molson wrote:
One characteristic of the medium format cameras that's hard to get across in small web images is the different perspective you get using longer focal length lenses. With a wide lenses like the 23mm f4, you can capture a wide view without diminishing the size of your foreground subjects as much as you would with an equivalent angle of view on a miniature-format camera.
For example, in the vertical image I posted above (Gabriola Shoreline II) I would have needed an 18mm lens on my A7R II to get the same angle of view, but in order to keep the round rock the same size in the image, I would have needed to get a lot closer to it - and in this instance, I would have gotten wet.
This perspective change is inherently neither good not bad, just different... but the more I get used to it, the more I like it....Show more →
Very interesting Cliff. Never thought of that aspect....
Oct 31, 2017 at 08:36 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Gary Clennan wrote:
Thanks Steve - truly appreciate your thorough input. I would love to have something equivalent to a 16-35mm f/2.8 but that may take some waiting. With all the mountains I shoot, I often prefer say 14mm or 16mm but am trying to shoot longer FL's a bit more. Do they have a lens release roadmap for the GF lenses? Just wondering what is in the future... The tiltable EVF and overall ruggedness appeal to me. Thanks again - really appreciate it.
So far, this is all that Fuji has given us a a roadmap:
All that is announced for 2018 is a longer lens and a teleconverter. There are rumors of an 80 f/1.4, a 30 or 35, and a 30 or 35 tilt shift, but I would take all of those with a big grain of salt. I haven't even heard rumors about a wide zoom or lenses wider than the 23. If you wanted something close to 14mm the Canon 17 f/4L TSE does cover the image circle and will get you something close to a 14mm field of view on FF 35mm.
molson wrote:
One characteristic of the medium format cameras that's hard to get across in small web images is the different perspective you get using longer focal length lenses. With a wide lenses like the 23mm f4, you can capture a wide view without diminishing the size of your foreground subjects as much as you would with an equivalent angle of view on a miniature-format camera..
OK, perhaps I'm being dense this morning (time for more coffee), but that isn't quite making sense to me, at least not if I understand you correctly.
What I think you are suggesting is something like the following:
1. You might choose to use a lens that provides a larger angle-of-view in order to be close to a foreground subject (rendering it relatively large in the frame) while including a "wide view" of the more distant background elements (rendering them small). (I've heard this common landscape approach referred to as a "near-far" composition, and it is indeed a common one.)
2. You might use a lens such as the 23mm on the GFX miniMF system to allow you to be close to a foreground subject (rendering it relatively large in the frame) while including a "wide view" of the more distant background elements (rendering them small).
3. If you wanted to accomplish something similar with a full frame system you would use a shorter focal length to achieve the same angle-of-view on the smaller sensor system.
4. You suggest that you would have to change your camera position from what you used with the miniMF lens that provided the same angle-of-view.
That last part — my #4 — is where I'm not following you.
If you use two systems with different focal lengths that provide the same angle-of-view, you should be able to keep your camera position exactly the same. What you write, at least as I read it, would be correct if you pointed out that on any individual format when you switch to a longer/shorter focal length you will need to change your camera position if you want foreground objects to remain the same size — and that this will affect the relative size of other objects in the composition.
But that doesn't seem relevant to the format comparison, where you'll have exactly the same angle-of-view and "perspective" from the original camera position when you use the equivalent focal lengths on the two systems.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point? If so, let me know where I'm misunderstanding.
All that is announced for 2018 is a longer lens and a teleconverter. There are rumors of an 80 f/1.4, a 30 or 35, and a 30 or 35 tilt shift, but I would take all of those with a big grain of salt. I haven't even heard rumors about a wide zoom or lenses wider than the 23. If you wanted something close to 14mm the Canon 17 f/4L TSE does cover the image circle and will get you something close to a 14mm field of view on FF 35mm....Show more →
One of the good things about Fujifilm and how they believe in treating customers is that they are very open to feedback and requests from their photographers. They've already said that their roadmap will be influenced by the wants and need of their customers. They're willing to make what people want. I remember this phase of the X series development too. It was exciting to be an X series owner then so I know it will be an exciting time for GFX owners as well. Fuji treats customers well.
For me it's not just about files....I carried the D800e for quite some time. It's a brick. Daan B wrote:
Why do people normally buy a 50MP MF instead of a 50MP DSLR? Please elaborate me. For example, if I look at the GFX5-0 vs D810 comparisons I fail to see a big difference. In some I even prefer the D810 shots. Or do the images need to be printed big for any big difference to show up?
mortyb wrote:
I'm also interested in this. As molson states you obviously are missing his point, I would think he would be the best person to explain.
If you own more than one lens, or own a zoom lens, it's easy enough to just look through the viewfinder and see for yourself... how on earth did we survive before internet forums were invented?
molson wrote:
If you own more than one lens, or own a zoom lens, it's easy enough to just look through the viewfinder and see for yourself... how on earth did we survive before internet forums were invented?
