gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.41 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) | |
Well, darned if all of that, from what I can tell, isn't an excellent basis for the value of using a simple term for the format between the plethora of classic "medium format," uh, formats and the singular and well understood full frame at a nominal 24mm x 36mm.
The orientation to 33mm x 44mm formats is (almost entirely) that they fit into the context of medium format — larger than the common "full frame" format — yet that they are smaller, lighter, less expensive versions of the format family larger than full frame.
Trying to force fit something new into the old context of (let's admit it, somewhat irrational) film format identification schemes seems a bit retro to me, especially when this particular new format is not equivalent to any well known film format.
Current nomenclature is confusing and often misleading. Some of us know what "645" format implies in film, but someone please explain to me how that connects to Pentax's "645d" and "645z?"
The fact is that there is no format (aside from some of the large format designations, sort of) that literally conforms to its name. 6 x 6 is not 6cm x 6cm. 645 is not 6cm x 4.5cm. 35mm is not 35mm anything any more.
We have some terminology that is simple, direct, and meaningful. It may be less than perfect, but it is certainly more useful than the alternatives:
Cropped Sensor: 1.5x or 1.6x smaller than full frame
Full Frame: Sometimes abbreviated "FF," it is nominally 24mm x 36mm in all cases.
miniMF: Almost always 33mm x 44mm (though a little used Leica version is 30mm x 45mm), and essentially always used in cameras that present themselves as belonging to the larger "medium format" tradition.
Medium Format: Abbreviated "MF," this is a hot mess of formats, but that history is so long that there is no real hope of changing it at this point — and certainly not as the result of a forum discussion. The value "6" comes up a lot when discussing this format, but the "sensor format" is virtually never "6" of anything, and the area of the exposed film in this family of sub-formats isn't either. "It is what it is."
Large Format: Abbreviated "LF," to most people this brings to mind 4" x 5", though others add to that 8" x 10"... though more knowledgable photographers understand that his now-rarely-used category includes other sizes, too.
I get it that some folks don't like the term "miniMF." However, it is crystal clear — or as clear as it ever gets in photography — what it means. When we hear "miniMF," we presume that it is 33mm x 44mm. (Unless we know about Leica... ;-)
Finally, as Fred Miranda points out above on this page, there are a bunch of manufacturers now producing cameras using the widely available 33mm x 44mm sensors, and these cameras are providing us with some very interesting and useful photographic options. Focusing on that is probably a more worthwhile endeavor than trying to figure out which particular naming logic makes us individually happier. On that note, a good friend who shot 4x5 for many years switched to one of the larger digital medium format systems some years back, eventually settling on the 80MP Phase One back on a Mamiya 645 body. He only did so after careful comparative testing of his scanned LF images and the images that the digital MF back could produce. He continues to look carefully at these things, conducting tests (typically all the way through to the print stage) and having many folks evaluate the results. I've mentioned in the past some striking examples that he did using 36MP D800e and D810 images. Recently he considered moving away from the Phase One back to the Pentax 645z miniMF system, and we were all "treated" to a bunch of test images made with the 80MP Phase One and the Pentax 645z. We all agreed with him that the 645z produces excellent results — in the same way that the Hassie and Fujifilm cameras of the same format will. He has now left his Phase One system behind and moved on to the 645z camera.
Good stuff!
Dan
GMPhotography wrote:
You guys don't get it there is about 4 sizes in MF digital all under a FULL Frame 645 . If you look at the backs . There is no 6x7 or anything like that in digital. You using old film names. I don't have the specs in front of me but a Phase P45 is a little smaller than 645 than the Phase P30 was a little more cropped. I can't remember their dimensions but regardless their are a couple crops from 645. No MF dealer or manufacture calls this stuff miniMF it's a really bad description. I bought 5 diffrent backs and out of 5 I think I had 3 diffrent sizes. Now some of those backs are no longer made P25 22mpx back, P30 31mpx back, p40 40 Mpx , IQ 140 same 40 Mpx all crops of 645 full frame. Hassy had the same ones but called diffenterly. Stop bringing 35 into the fold that's a completely diffrent beast. The industry does not name them by dimensions but by MPX if anything . This sensor is a CMOS 50 the ONLY CMOS in MF. The Leica S is the odd ball because it's a 3:2 sensor all the rest follow a 4:3. Format regardless of size or CCD or CMOS. So mini could mean 4 or so sizes. Makes no sense and just my 2 cents . 5 OEMS share this same CMOS 50. In the industry that's the reference they are using. You going to tell Pentax, phase, Hassy, Fuji and leaf they are wrong actually 6 Mamiya. Good luck with that. They make them we are just users.
I know it's easier to say but it's not descriptive enough or worse coming from the industry....Show more →
|
I can't afford a real 645 MF system.
