Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              16       17       end
  

Archive 2013 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference

Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


This might be obvious to most knowledgeable members here, but I fail to find exactly what makes the differences between Medium Format digital back images and DSLRs (include mirrorless if you will).

I don't think most striking is dynamic range. It seems as if local contrast in medium frequencies is lower than in lower. I might be talking out of my bum right now..so please correct me..
Does the amount of grey levels differ?



Aug 14, 2013 at 04:39 AM
Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


Ok, so then I assume I was talking out of my bum...


Aug 14, 2013 at 09:51 AM
telyt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


Krosavcheg wrote:
Ok, so then I assume I was talking out of my bum...


It may be that most of us don't know what the difference is. A couple of forums where there is more knowledge of medium-format digital are luminous-landscape.com/forum and getdpi.com. There have been threads on both of these forums discussing (and arguing about) the differences, there's plenty of reading to do and many opinions expressed.



Aug 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


I feel proud to fit in...
It's just hard to start not knowing exactly where to, if you know what I mean.
It doesn't seem to be dynamic range - D800/E outperforms MF backs, yet the look is still completely different...like colour depth perhaps...

I will check at Luminous, thank you for pointing in the right direction!



Aug 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM
telyt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


Aside from the number of pixels I'll guess (this is a guess) that much of the difference is gradation, the ability to discern small differences in adjacent colors. The DMR was described by some as having a medium-format sensor in a smaller size; I suspect the Color Filter Array has much to do with this. A CFA optimized for high-ISO performance (i.e., most DSLR cameras) isn't as good at color discrimination as a CFA optimized for color quality, and vice versa. Sensors in medium-format digital backs seem to be optimized more for color discrimination, and have relatively poor high-ISO performance.

Medium-format digital cameras also generally (there are exceptions) have lenses that can take advantage of the big sensors with lots of pixels, not so with most lenses for DSLR cameras (but that's changing).



Aug 14, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


This makes perfect sense actually...that's pretty much what I often see - the gradation of the colour and light is much smoother. Very difficult to match with DSLR (or perhaps it lies with my PP inadequacy?)

So seems like most of them are CCD based AA-less CFA. But I can't seem to find the CFA pattern descriptions for the chips. Presumably it is not Bayer Pattern?



Aug 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Taylor Sherman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


They are, I'm pretty sure, Bayer. Only the Fujis are non-Bayer. The differences have more to do with the exact absorption frequencies and amounts of each element in the filter. They're all "RGB", but there's quite a bit of leeway as to what "R" is, etc. And also whether you make it a weak filter (less color discrimination, but overall higher transmission) or strong (essentially the saturation of the element is what determines this I believe).



Aug 14, 2013 at 11:46 AM
telyt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


It's a standard Bayer pattern. The difference as I understand it is the wavelength cutoff for each of the three filter colors. A more distinct wavelength cutoff with little overlap with the other filters leads to better color discrimination. Less distinct wavelength cutoff allows more photons to reach the sensor resulting in better high ISO performance, at the cost of contamination of each channel with light from the others so color discrimination isn't as good.


Aug 14, 2013 at 11:52 AM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


I just think people don't want to open a really infected can of worms.... Sorry to see your post go "ignored".

There are ELECTRICAL differences, and there are OPTICAL differences. They both sort under the same principle, and that is "scale vs area". Most people seem to have a very hard time accepting this, but try to let go of preconceptions and just follow the general principles by which photography works... It's basically the same type of differences as when you compare µFT to FF/FX. And in general, your slightly mistyped (?) initial position is correct: Medium frequencies in the finished image get higher contrast the larger the base format is. This is because you (generally) use a higher F# to get the same image, and use less lp/mm on the sensor to get the same output resolution.

Which probably is why you haven't gotten any replies. Quite a lot of people tend to go into total and vicious denial if you mention that the smaller format is more dependent on having extremely sharp lenses, and that the smaller format also needs more light to get the same noise performance. Those that HAVE done the comparisons know this, but they also know that they'll get a full troll-clobbering if they say so.
........................