Unfortunately, I don't own two different sensor size systems now. I also don't own a zoom lens for FX, as I then could have for example shoot 35 mm in FX-mode and appx. 23 mm in DX mode - and compare the two photos.
So, I'm still curious seeing how perspective between two systems change when FOVs are identical.
EDIT: Actually I have an old Tokina 12-24 f/4. I'll try to shoot a scene with a D600 with the Tokina at ~23 mm in DX-mode and compare with the Sigma 35/1.4 in FX-mode.
mortyb wrote:
So, I'm still curious seeing how perspective between two systems change when FOVs are identical.
You have to forget about FOV being the determining factor in the equation. Consider two lenses that have the same FOV, such as 50mm on full frame and 63mm on a GFX, then ask yourself, "Does a 63mm render with a different image character than a 50mm lens on full frame?"
A 63mm lens has the same image character across any sensor size. Making the sensor larger or smaller will not change the character of how a 63mm lens renders, it will only change how much of the image circle you can see.
The question really becomes, though, "Is the difference between 50mm and 63mm enough to make a noticeable difference in image rendering to most people given that you're complicating perceptions by having the same FOV?" I think it makes more and more difference the closer you are to the subject and the wider the aperture. At infinity and small apertures, I would think it would be much more difficult to see any noticeable differences.
Does this make sense to anyone else, or am I way off base here?
molson wrote:
If you own more than one lens, or own a zoom lens, it's easy enough to just look through the viewfinder and see for yourself... how on earth did we survive before internet forums were invented?
Well, I do work with more than one lens and with both primes and zooms in two sensor formats, so I'm pretty familiar with these concepts.
If I look through a 23mm lens on my 1.5x cropped sensor camera and a 35mm* lens on my full frame camera, I'm looking at the essentially same angle of view, and if I use the same camera position I see essentially the same composition in both. (23mm x 1.5 = 34.5)
(Yes, I'm aware of differing effects of aperture and of what a previous poster refers to as "rendering," but that was not the point made in the post I responded to. That poster suggested that using lens on different format that provide the same angle-of-view coverage would lead to changing the camera position and changing the relative size of subjects at different distances in the composition. That doesn't make sense.)
highdesertmesa wrote:
Does this make sense to anyone else, or am I way off base here?
Your point is valid, but that is a different issue than the one I asked about and concerning which molson suggests I am "misunderstanding."
Still waiting for his explanation of what I'm supposedly missing here in response to his post. I'm willing to admit to an error when I make one, but I'm not so happy about implications that I'm ignorant followed by dogged refusal to explain why.
Dan
* Correction, I originally incorrectly typed 50mm here. When I started the message I was thinking of using that for my comparison, and when I changed my mind and used a 23mm 1.5x crop lens as my starting i neglected to change 50mm to 35mm. Like I said, I acknowledge my mistakes.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Well, I do work with more than one lens and with both primes and zooms in two sensor formats, so I'm pretty familiar with these concepts.
If I look through a 23mm lens on my 1.5x cropped sensor camera and a 50mm lens on my full frame camera, I'm looking at the essentially same angle of view, and if I use the same camera position I see essentially the same composition in both. (23mm x 1.5 = 34.5)
(Yes, I'm aware of differing effects of aperture and of what a previous poster refers to as "rendering," but that was not the point made in the post I responded to. That poster suggested that using lens on different format that provide the same angle-of-view coverage would lead to changing the camera position and changing the relative size of subjects at different distances in the composition. That doesn't make sense.)
Your point is valid, but that is a different issue than the one I asked about and concerning which molson suggests I am "misunderstanding."
Still waiting for his explanation of what I'm supposedly missing here in response to his post. I'm willing to admit to an error when I make one, but I'm not so happy about implications that I'm ignorant followed by dogged refusal to explain why.
I see - might be differing interpretation of what is meant by "perspective". It sounds like they are talking about how a larger sensor will have a more natural rendering of a wide angle scene than a smaller sensor given the same FOV. Think about a wide angle portrait of a group of people on full frame at 18mm: the people in the center look a little small, and the ones toward the edge look larger, stretched and fat. On medium format and 23mm, the wide angle effects for the this same FOV are less exaggerated because it takes a less-compromised lens design to cover the same FOV.
I think that's what people mean when they say the "perspective" changes between the formats – it means the objects relative to one another are in different positions due to the lens design/rendering.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I see - might be differing interpretation of what is meant by "perspective". It sounds like they are talking about how a larger sensor will have a more natural rendering of a wide angle scene than a smaller sensor given the same FOV. Think about a wide angle portrait of a group of people on full frame at 18mm: the people in the center look a little small, and the ones toward the edge look larger, stretched and fat. On medium format and 23mm, the wide angle effects for the this same FOV are less exaggerated because it takes a less-compromised lens design to cover the same FOV.
