p.4 #1 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
Justruss: you forgot stylists, set builders and prop makers.
I know you don't mean your post to be patronising, but I find it in that region. I am well aware of what goes into a shoot of that caliber as well as how much preparation needs to be done at the drawing board.
This thread is not about artistic aspect of it as much as about differences in image feels achieved through use of equipment.
If equipment didn't matter all those photographers would be shooting low end Rebels with kit lenses or iPhones (yes, I know there were cases of photogs showing off with iPhones. Exception to the rule.)
I apologize if that came off as patronizing-- that wasn't the intention at all.
But I also wasn't really talking about the artistic aspect of photography. I was saying that I don't think you can easily (or at all) suss out the differences between 135 and MF digital in the final output as generally displayed in model/commercial photography. Shoot the same scene and review the RAW images via monitor from both images-- and YES. Do the same on a big landscape print, and view the image closer than normal-- yup, you'll see it.
But by the time a model/commercial image goes through the works-- it hardly resembles the original in important ways. And one of the MOST important ways an image like this is altered is in skin tones/structure (which while you obviously know what goes into fashion/commercial shoots-- you also pointed out as one area where MF digital stands out to you; hence my response).
I'm not arguing with theSuede's information; I take his input/explanations as near biblical on these technical matters. But the biggest differentiating points regarding color seem mainly a matter NOT of format but of what the manufacturer has chosen as the important things to focus on. Canon too could create a camera intended for low ISO (screw everything over iso 400), controlled light (screw fluor), but they don't do this. It's not sensor size/format, it's not MF vs 135-- it's Canon vs Phase in this.
The biggest factors I see that are directly related to sensor size are: higher resolution (kinda format related)/less mag, less stress on lenses for equal/better perceived sharpness/optical qualities.
I'm not arguing that 135 is as good as MF digital for model/commercial work. That'd be silly. I am arguing that much, if not nearly all, of "the look" difference between 135 and MF isn't so much sensor-size related. The bigger sensor does make some things possible (better) and some things easier to accomplish (lenses).
It would seem to me that the best way to figure out what is sensor size and what is not-- is to compare two cameras, from the same manufacturer, with similar lenses, but different sensor sizes. Or the same camera, but with a crop mode.
That cuts out a lot of the non-sensor-format stuff. That cuts out how much of "the look" is Nikon vs Canon vs Phase. I think there's less magic in a bigger sensor than some people think-- and a lot of complicating factors that make it hard to suss out the real sensor-format differences.
p.4 #2 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Alundeb: You make sense. At least I understand what you mean. I had to resort to wiki last night to get information on the CFA and sensor designs. A little more clued up now, but please don't ask me to explain it..
Philip: Well, considering Suede's explanation and given information published in wikipedia (data interpolation in bayer pattern filters) it does make sense.
I am just reasoning from the following point of view:
1. You can not have sensor excelling in all factors, correct?
2. If 1 = true, then compromise is needed.
3. Then, compromise affects the performance for one or few factors in order to excel in another, correct?
4. If you excel in one area, you are automatically confining your sensor to a smaller demographic.
5. If your demographic is only a part of photographic community, you have to increase the price to cover the expense.
I took out some factors out of the equation of course, but please tell me if this logic is flawed...
p.4 #3 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I think the most relevant trade-off for us in sensor design is colour accuracy/beauty vs. high ISO capability. One wants a denser CFA, the other a thinner one. I almost always shoot at low-ish ISO, and would strongly prefer a sensor with better general colour than one able to shoot cleanly at ISO 3200.
I, like a previous poster, do not like Canon colours at all. I find them fake and fairy tale, even though the skin tones are superficially attractive. I also do not like Nikon colours, finding them too gritty, and the skin tones too ruddy, but I prefer them to Canon colours. I find the Fuji and Olympus colour palettes nicer, but my Sinar back had nicer colours than anything else I have used at length. In fact, I think that Sinar's strategy is realistic colour, IIRC.
Kro, I am not sure if you really need a P45+. The P25+ was judged by many to be nicer in some ways, and it is much cheaper. In fact, I would love a P25+ and a Contax 645, but the price of the Phase back is still too high for me to justify it.
p.4 #4 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Justruss: Sorry, the part of being patronising was aimed at the different post. I really should learn to quote properly..
Of course, PP plays a large role. I have been thinking today and came up with a potential post technique that can actually insert tonal data in the final image, but it's so haemorrhoidal (i.e PITA) that processing more than 1 shot from a session is out of order.
I actually can share this theory for the scrutiny - would be interesting to hear technical comments. But not until I tried it first..:P
Lighting does matter a whole lot. But I really cringe at the harsh transitions in light projections in my shots - MF seem to spread those gentler (as you could see perhaps from the various links I posted).
