manufacturing of the car.
 

Boinger

Active member
Honestly I think the larger nature of the sensor allows more color data to be captured by the sensor due to the larger surface area. Even for similar MP counts like an A7rii vs X1d I found the colors and usability of the file better in the X1d. This is including making custom profiles for said cameras. The files are just better on the MF cameras. I had the same results even with the Pentax 645z. The 645z looked better than the A7rii, and were much more pliable.
 

mristuccia

Well-known member
Honestly I think the larger nature of the sensor allows more color data to be captured by the sensor due to the larger surface area. Even for similar MP counts like an A7rii vs X1d I found the colors and usability of the file better in the X1d. This is including making custom profiles for said cameras. The files are just better on the MF cameras. I had the same results even with the Pentax 645z. The 645z looked better than the A7rii, and were much more pliable.
Talking about the advantage of a larger sensor surface area is misleading. It is the larger size of the single sensor pixel (cell) that matters. And that's for sure one of the key factors for the alleged better MF quality.
But nowadays the cell size of some MF sensors is even smaller than the one of a FF one. So, as Doug already explained, it's the accuracy of the whole technological chain that makes the difference.

It must also be said that when approaching the upper hi-end technological limit, differences tend to became smaller and smaller, but way more expensive.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
In my humble opinion (I've never shot digital MF, so don't shoot me) dougpeterson hit the nail on the head. It's the attention to detail and quality of the entire chain, including lenses, sensor stacks and in-camera electronics/processing which makes that MF has a colour quality edge over smaller formats.

If it would be sensor size does a FF (or APS-C / M4/3) crop lead to less colour quality of the enlarged image? If not (which is what I expect) sensor size is not the root cause.

If it is pixel size does the Sony A7S (and A7Sii) with only 12 MP FF have better colour than it's higer MP bethren and is it equal to (or approaching) the colour produced by MF? I've always heard that its greatest advantage was low light capability at higher iso and not colour quality at base ISO.
 

drunkenspyder

Well-known member
Agreed. And I think Matt's points dovetail with Doug Peterson's: it's about ownership of the outcome front to back. It's been demonstrated time and agin in management accountability, products from computers to cars, etc. Splintered inputs, accountabilities, and profits can be competitive, but not usually superior. But I think it is also true that for the vast majority of consumers [individual, corporate, and governmental], "close" is "good enough," and that's what drives market preponderance.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
It’s worth remembering that not every measurable factor has the same effect on the “quality” of the final image. (Quotes to indicate personal preference.) When I managed research projects, I’d use the metaphor of an unfinished telescope mirror. There is a strong temptation to continue to polish a small section to higher and higher tolerances, but it does nothing to improve the final image. The important thing to know is what is limiting the quality of your work and try to improve THAT. For many photographers, certainly not all, MP, color accuracy, and even optical quality are not the limiting factors. I won’t presume to say what those factors are, as they are wildly individual. I DO recommend spending serious time trying to identify them.

Best,

Matt
 

Paratom

Well-known member
But if I stay with my Leica example (because thats where I have most experience): Why is it not possible that the SL with 24MP and little smaller sensor offers the same color quality like a S007 with 36MP. Just crop it and leave the rest itself? The lenses should be capable.

I agree the whole image chain including software in the hand of one company should be an advantage.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
It’s worth remembering that not every measurable factor has the same effect on the “quality” of the final image. (Quotes to indicate personal preference.) When I managed research projects, I’d use the metaphor of an unfinished telescope mirror. There is a strong temptation to continue to polish a small section to higher and higher tolerances, but it does nothing to improve the final image. The important thing to know is what is limiting the quality of your work and try to improve THAT. For many photographers, certainly not all, MP, color accuracy, and even optical quality are not the limiting factors. I won’t presume to say what those factors are, as they are wildly individual. I DO recommend spending serious time trying to identify them.

Best,

Matt
No doubt.

All of this conversation (rightly so, I think) have focused on the technical/equipment side. But of course, it never hurts to remind everyone that the stuff in front of the camera (subject, lighting, etc) and behind the camera (photographer) matter far more than anything technical. But these conversations kind of have to assume a fruitful scene, good lighting (natural or artificial) and a good photographer behind the camera.

That is, the baker matters more than the flour, water, and oven, but once you have a good baker, the flour, water, and oven matter a great deal too.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
But if I stay with my Leica example (because thats where I have most experience): Why is it not possible that the SL with 24MP and little smaller sensor offers the same color quality like a S007 with 36MP. Just crop it and leave the rest itself? The lenses should be capable.

