This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
p.14 #1Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Ken Rockwell's earlier stuff often has a surprising amount of useful comments. His later stuff is often done without the benefit of having the equipment in hand 
His S5 colour page has some nice skin tone examples. I don't know why he doesn't like its general colours more, he is rather alone in that. Note all the shadow detail in the S5 shots, much better than the other cameras:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/s5/color.htm
Interesting DR comparisons here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/s5/dynamic-range.htm
His S5 colour page has some nice skin tone examples. I don't know why he doesn't like its general colours more, he is rather alone in that. Note all the shadow detail in the S5 shots, much better than the other cameras:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/s5/color.htm
Interesting DR comparisons here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/s5/dynamic-range.htm
Sep 07, 2013 at 12:14 PM
p.14 #2Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Btw, Ken Rockwell (Rockhead?) is really the granddaddy of all these other fast-talking sensationalist pseudo-reviewers, like Steve Huff, Zack Arias, and so on. Same shit, different day.
Sep 07, 2013 at 12:24 PM
p.14 #3Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Very much so.
I tried to browse his site for some useful information on film, but completely failed.
He comes across as a complete cowboy and I have 0 appreciation of his "humour" as it is non-existent.
Arias is to the point in his lighting setups, but when it comes to equipment I wouldn't trust him for a second.
Besides, his 1 light setups work with DSLRs, but looking at his MFD review article - he just botched the model shots and did sod all to showcase MFD's advantage.
I would guess he doesn't like Fuji's colour to the favour of Nikon. Probably personal...who knows what goes on in his head...
I tried to browse his site for some useful information on film, but completely failed.
He comes across as a complete cowboy and I have 0 appreciation of his "humour" as it is non-existent.
Arias is to the point in his lighting setups, but when it comes to equipment I wouldn't trust him for a second.
Besides, his 1 light setups work with DSLRs, but looking at his MFD review article - he just botched the model shots and did sod all to showcase MFD's advantage.
I would guess he doesn't like Fuji's colour to the favour of Nikon. Probably personal...who knows what goes on in his head...
Sep 08, 2013 at 02:37 AM
p.14 #4Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Matt Grum wrote:
...There's an advantage from the use of longer focal length lenses ...
This has been said repeatedly in this thread, by theSuede and others too, and I'd like to better understand why this is.
Is it that longer lenses are easier to build, have less distortion, smoother transitions, more separation?
Let's say I have a Leica M9 with a 50 Lux and an S2 with a 70 Summarit, and let's assume they have exactly the same FOV. I compensate for DOF by further stopping down the 70 mm. Why would the longer lens have the advantage? And how would this be visible?
Thanks!
...There's an advantage from the use of longer focal length lenses ...
This has been said repeatedly in this thread, by theSuede and others too, and I'd like to better understand why this is.
Is it that longer lenses are easier to build, have less distortion, smoother transitions, more separation?
Let's say I have a Leica M9 with a 50 Lux and an S2 with a 70 Summarit, and let's assume they have exactly the same FOV. I compensate for DOF by further stopping down the 70 mm. Why would the longer lens have the advantage? And how would this be visible?
Thanks!
Sep 08, 2013 at 03:31 PM
p.14 #5Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I don't know the reasons for it, but if you use medium format and 135 format regularly, or at least view them regularly, you will start to see differences in the rendering styles. My theory, somewhat backed up by facts, but not completely, is that the smaller max apertures and larger negative areas allow for more relaxed designs, whereas the smaller 135 negative and faster lenses (for same depth of field) force more strained designs, and this somehow becomes visible in a subtle, but important, way.
Probably someone more educated than me has a better answer.
Probably someone more educated than me has a better answer.
Sep 08, 2013 at 05:47 PM
p.14 #6Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I might be wrong, but it seems like the sharpness transition is steeper on the larger format.
Probably one of the reasons Mamiya 80/1.9 on 35mm produces sickeningly busy bokeh.
Probably one of the reasons Mamiya 80/1.9 on 35mm produces sickeningly busy bokeh.
Sep 08, 2013 at 06:51 PM
p.14 #7Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Speaking of editing, I think I kind of nailed the MFD look in one of the shots from the Fuji model session. More NSFW to come later...
Meanwhile, to add a little self-reflecting irony...
http://funpings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/close-enough.jpg
Meanwhile, to add a little self-reflecting irony...
http://funpings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/close-enough.jpg
Sep 08, 2013 at 08:55 PM
p.14 #8Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
As I promised earlier..