Carsten: I am thinking more in sensor coverage for GX680III and RZ67. It appears to be on sale here at a rather attractive price. Still, just as expensive as a car, but at least I don't have to pay parking, tax, motorway charge, insurance, petrol and MOT..
I can't find P25+ listed, but P40+ and P30+ are there but priced higher.
Someone recommended a refurb or 2nd hand Leaf Aptus II, but I seen some people are having problems with those on GX680III. I.e it requires KG adaptor. Luminous had a thread with someone complaining about lack of infinity focus and shutter speeds limited to only 1/80th and 1/125th, I think....
I was looking at some landscape work with various MF and to be honest, the shots posted here on FM in various forums do wow me more.
Then again, it's like many of you observed - it's not gear it's the person. Again, to stress it - this statement is constantly being misunderstood, but to clarify in this particular situation:
Many shots I seen were taking in your average lighting conditions. Where MF seem to shine is where light is either volumetric (sorry, past 3D rendering trauma..) or the light dispersion creates gradients. In other words, choosing location, time and composing properly is not a camera specific attribute. Yet, producing the result one envisioned can not be done using a finger alone..
To me anyway...
p.4 #5 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Its a rather straightforward question but the answer is complicated. There are many moving parts to the puzzle - including resolution, color rendering, raw processor, the dispersal of light (including angles), glass, care taken in the shot and PP, electronics (including sensor noise and heat), etc.
Back in the days of film, there was a visual difference between 35 mm, MF, and LF. In part it was the gear, in part the photographer: the different mechanical aspects of the formats made/helped the photog work differently. In some ways that is still true, and while we all want the gorgeous 8x10 quality with the ease of a P&S, the reality is far from that.
As to the exact whys and wherefores, its hard to nail down. The simpler way to get to an answer is to just use the gear and see what it does for you. MF is immensely satisfying in many ways, frustrating in others. Its bemusing to try and shoot fast objects with it - kind of like swimming upstream, but certainly for landscape and studio, its hard to beat. That said, if you don't see the difference, then its not there for you. If you do, then enjoy.
p.4 #7 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
Carsten: I am thinking more in sensor coverage for GX680III and RZ67. It appears to be on sale here at a rather attractive price. Still, just as expensive as a car, but at least I don't have to pay parking, tax, motorway charge, insurance, petrol and MOT..
I can't find P25+ listed, but P40+ and P30+ are there but priced higher.
The P25+ has those huge fat pixels, it's all good. Only 22MP though, depending on what you want it for.
Be really careful which mount you get. You will probably want Hasselblad or Mamiya mount, I would guess.
IQ series look tempting...but seriously, 80Mpx I already spend 2-3hrs retouching one shot..I don't need to increase it tenfold.. and especially when each little hair appears to be a size of a pencil..
Apparently, Hasselblad mount doesn't quite play well with GX680III. Kapture Group is working on the solution, but they are being quiet atm.
P25+ would be nice if it were available here. All I find is Aptus-II 5 which is not all cat's pyjamas but is affordable. P45+ is cheapest option new afaik. P40+ is way over it in price and so is P60+.
Still looking for refurb ones...
Seems like I have to start parting with some gear....
p.4 #11 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I did a recent test with our new D800e with 60mm macro vs our Leaf Aptus II-8 40 megapixel back with Schneider 80mm LS. Test was with our custom repro copy setup. Resolution was pretty much a wash, you can see the 4 megapixels difference but only just, the differences in contrast and bite are IMO more the lenses than the chip. Colour and tonal separation clearly went to the digital back but then I'm comparing in Capture One (7.1.3) with the access to loads of custom Leaf profiles direct from the manufacturer to the maker of the software (P1 owns Leaf). All I have is a generic profile in C1 for the D800e and I have a feeling that I cannot pronounce judgement until I have custom profiles for both to level the playing field. Again this is only for repro, no idea what the difference will be with portraiture where tonality plays such a crucial and large part. I have a feeling the Leaf will cream the smaller sensor. Of course I can get that kind of resolution at iso 400 with the D800e, on the Leaf, well it's a base iso shooter, in this case iso 80. I can't really test DR, repro lighting is flat by definition.
What I do know is that I seriously doubt you're going to see the difference at screen size screen unless you are seriously geekily savvy, far beyond the needs of almost any client. If you have the money and are comparing at the 40 megapixel level then spend it on the lighting. You will see the difference more for the money having top level lighting and modifiers than using the digital back rather than a D800e.
p.4 #12 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I'm thinking about making a jig to X-Y translate my EOS-M back and find some Hasselblad lens (FLE distagon?) to shoot with. Goal is long-exposure landscape photography with immense number of megapixels and ability to do automated multi-shot HDR with each of those pieces at the same time. Haven't gotten time to get around to it but something I do want to try. Would be much cheaper than buying a Phase system for sure.
p.4 #13 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Depends on what you are shooting but unless you're lucky the light will be changing between the beginning and end of your HDR stitching. Been there, done that. You have to work very fast in changing light.
p.4 #14 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Beni: Thank you, insight of someone who is using MF digital is always appreciated!
