The Joey L image you link to is interesting as he used to shoot with a 5D mkII before switching to MFD. This presents us with a potential experiment - go back through his portfolio and see if you can spot the transition. That ought to take many of the variables (photographer skill, PP etc.) out of the equation and highlight the difference in format.
p.10 #3 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Out of all Zack's shots I only seen DSLR ones - the ones he posted in his blog entry could have been DSLR ones for all I know.
Joey - well. The only works I seen from him are the MFD, so it wouldn't hurt having a look.
Let's see...
Lavazza, American Pickers, Boy Scouts, Danny DeVito, Last 6 rows are definitely MFD. The others - I need more time. Great photography though - I just discovered his works few days ago actually...
p.10 #4 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
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?
Well, shooting both cameras at f/11 for portraits and f/16 for still life, he skews DOF and diffraction effects. Giving the D800E both more DOF and worse diffraction. That punishes the D800E for fine detail. For equal DOF and diffraction, he should have used about f/8 with the D800E for portraits, and f/11 for still life. That makes quite a visible difference for fine detail.
p.10 #8 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I'd like to see what the results would be if you took the Blad lens and mounted it on the D800E ... then, with the projected image being the same, we'd be able to see how much diff the sensor/algorithm makes vs. having the lens (projected image) & sensor (captured image) & processing algorithm (even @ raw) introducing variables (accepting sensor+algorithm @ raw = camera).
It's a "look" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting higher contrast/exposure light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to "draw the eye" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject (or a really large light source), but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There's no "foul" at doing these things to achieve your "look" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the "look".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject's key light (if it were the sun). Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But in this instance (imo), the "look" isn't created predominantly because of the format.
p.10 #9 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Matt Grum wrote:
The Joey L image you link to is interesting as he used to shoot with a 5D mkII before switching to MFD. This presents us with a potential experiment - go back through his portfolio and see if you can spot the transition. That ought to take many of the variables (photographer skill, PP etc.) out of the equation and highlight the difference in format.
You could do the same with Zack Arias.
Interestingly, I tried that and I will share my findings even though you will think less of me as an image analyst
In his quick portfolio, I soon found images that were typical Canon FF with a high quality lens type of look. They did not stand out nearly as much as the original example.
p.10 #10 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
:/
I think I am getting lost wrt. what you are looking for. I also don't quite see why you are selling the 5DIII and going to the 5D. Is there something wrong with the 5DIII?
I am not commenting on your taste, or anything else, I hope I didn't get caught up in that conversation somehow. My only point is that based on the original samples you posted, I think there is more to be pulled from the 5DIII before you can conclude that you need to go to MF. Now that you have revealed that Corel was a fault, I have no point any more, at least until we see new samples. The reprocessed galaxy model shot has smooth tones, but I find the light/shadow transitions harsh. My feeling is that the light was harsh, but I was not there, so I could be wrong. I am also not familiar with the 5DIII, so maybe there could be a problem there, although it would surprise me.
I didn't quite catch your comment about my posting about the photozone guy. Could you repeat?
p.10 #11 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
carstenw wrote:
:/
I think I am getting lost wrt. what you are looking for. I also don't quite see why you are selling the 5DIII and going to the 5D. Is there something wrong with the 5DIII?
I am not commenting on your taste, or anything else, I hope I didn't get caught up in that conversation somehow. My only point is that based on the original samples you posted, I think there is more to be pulled from the 5DIII before you can conclude that you need to go to MF. Now that you have revealed that Corel was a fault, I have no point any more, at least until we see new samples. The reprocessed galaxy model shot has smooth tones, but I find the light/shadow transitions harsh. My feeling is that the light was harsh, but I was not there, so I could be wrong. I am also not familiar with the 5DIII, so maybe there could be a problem there, although it would surprise me.
I didn't quite catch your comment about my posting about the photozone guy. Could you repeat?...Show more →
My comment on photozone guy was related to our earlier debate on being able to produce great results with given gear. It's related to objective/subjective concept in relation to gear usage.
The reason I am going to 5D is that I spent some time last night viewing my 2 years old shots and found that I don't see much difference from 5Dm3. In other words, I rushed to get 5Dm3 because I was hoping to increase IQ in camera rather than post. In other words, I haven't pushed the camera enough. So difference you see in my photos is all gear and not skill.
I mean, I can match my 5Dm3 results with 5D.
It can apply to 5dm3 -> MFD transition as well.
