RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.4 #9 · Yesterday's medium format digital backs | |
+1 @ the CCD "look" vs. the CMOS "look" (but unsure @ the "why" of sensor vs. algorithm) ... my original research had me expecting the Kodak SLR/C to be CCD when I researched it before I purchased it, but I too was surprised (back then) to learn that isn't. That makes the SLR/C kind of an enigma, which I guess gives it a perpetual "Alt" personality.
There are lots of Nay-sayers around who have never shot MF glass on smaller formats that are clamoring for irrefutable, perfect proof of what has been stated, and suddenly now that skilled and trustworthy members have chimed in (guess that makes me unskilled and untrustworthy  ), credence has been extended to the possibility of the significance of the glass.
Lots of folks have been telling me for years now, the same reasons why it can't be the glass (i.e. it must be the format size) ... yet the first rule of photography is that it all starts with the glass. The properties of light being transmitted by the glass don't change just because you only capture a portion of it. The colors, tones, transition rates and other combined optical properties responsible for the drawing style of that projection remain the same (just absent the area cropped/not captured). The drawing style of an MF lens (of any lens) will project the same ... no matter what you project it on to.
Some here will still contend that the "look" comes from the format size. Does the "Zeiss look" or "Leica Look" or "Oly Look" come from the format ... no, it comes from the optical projection. Best I can figure, using MF glass on a smaller format doesn't change the optical projection of the glass, thus it doesn't change "the look" or drawing style of the glass. The only thing that changes is the capture area because of the smaller sensor. The sensor/film size cannot alter the properties of projected image, it only alters the area captured.
Interestingly ... nobody has bothered to comment on why using a Canon 135/2 L would produce a different "look" if it was shot on a 5D vs. 1D II vs. 50D. Since the optical projection is the same, why will "the look" change? The FOV/area captured will obviously reflect the crop due to the smaller sensor ... and then when you start playing the silly "equivalent focal length" game to garner equivalent FOV by shooting from different perspective, then the DOF/etc. changes come along for the ride. But if you are using an 80mm FF lens on FF sensor vs. an 80mm MF lens on FF sensor, 80mm=80mm, so there is no need to try to develop an "equivalent" factor in the MF vs. FF format rational, nor change your perspective to get an equivalent FOV, i.e. 80mm=80mm.
But, if you treat it exactly for what it is ... a crop ... you may come to realize that the optical projection is identical, but we are only seeing the centralized portion as afforded by the FF vs. APS-H vs. APS-C crop. The optical projection or "look" / drawing style of the lens remains unchanged. Why would the projection (drawing style/"look") from a world class MF lens then be changed by projecting it onto a smaller capture area?
I realize that I mostly "stand alone" here attributing the "look" to the projected image, but just in case it should strike a chord with any of our fellow members ... I freely offer it for others to consider as they develop their own rational and draw their own conclusions. After all, it was the knowledge, wisdom and experience of the Alt Forum who freely offered and taught these two words to me several years ago ... "drawing style".
Best I can figure, the drawing style or "look" (Leica, Zeiss, Oly, MF, Cinematic, etc.) always starts from the lens. What gets done with it after you've captured it ... well, that's "Part 2". 
|
I guess my point is there's subjective and there's objective, and it doesn't make sense to argue about the former.