Without me writing up too much let me just share this NSFW link. Shot with CY 35-70/3.4 @ f11 which is a high resolving lens - I assume we don't have to question that by now..
As you can see in the shot, there is a lot of "fake" data in tones. I had to add noise in d&b and levels to prevent banding.
Note: This was purposefully shot in undiffused sunlight for high contrast effect.
I don't quite see how I can put the detail there. I know D800 does have more data in the green channel and does rather good job with skin, I just don't see anything special about it. There were posts of people leaving Arca Swiss for D800 and posting their model shots - all nice and beautiful, but the tones and colours just aren't there...
Otherwise, believe me - I would be holding D800 in my hands right now...
p.4 #15 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Sod it, I will not even try to do the PP test but describe principle instead.
Basically, to increase tones one can:
1. Take a series of shots and stack them using automation into an "HDR", producing halos all over the place which does take an immense amount of time to fix in post especially if you are shooting people who inadvertently tend to wobble all over the place. Add a fan and moving objects and you got haemorrhoids size of the water melons.
2. Take series of exposures but instead of automating HDR composing, open each image separately and analyse each channel. Then, create a layer set to Luminosity blending mode and begin selectively insert the data in the channels lacking such using Apply Image in the following pattern:
Define variables (just roughly - don't shoot the pianist, he is trying to play best he can).
O1 Overexposed by 3 stops
O2 Overexposed by 2 stops
O3 Overexposed by 1 stop
N Neutral
U1 Underexposed by 1 stop
U2 Underexposed by 2 stops
U3 Underexposed by 3 stops
Begin moving data:
O1 Blue Channel to N Red
O2 Blue Channel to N Red
O3 Green Channel to N Red
U1 Red Channel to N Green
U2 Red Channel to N Blue
U3 Red Channel to N Blue
You will have a massive contrast by then and need to adjust the tones using curves. In process you will average a lot of copied tones, so using masks will be advisable, which will make the process even more difficult.
Again, haemorrhoids gets inflated in the direct proportion to the moving objects in your composition.
Following all that, you can extract luminosity masks from a resulting image and re-apply them to enhance the tones.
Works really well on rocks, cliffs and other office furniture. People? I seriously doubt that...
p.4 #16 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
P25+ would be nice if it were available here. All I find is Aptus-II 5 which is not all cat's pyjamas but is affordable. P45+ is cheapest option new afaik. P40+ is way over it in price and so is P60+.
Still looking for refurb ones...
p.4 #18 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
carlitos wrote:
Greater DOF is an advantage to the smaller sensor, esp. for landscape.
That's the one thing I really noticed when I for a very short period started shooting 6X9 film. It was incredibly difficult to get everything in focus with the larger format, with APS-C, you can pretty much set it to f11 focus towards infinity and everything up to a few feet in front of the camera will be sharp.
p.4 #19 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
carstenw wrote:
What are the prices like for these in Japan?
Where I usually shop:
P45+ ￥1,598,000 (on sale now apparently)
P40+ ¥ 1,930,000
P65+ ¥ 3,680,000
Aptus-II 5 ¥898,000
Aptus-II 7 ¥1,280,000
Aptus-II 8 ¥1,930,000
Aptus-II 10 (same as above)
Aptus-II 12 ¥3,320,000
Mapcamera is asking:
P65+ ￥3,255,000 (go figure, I always thought they were more expensive...)
P40+ ￥2,100,000 (ok, so they are more expensive then...wtf...)
IQ180 ￥4,725,000
Aptus-II 7 ￥1,869,000 (yepp, more expensive. I knew that!!)
2nd hand all I can find is:
H25 - ¥ 300,000
H20 - ¥ 108,000
but I find a lot of guitars for some reason....Paul Reed Smith private stock....hmmmm
p.4 #20 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
andyjaggy82 wrote:
That's the one thing I really noticed when I for a very short period started shooting 6X9 film. It was incredibly difficult to get everything in focus with the larger format, with APS-C, you can pretty much set it to f11 focus towards infinity and everything up to a few feet in front of the camera will be sharp.
Why would anyone use the same f/stop for different formats for landscape? You also get more diffraction with the smaller sensor if you do that.
I already spend 2-3hrs retouching one shot..I don't need to increase it tenfold..