The only thing is that I wasn't quite planning to go MFD when I started this thread..
p.10 #12 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
RustyBug wrote:
It's a "look" and it may have been shot on MF ... but MF had not nearly as much with achieving that look as the lighting and processing. Putting higher contrast/exposure light on the subject and low contrast light on the bg will yield a a contrast differential ... which is good technique at understanding how to "draw the eye" and create a sense of spatial difference based on contrast in conjunction with dof. The use of fill is also in play on the subject (or a really large light source), but not on the bg, further contributing to a visual distinction/separation perceived by the viewer.
There's no "foul" at doing these things to achieve your "look" ... but that is more about understanding light and human perception than using an MF camera instead of a FF camera, imo. The PP follows suit as part of the process to yield the "look".
Note the direction of the shadows/lighting @ subject vs. bg mountain shadows coming from opposite directions, also note the specular highlights on the gun barrel which should be in shadow based on the orientation/direction of the subject's key light (if it were the sun). Yes, this is a multi-light / mixed lighting setup and should not be compared to a natural light image. But in this instance (imo), the "look" isn't created predominantly because of the format....Show more →
Rusty..again, this is a one strobe setup. Did you pay attention to catchlight in the eyes? Don't just look at shadow directions on subject compared to bg. This is obviously not a natural light shot.
There is an octabank to subject's right and above.
Did you have a look at diffiser comparison blog I posted?
Octa does wrap your subjects beautifully in light.
As for "bland" and "uninsteresting"..well, your taste. Some call muted rendition of SMCTs bland and uninteresting
p.10 #14 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
The only thing is that I wasn't quite planning to go MFD when I started this thread..
But it still serves well for us to garner a comparative perspective of difference (marginal vs. maximum) so that we can dispel any fear that our gear isn't up to the task (or learn if we do need to upgrade). This so we can stop being so worried about the gear we currently have as being the limiting "weak link" and a compelling need for the latest & greatest based on what we hear and/or think we see ... liberating ourselves to be more concerned with our vision and how to achieve it with the tools currently at out disposal.
I remember being in a shop in Knoxville about 4 or 5 years ago and discussing "gear head" needs when I was looking to upgrade from my little D70s (all whopping 6MP) to something more "serious". The owner (older gentleman) pointed to a stunning 30X40 on the wall and asked me to guess what it was shot with ... it was a 4MP camera, ouch !!! Just a nugget I try to carry with me whenever I start to think that my gear is my limiting factor.
Gotcha @ Octabank ... I'm not used to thinking of lighting in terms of something that large and wrapping since I shoot mostly ambient (although I did mention very large vs. fill), salient point still being it is the lighting creating the look, not the format.
p.10 #15 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Kent: Of course. But fear is never a good base for choosing a gear - it's a source of consumerism in general.
Perhaps fear of making a wrong choice rather...then again, there are no wrong choices and a camera purchase is hardly binding for life...
Like you rightly observed - each tool is capable of multiple application, it's just a matter of finding right one that suits your needs.
I would never be able to capture the seagulls like you with a GX680 and MFD attached to it...for that matter I wouldn't be able to shoot handheld in the first place..
Equally, a Leica M9 would be a poor choice to capture premiere league football game up close.
As DP2 would be a poor choice for capturing close up of lions in Serengeti from a long distance..
The reason I posted Zack's diffuser comparison is that it can illustrate difference better than my page long essay...
But diffusion is really an artistic preference. For example, Alex Prager's La Bottega Veneta shots could have been shot on location - very contrasty strong light with some fill. Except they were shot in a studio mimicking the sun light....go figure.
p.10 #17 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I made reference a while back to Annie's team of PP experts being responsible for her "look" even though she uses MF. Well, it looks like they work the same magic for her when she shoots Canon FF instead of her Blads. Blasphemy, I know ... but if seeing is believing.
Brought to my attention by way of reference from Dmitri regarding her shot of Keith ... and courtesy of our friends @ Google.
p.10 #19 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
RustyBug wrote:
I made reference a while back to Annie's team of PP experts being responsible for her "look" even though she uses MF ... well, it looks like they work the same magic for her when she shoots Canon FF instead of her Blads. Blasphemy, I know ... but if seeing is believing.
p.10 #20 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I would expect she shoots Hassy more than Canon. I expect the output from her team wouldn't allow anyone to be able to tell the difference though as her "look" (imo) comes from their intense PP moreover than the format or brand used ... i.e. +1 @ massively difficult (impossible ) to differentiate one camera from the other judging by her final imagery.
) to differentiate one camera from the other judging by her final imagery.