nugeny wrote:
Really"? How big do you print? 12 MP of D3 gives me excellent 12x16", I often print 16x24 and even some 16x28"., good enough to frame.
My D700 is also fine at 12x16" but that is a very small print by exhibition and framed-on-a-wall standards, it takes me quite a lot of frames stitched together to get razor sharp 40"+ prints.
All things being equal (well-composed image, exposure, etc.) subject matter is also a very limiting factor on the ability to print with "acceptable" quality. For example, it is easier to enlarge a portrait of a person/family much easier than a landscape image (think finely printed details: mushy grass and leaves *yech*)
Photograph the same scenery with a DSLR and a MFDB----same settings, stable tripod with cable release. The differences will then become more apparent when placed side by side. Yes, you can stitch with a DSLR, but nothing prevents you from also stitching with a MFDB.
If I could afford it, I would shoot primarily with MF. If you have ever done it, you know the difference. It's like food - you can eat at chains and survive or you can be fed by a talented chef and live.
+1. Can't seem to go back to DSLR. Digital MF is like a handheld 4x5 negative. And when you get it right, it is just amazing. Of course, you can miss a lot too....
Kory Lidstrom wrote:
Honestly, why even bother with MF? If you how to properly sharpen and up-res, the 21 megapixel sensor of today's DSLR's such as the Canon 5dMark2 pretty much are medium format already. This isn't just my opinion, either. Some of my collegues, like the renowned Marc Adamus, will tell you the same thing.
I can make huge, sharp, vibrant prints with the 5Dmark2. Unless you're going for billboard-sized, I really don't see the point in spending big bucks on MF. Large format, maybe, although its days are numbered as well.
Kory,
I don't know if you ever did a test of this but I sure have. I compared my 5dmk2 in my studio to my Hasselblad H3d2-39 and also on-location at a wedding. Sure you can make great prints from a 5dmk2. But that medium format blows it away. I've done the comparision several times. In fact, I just got done editing a few hundred headshots of cheerleaders I did in studio. While very sharp, I keep thinking they are soft because they are compared to the Hassie. At low iso, a large sensor mfd will always produce a better file than the best Canon or Nikon. It's no contest. I don't know who your renowed collegues are, but a simple side by side of files or large prints shows the difference.
As for the original post at the top of this thread, the best place for mfd information is on www.getdpi.com. It's a free forum. Just read the posts on Medium Format before you purchase and it will save you money and give you and education.
Kory Lidstrom wrote:
Honestly, why even bother with MF? If you how to properly sharpen and up-res, the 21 megapixel sensor of today's DSLR's such as the Canon 5dMark2 pretty much are medium format already. This isn't just my opinion, either. Some of my collegues, like the renowned Marc Adamus, will tell you the same thing.
I can make huge, sharp, vibrant prints with the 5Dmark2. Unless you're going for billboard-sized, I really don't see the point in spending big bucks on MF. Large format, maybe, although its days are numbered as well.
First of all Billboards are not very relevant. They are not high resolution and are viewed generally from half way down the street.
While a Canon 5d mark ii combined with certain lenses is a very sharp camera it does not come close to the color quality and shadow tones of a MF digital back.
I shoot with various formats. 35mm FF (Canon 5D mark II and 1DS mark III), Various MF backs and 6x8cm film Fuji GX680.
While I do like my Canons for agility and amazing image stabilization the skin tones and shadow detail and tones just are not as good as either film or MFDB, especially the large 9.2 micron 22 MB sensors.
Scrap the Pentax idea and get a Mamiya 645AFDII body and lenses with a Aptus 22 or 75 back. Also look at the Cambo wide with Schneider or Rodenstck glass.
I don't know if you ever did a test of this but I sure have. I compared my 5dmk2 in my studio to my Hasselblad H3d2-39 and also on-location at a wedding. Sure you can make great prints from a 5dmk2. But that medium format blows it away. I've done the comparision several times.
+1. I have both and primarily use the 5D II, but for very large prints the Hassy delivers much more detail. I shoot a lot of film posters and the 5D is perfect for the 27"x40" format size. Sharp as a tack there, but going a little bigger really tests the files.
I would switch if I could afford it as well. What has to be remembered is that although you can get great shots on 35mm digital, they are only at 14 bit. Medium format is at 16 bit which means there are far more colours in medium format. The graduation of an image is so much better.