I agree the whole image chain including software in the hand of one company should be an advantage.
I agree it's a good question, but if you "manually" crop your S007 image to 24x36 mm does it hold its "quality" or does it become the same as the same image with your SL? In case it's the former only Leica can answer your question, in case it's the latter all I can say is "size matters". I would be interested in the results of such a test :)
 
Last edited:

jng

Well-known member
...the baker matters more than the flour, water, and oven, but once you have a good baker, the flour, water, and oven matter a great deal too.
Doug,

I think your statement sums things up nicely. Someone once asked me - with some trepidation as they knew the question could come off as mildly insulting - whether all this high-end gear makes better pictures. My response was not necessarily, although it has a way of magnifying whatever mistakes I would inevitably make!

John
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I don't want to further derail this thread, so I won't. ;)

<wall of text deleted>

Matt
 

RobbieAB

Member
People naturally want a simple single-factor explanation for why they like the images coming from one camera system more than another. It's very very rarely that simple.

The image that pops out of a camera is the result of a long technical chain of components and engineering decisions: [Lens coating > Lens elements/design > Aperture blade design > internal body coating > microlens size/shape > Anti aliasing filter > IR filter thickness, rolloff and cutoff characteristics > CFA design (see also p1 trichromatic) > sensor photo well size/design > sensor read-out (heat-sinking and/or active cooling very important here) > A/D converter type/quality > A/D converter bit-depth and control parameters > (read-out of black calibration file from sensor recorded as adjunct to the image) > debayering algorithm > color profile intention > color profile quality > deconvolution / detail finding algorithm > noise reduction based on black calibration file > noise reduction based on image data > sharpening.]

The simplest answer, therefore, is not a technical one but a business one (as made by earburner above): the higher-end camera makers can spend considerable time and money refining the total performance of their high-end cameras, and can rely on their (niche) customer base to appreciate (i.e. be willing to pay for) the results.

In the case of Phase One, they own the entire pipeline including the software, and can spend a truly crazy amount of time fine tuning each component, including changing the R+D of the hardware based on how raw files from early prototypes behave in the software.

It's similar to asking "why does an expensive car drive (typically) better than a cheaper car"; the (complete) answer isn't one thing but rather the accumulation of a hundred technical decisions made in the design and manufacturing of the car.
TL-DR: All the 1%s add up?
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Small experiment...

Hi,

I am with Matt on this...

A while ago, I made a small experience with a set of fruits, shot with three different cameras:

  • Hasselblad 555/ELD, Zeiss 120 Macro Planar with a Phase One P45+ back.
  • Sony Alpha 900, with Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA lens
  • Sony A7rII with a Contax Zeiss 35-135/3.3-4.5 lens.

Each image was lit identically, WB was on included ColorChecker and each was processed by using a DCP profile generated by LumaRiver Profile Designer.



Here is a layered TIFF of all images: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Temp/Tricolore/Stacked_with_samples.tif

The top layer contains actual samples measured on the fruits.

More discussion here: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123905.0

Best regards
Erik

I've done some testing on this (One FF and 3 MF cameras, professional portrait photog (i.e., not me) doing lighting and shooting). The results were just a matter of profiles. Modern sensors capture plenty of information. The question is: what do the system designers choose to do with it? We're terribly biased by the default Adobe or C1 profiles, and it's hard not to identify their look with the camera system itself.

I think the difference in profiles between FF and MF is driven by the kinds of tests done online. FF tests show us how many stops shadows can be lifted. MF tests show us beautiful renditions. But this is speculation. A certain popular system has what strikes me as a color-by-numbers look. There are no subtle gradations, only regions of one color or another. But if you take the RAW from this camera, set it to a low contrast, mildly unsaturated state, and then rebuild the look you want, it can produce lovely images.

Just my 2p,

Matt
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I agree it's a good question, but if you "manually" crop your S007 image to 24x36 mm does it hold its "quality" or does it become the same as the same image with your SL? In case it's the former only Leica can answer your question, in case it's the latter all I can say is "size matters". I would be interested in the results of such a test :)
While the SL images are fine the images from the S seem to offer (sometimes) better skin tone and its easier to work with them. If we think that pixel density is not far away, then it seems its not just size of sensor or size of pixel, but other things. And Leica doesnt offer for either camera native software.

I am not starting this discussion to fight FF vs MF, I started it because I really wonder why cant they put FF sensors with MF-sensor-quality in FF bodies for those people, who are fine with a little less resolution but want the color and tonality of MF?
 
Top