NSFW CY35-70/3.4 on EOS5D MkIII
NSFW CY35-70/3.4 on EOS5D MkIII
Sep 09, 2013 at 06:43 AM
p.14 #9Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
carstenw wrote:
I don't know the reasons for it, but if you use medium format and 135 format regularly, or at least view them regularly, you will start to see differences in the rendering styles. My theory, somewhat backed up by facts, but not completely, is that the smaller max apertures and larger negative areas allow for more relaxed designs, whereas the smaller 135 negative and faster lenses (for same depth of field) force more strained designs, and this somehow becomes visible in a subtle, but important, way.
That is true for most 55mm MF lenses and up. One really good indicator of a "relaxed" optical design giving a "relaxed" rendering style is looking at the aberration lines. It doesn't really matter if they have quite large total deviations, as long as they are straight they will give smoother transitions both in-out of focus and in-out of aberrations. A strained design will typically have wavy lines caused by higher numerical order corrections.
Shooting an 80mm planar standard 2.8 on MF at one stop higher aperture values does give a lot more linear aberration lines than what you get from a slightly BFD-restrained and larger aperture value FF lens.
A lens like the new Zeiss 55 will work around this by halving all aberrations compared to the current standard, but that comes at a cost. An 80mm Zeiss, HB or Mamiya costs next to nothing, but you'll pay for the body/back.
Actually about the same conceptual difference as between µFT/APS and FF... - But they are getting the hang of miniaturization now, the latest generations of µFT and APS-only lenses are truly outstanding works, in their own right and in their own ramifications.
The problems are mainly related to short-DoF images. A good electronic side will do good work with stopped-down lenses, even in a quite small format. As you shorten the image-related DoF, the relative aperture you need grow linearly with sensor scale (crop factor). Since most aberrations grow with aperture squared or even more, this is a hard case for smaller formats. APS is about 2x crop from the smaller MF sensors, so you need to halve aperture value to get the same overall image "look". This means four times stronger optical aberrations (minus some change for the smaller image circle needed) to be corrected to get the same image quality per output resolution.
I don't know the reasons for it, but if you use medium format and 135 format regularly, or at least view them regularly, you will start to see differences in the rendering styles. My theory, somewhat backed up by facts, but not completely, is that the smaller max apertures and larger negative areas allow for more relaxed designs, whereas the smaller 135 negative and faster lenses (for same depth of field) force more strained designs, and this somehow becomes visible in a subtle, but important, way.
That is true for most 55mm MF lenses and up. One really good indicator of a "relaxed" optical design giving a "relaxed" rendering style is looking at the aberration lines. It doesn't really matter if they have quite large total deviations, as long as they are straight they will give smoother transitions both in-out of focus and in-out of aberrations. A strained design will typically have wavy lines caused by higher numerical order corrections.
Shooting an 80mm planar standard 2.8 on MF at one stop higher aperture values does give a lot more linear aberration lines than what you get from a slightly BFD-restrained and larger aperture value FF lens.
A lens like the new Zeiss 55 will work around this by halving all aberrations compared to the current standard, but that comes at a cost. An 80mm Zeiss, HB or Mamiya costs next to nothing, but you'll pay for the body/back.
Actually about the same conceptual difference as between µFT/APS and FF...
- But they are getting the hang of miniaturization now, the latest generations of µFT and APS-only lenses are truly outstanding works, in their own right and in their own ramifications.The problems are mainly related to short-DoF images. A good electronic side will do good work with stopped-down lenses, even in a quite small format. As you shorten the image-related DoF, the relative aperture you need grow linearly with sensor scale (crop factor). Since most aberrations grow with aperture squared or even more, this is a hard case for smaller formats. APS is about 2x crop from the smaller MF sensors, so you need to halve aperture value to get the same overall image "look". This means four times stronger optical aberrations (minus some change for the smaller image circle needed) to be corrected to get the same image quality per output resolution.
Sep 09, 2013 at 07:05 AM
p.14 #10Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
theSuede wrote:
An 80mm Zeiss, HB or Mamiya costs next to nothing, but you'll pay for the body/back.
Or an adapter ...
An 80mm Zeiss, HB or Mamiya costs next to nothing, but you'll pay for the body/back.
Or an adapter ...
Sep 09, 2013 at 08:17 AM
p.14 #11Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Consider P45+ an adapter..
Sep 09, 2013 at 08:43 AM
p.14 #12Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Carsten: Could you elaborate on focusing screen calibration for s5?
Sep 09, 2013 at 10:52 PM
p.14 #13Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Shims... I am not sure where to find them. Alex (worldinlens) bought some.
Sep 10, 2013 at 02:56 AM
p.14 #14Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I see. No worries, will research a little more then
So far I found it very easy to MF on it, let me get home and view shots closer
So far I found it very easy to MF on it, let me get home and view shots closer
Sep 10, 2013 at 07:55 AM
p.14 #15Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Well, if you have a big screen, 100% is only a little larger than the usual view
Sep 10, 2013 at 08:14 AM
p.14 #16Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
True. But I really jinx my shots by believing they are in focus.. By the time I get home and view them on the large screen they turn OOF, and vice versa..
