eosfun wrote:
That is still one of the reasons of existence of medium format digital backs. Too many amateur photographers believe digital backs are here for megapixels, bit depth or whatever, but the image rendering in an image circle that covers 6X6 or 6X7 is very much different from (35mm) full frame. Just like the 35 mm renders different from APS-C and smaller.
BTW, some good samples that show that DOF and bokeh are not the same. I particularly like the Pentax 67 shots. THX for sharing!
I love my Hasselblads, but you can get something pretty similar to the 80/2.8 wide open with a 35 f1.2-1.4 cropped square on 35mm. It really comes down to which specific lens that you're using on each system, and how big the prints are.
It is more difficult to get a 35mm look with aps-c, because you'd need an f 0.9 lens on aps-c to get a similar look as f1.4 on 35mm, but there aren't any f 0.9 lenses out there designed for aps-c, and the ones that are close don't preform spectacularly wide open. If someone made an f 0.9 lens for aps-c that was pretty sharp wide open, you'd get a pretty similar look to both f1.4 on 35mm and f3-4 on medium format, at least up until a particular print size. A sharp wide open, fast 35mm lens on 35mm, like the 35 Summilux-M, can look pretty similar to medium format.
Medium format is still mostly about large print size. To be honest, the professional photographers that I've been involved with who use medium format don't really obsess much about shallow depth of field. It's usually all about resolution and tonality at large print sizes.
Yes ... both the 80/1.9 and 110/2 on an S2 via adapter. Each gives a different look ... the 80/1.9 can be messier/busier with foliage. The S2 has a big viewfinder making manual focus very easy.
douglasf13 wrote:
I love my Hasselblads, but you can get something pretty similar to the 80/2.8 wide open with a 35 f1.2-1.4 cropped square on 35mm. It really comes down to which specific lens that you're using on each system, and how big the prints are.
You can get the same DoF with a 35 1.2 on 35mm, but the look is still very different. Every fast 35/1.2-4 I know of is low contrast, hazy, and glowing wide open, often with a serious helping of color fringing. That's fine, if that's what you're looking for. The combination of shallow DoF and clear, sharp in-focus areas I think is pretty unique to MF.
alwang wrote:
You can get the same DoF with a 35 1.2 on 35mm, but the look is still very different. Every fast 35/1.2-4 I know of is low contrast, hazy, and glowing wide open, often with a serious helping of color fringing. That's fine, if that's what you're looking for. The combination of shallow DoF and clear, sharp in-focus areas I think is pretty unique to MF.
Yeah, that's what I said in the rest of my post. The 35 and 50 Summilux-M asph on the M9 may be the closest thing.
I think yes, pretty amazing bokeh. Very few lens can do such smooth rendering. Would be nice to have Contax 645 and some Phase One back that covers full 645 size..
Thanks rattymouse and mesca. I have my own dilemma: I do couple some Alt combos that I think the best matched to each other , but at the end even in the FM Alt forum , I don't find a suitable thread to post.
It's medium format and drenched in bokeh. Of course it's suitable here!