The easiest way to do a real comparison yourself (even if you only own one format!) is actually if you own a good constant aperture zoom. There are three (well.... maybe four...) possible real-world scenarios:

1) You have more light than you need, shutter speed is NOT a problem. Studio or sunlight conditions
2) You are light limited, and shutter speed limited. Sport or indoor conditions
3a) You are DoF limited, you want short DoF. Pure "I want to" conditions
3b) You are DoF limited, you need more DoF. Macro or landscape conditions

You can model all four with a zoom lens. Lets say you have a 70-200F2.8. Then the comparison cases (APS vs FF vs MF) would be for each of the four setups:

1) Use the same ISO for all images, then zoom in from 70/2.8 to 100/4.0 and then 135/5.6. Shoot in "A" mode, allow the exposure time to get longer as you zoom in.
2) Use the same exposure time for all images, and increase ISO as you stop down. Then shoot the same series, 70/2.8 to 100/4.0 and then 135/5.6.
3a) - basically the same as case 1)
3b) start from F8 in stead, that is 70/8.0, 100/11 and 135/16

Then crop out the EXACT frame that the 135mm setting images gave you from the 100mm and the 70mm shots - they will be smaller in pixels count of course. Then resize all shots to the same output size, and compare the results. The results might surprise you.
.....

You might want to try the "stupid" comparison too, constant aperture. Shoot at ISO3200, 70/5.6, 100/5.6, 135/5.6, same shutter speed for all three. Crop, scale and compare. Noise will be different, and DoF will also be different, but this is how most internet comparisons is done. It has no real meaning or purpose for practical photography, but people tend to do comparisons this way anyway.



Aug 14, 2013 at 01:27 PM
Guari
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


tag


Aug 14, 2013 at 01:39 PM
alba63
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


theSuede wrote:
Quite a lot of people tend to go into total and vicious denial if you mention that the smaller format is more dependent on having extremely sharp lenses, and that the smaller format also needs more light to get the same noise performance.


This is the one I can - out of my own experience - say something about: And true. I have used everything from APS-c to medium format (Mamiya ZD, twice the size of FF sensor). While the ZD is certainly the "low end" of MF digital, it is yet excellent at base ISO. Smooth and sharp at the same time. Nothing I have got out of my 5dII.

In the same way, with FF (like Canon 5d etc) it is relatively easy to yield an image quality with a medium grade lens that is hard to approach with APS-c.

I have seen shots from a Nex-7 (24MP) made with a Leica Summilux - as most know, an extremely expensive normal lens - that had a look, a creamyness and atmosphere that reminded strongly of full frame 24x36. But having shot with the nex-7 for more than a year now this was my exact feeling: To come close to normal FF results, everything with APS-c has to be very precise: Shooting technique, PP, lens quality. Apply the same to FF (excellent lens and shooting technique), and you get quality unmatched by APS-c.

Easy as that.



Aug 14, 2013 at 01:42 PM
zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


If people devote same amount of effort to develop MFD sensor as 35mm. the performance difference might get a lot bigger than what we have now in terms of DR and color depth etc..

The main difference is DOF associate with lens performance.

Other wise, give me a set of high performance FF f1, f1.4 lens, I am sure I can create same images as MFD right now.

And another difference is pixel count for stop down landscape shooting.

That is my understanding.

Though, I want to add that I feel there is a perspective difference in MF images compare to 35mm. But again, that could be just associated better performance at equivalent DOF. Or mainly something in mind play a role once knowing particular image is from MF.



Aug 14, 2013 at 01:44 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


During film days, the main advantage of MF was that you could fit 4 24x36 frames into 1 6x7 frame. The film needed less enlarging to obtain a certain print size, so the tonality of the result was much superior, and the grain 2 times lower. Of course, this aspect is almost completely irrelevant in the digital age.

However, the same goes for the image projected by the lens on the film/sensor. A 24x36 lens needs to project an image that is 2 times sharper than a MF lens to obtain the same sharpness in the final print, because it will be enlarged 2 times more. The MF lens projected image will definitely have better tonality because it is less enlarged ultimately. This aspect is still relevant today in the digital age.



Aug 14, 2013 at 01:54 PM
Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


Guys

I had no idea this debate was up before, and I am sorry to hear it traumatised some members.
My intention is not to stir up a discussion over dis- or advantages of one or another - I am shooting a 5D MkIII for gods sake..

I simply want to know the technicality of the differences between digital MF and current 35mm equvalents.
Even more so, my film on 6xX cameras doesn't quite match the digital back results, which is rather frustrating - clearly seeing the difference but not knowing exactly what it is..