By the time I get home and view them on the large screen they turn OOF, and vice versa..Sep 10, 2013 at 09:33 AM
p.14 #17Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Yes, the high-res screens from the D3 and on are a godsend.
Sep 10, 2013 at 04:19 PM
p.14 #18Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
There we are on aggregation of marginal gains
I have a bit of mixed impressions with S5, but the negative side of it can easily be explained with expectations not matching the factual performance.
1. File writing is slow, but that I don't care much about. I believe it's one of the CCD sensor traits?
2. High ISO performance is not that important either. I was able to recover 2EV in shadows without any noticeable noise in comparison to 5D MkIII.
Besides, where I normally shoot the latter at ISO800 and 1.4 lens WO, I shot with 5S at ISO100 and approximately 1/30-50s shutter.
3. Colour is beautiful though subtle. It is a bit challenging atm to correct Camera Calibration colours in ACR as each slider creates a massive difference in one-two point in- decrease.
4. Fine detail - would be of course really, really nice. At the same time, the pores and imperfections in skin are not that welcome. Can't have cake and eat it.
S5:
+ dynamic range
+ colour
- sensor size
- MF difficulty
5D MkIII:
- dynamic range
- colour
+ sensor size
+ MF ease
I really would like to shoot with lighting setup and see how skin is rendered.
There is one thing that puzzles me: Is the DR percentage setting applying only to JPG or RAW as well? Files I got were fairly contrasty as opposed to "washed out" preview...
I have a bit of mixed impressions with S5, but the negative side of it can easily be explained with expectations not matching the factual performance.
1. File writing is slow, but that I don't care much about. I believe it's one of the CCD sensor traits?
2. High ISO performance is not that important either. I was able to recover 2EV in shadows without any noticeable noise in comparison to 5D MkIII.
Besides, where I normally shoot the latter at ISO800 and 1.4 lens WO, I shot with 5S at ISO100 and approximately 1/30-50s shutter.
3. Colour is beautiful though subtle. It is a bit challenging atm to correct Camera Calibration colours in ACR as each slider creates a massive difference in one-two point in- decrease.
4. Fine detail - would be of course really, really nice. At the same time, the pores and imperfections in skin are not that welcome. Can't have cake and eat it.
S5:
+ dynamic range
+ colour
- sensor size
- MF difficulty
5D MkIII:
- dynamic range
- colour
+ sensor size
+ MF ease
I really would like to shoot with lighting setup and see how skin is rendered.
There is one thing that puzzles me: Is the DR percentage setting applying only to JPG or RAW as well? Files I got were fairly contrasty as opposed to "washed out" preview...
Sep 10, 2013 at 07:30 PM
p.14 #19Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
RAW as well. I guess you were expecting more washed out? How did the same contrasty shots look with the 5DIII?
Sep 11, 2013 at 02:35 AM
p.14 #20Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Perhaps it's a preview thing.
5D MkIII gives me a steep transition between well defined high and low, limiting the mids.
S5 seems to deliver a much smoother transition. The images are likely to be contrasty because I exposed for highlights. At night with large lights such as windows and contrasting dark alleys it will be difficult to produce a well exposed average, I suppose.
2nd shot I posted in s5 thread (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1234768) is pretty much unprocessed with few minor HSL adjustments in Orange/Yellow. This is kind of what I was looking for.
only thing I would love is a bit more microcontrast in focused area.
I suppose that is what P45+ would bring to the table..
At the settings I shot, I am surprised anything turned out at all..
Mind you, as I went to ISO400, I blew all the highlights completely out of proportion.
I think I need to spend more time with Miss Fuji..
Edited on Sep 11, 2013 at 02:54 AM · View previous versions
5D MkIII gives me a steep transition between well defined high and low, limiting the mids.
S5 seems to deliver a much smoother transition. The images are likely to be contrasty because I exposed for highlights. At night with large lights such as windows and contrasting dark alleys it will be difficult to produce a well exposed average, I suppose.
2nd shot I posted in s5 thread (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1234768) is pretty much unprocessed with few minor HSL adjustments in Orange/Yellow. This is kind of what I was looking for.
only thing I would love is a bit more microcontrast in focused area.
I suppose that is what P45+ would bring to the table..
At the settings I shot, I am surprised anything turned out at all..
Mind you, as I went to ISO400, I blew all the highlights completely out of proportion.
I think I need to spend more time with Miss Fuji..
Edited on Sep 11, 2013 at 02:54 AM · View previous versions
Sep 11, 2013 at 02:50 AM