Obviously, the posted results are rather heavily processed in Photoshop. Though, taking earlier threads in which Luka demonstrated Zeiss v Canon lenses - in his words it is rather challenging to put something in the image that was not captured in camera (we are not talking composites but LOD).
The images I am thinking of are taken by Eric Ogden, Erwin Olaf and Alex Prager (to mention a few). And yes, I am indeed aware of the time put towards lighting the scenes.. However I don't think the lighting and PP alone produce the results seen.

I seen similar images taken with D800/E, 600, D3/4, 1Ds and they are all wonderful, however I still can see the difference compared to Digital MF.

This is not a good/bad thing - it's more of a preference for a certain type of image work, at least in my opinion.



Aug 14, 2013 at 08:22 PM
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


Actually I started writing something about the technical differences between the sensors, but didn't finish it because I thought maybe that was not what you are asking for. Your latest post confirms this.

I had a look at especially the work of Eric Ogden. What I see as important for the character of the images after light and post-processing is:

1. Composition. These images actually rely on composition.
2. Field ov view. Normal to wide angle, this gives a sense of being drawn into the images.
3. DOF control. They don't rely on shallow DOF, but most of them have just a little backround separation.

If there are any differences related to the equiment, other than being high quality, I would have to say the rendering of the lenses.



Aug 15, 2013 at 01:02 AM
Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


Alundeb: absolutely. Their art makes photos stand out and not their gear, however the artistic approach will vary between all those I mentioned yet technical denominator exists across all of their portfolios.

You could even have a look at Graham Mitchells portfolio. To me differences in cameras he used seems apparent. Now it's a little bit cheating since I read quite a few of his posts here on FM..
But you could have a look at Zack Arias blog not as much for information as for just looking at the photos:
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/why-i-moved-to-medium-format-phase-one-iq140-review/

The feel of the photos intrigues me.



Aug 15, 2013 at 01:18 AM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


Krosavcheg wrote:
I feel proud to fit in...
It's just hard to start not knowing exactly where to, if you know what I mean.
It doesn't seem to be dynamic range - D800/E outperforms MF backs, yet the look is still completely different...like colour depth perhaps...

I will check at Luminous, thank you for pointing in the right direction!


Colour accuracy can be better, and depending on the back, the skin tones are amazing. What I like the most about medium format though, which isn't exactly maximised on the small 33x44, 36x48 and 42x56mm sensors, is the medium format "look", which has to do with the larger image circle and the lens designs. I think that the old film MF cameras show this even more, however.

If you are thinking of buying a medium format back, be careful which you pick, not all are equally good, and not all combinations are solid. I had a Sinar e54LV on a Contax 645, and this combination wouldn't behave well (electronically), for some reason. The Phase backs are meant to be great on the Contax, and the Sinars work well on the Rolleiflex.

The Hasselblad is just a camera I couldn't love. It is a competent tool, although it has its fair share of crashes in my experience (like the others), but I could find no personality to love there.



Aug 15, 2013 at 01:59 AM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


zhangyue wrote:
Other wise, give me a set of high performance FF f1, f1.4 lens, I am sure I can create same images as MFD right now.


I don't think so. The 135 format lenses are highly stressed design, maximising sharpness from a compact build. Medium format lenses are much more relaxed in their look. Large format even more so. You will get all kinds of aberrations in 135 lenses simply because they push the envelope so hard. In medium format, everything is much more moderate.



Aug 15, 2013 at 02:02 AM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


You could compare it to stockings. If you stretch a very tight stocking over a body, the smallest sharp object will make a noticeable hole. If you take one size larger, the fabric is much more tolerant. The same goes with the look of FF vs. MF.


Aug 15, 2013 at 02:08 AM
Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference


Carsten: the stocking comparison does make sense.
For some reason I seem to missed a lot of replies - perhaps proxy at work is playing up. Appreciate all the feedback!

I am reluctant to believe that MF look can be recreated on an 35mm equivalent FF with a fast lens WO.
By all means - the Leica and Zeiss shots on sensor that compliments their optical abilities look fantastic, and personally for landscapes I would either go with film or FF.
Most of the shots you guys post are absolutely beautiful be it Fuji, Leica, Canikon, Sony or Sigma.

MF for me stands out in model photography. Especially well lit scene looks rich in gradation within a tonal range. Skin does look exceptional.



Aug 15, 2013 at 02:44 AM
1
       2       3              16       17       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              16       17       end
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.