I think that's what people mean when they say the "perspective" changes between the formats – it means the objects relative to one another are in different positions due to the lens design/rendering. ...Show more →
Perspective refers to the relative sizes and positions of objects as seen by the lens — consisting of depth, up/down and left/right positioning, and where they appear in the frame. (You can do a web search on "definition of perspective in photography" and find lots of descriptions.)
A change in perspective is produced by moving the camera position.
By definition, there should be no difference in perspective among photographs of a scene made from the same camera position and using lenses with the same angle-of-view.
(Technically, using a lens with a different angle-of-view doesn't change perspective. That isn't actually relevant here since we can duplicate the angles-of-view with different formats by using different focal lengths.)
There may be one added complexity when comparing miniMF 33x44 (and other) formats with a 4:3 aspect ration to full frame (and other) formats with a 3:2 aspect ratio if you plan to use the entire frame in both cases. (If, like me in most cases, you crop the 3:2 full frame image to 4:3 or you crop the 4:3 image to 3:2 this issue is moot.) I don't see that as relevant in the case we are discussing here, though I'm mentioning it in case someone was thinking of that option. But here, the difference cuts both ways, if you think about it carefully. I'll just leave that there, since a full explanation gets complicated...
gdanmitchell wrote: Perspective refers to the relative sizes and positions of objects as seen by the lens — consisting of depth, up/down and left/right positioning, and where they appear in the frame. (You can do a web search on "definition of perspective in photography" and find lots of descriptions.)
A change in perspective is produced by moving the camera position.
By definition, there should be no difference in perspective among photographs of a scene made from the same camera position and using lenses with the same angle-of-view.
(Technically, using a lens with a different angle-of-view doesn't change perspective. That isn't actually relevant here since we can duplicate the angles-of-view with different formats by using different focal lengths.)
There may be one added complexity when comparing miniMF 33x44 (and other) formats with a 4:3 aspect ration to full frame (and other) formats with a 3:2 aspect ratio if you plan to use the entire frame in both cases. (If, like me in most cases, you crop the 3:2 full frame image to 4:3 or you crop the 4:3 image to 3:2 this issue is moot.) I don't see that as relevant in the case we are discussing here, though I'm mentioning it in case someone was thinking of that option. But here, the difference cuts both ways, if you think about it carefully. I'll just leave that there, since a full explanation gets complicated...
Thanks for the reply. I think that's what everyone is trying to say here: moving from full frame at 18mm to miniMF at 23mm causes a perspective change when you keep the FOV the same because keeping the FOV the same necessitates a change in camera position.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I think that's what everyone is trying to say here: moving from full frame at 18mm to miniMF at 23mm causes a perspective change when you keep the FOV the same because keeping the FOV the same necessitates a change in camera position.
So, how is that an advantage of medium format cameras, as the other poster wrote in the post to which I replied? You can move to different focal lengths on the same camera (whether miniMF, full frame, crop, or whatever). You could even use a focal length with a larger angle-of-view on a camera with a smaller format and move forward.
If the point is that using a different focal and changing camera position affects the composition... that doesn't tell us anything about format comparisons.
I'm still trying to figure out what it is that I supposedly don't understand about this.
Maybe the difference noticed has to do with aspect ratio? MF is in 4:3 and FF 3:2 so if you took the shot with a lens yielding the same angle of view you would still later have to crop down to 4:3.
Edit: I see this was mentioned previously in a post I had yet to see.
At this point, I'm regarding the non-response from molson as a tacit admission that the claim about perspective was wrong, and anyone who was thinking that the perspective issue is relevant to the comparison between formats may want to reconsider.
There are real, objective differences between various sensor formats that are worth understanding and considering, including between full frame and miniMF, but this isn't one of them.
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, how is that an advantage of medium format cameras, as the other poster wrote in the post to which I replied? You can move to different focal lengths on the same camera (whether miniMF, full frame, crop, or whatever). You could even use a focal length with a larger angle-of-view on a camera with a smaller format and move forward.
If the point is that using a different focal and changing camera position affects the composition... that doesn't tell us anything about format comparisons.
I'm still trying to figure out what it is that I supposedly don't understand about this.
Dan
The change in composition results in a change in the spatial character of the image. That's as simply as I can define it. Is that an advantage? Some are saying they prefer the spatial character of MF over full frame, and that is a subjective conclusion. Perhaps it boils down to how we are comparing this to our own human vision:
Everyone has had the experience early in their photographic endeavors of being presented with a majestic landscape scene only to be dissapointed with how it looks after raising the camera with wide angle lens to their eye. Those mountains across the horizon, they seem so much smaller. Why is it that nearly every wide angle landscape photo needs a big foreground object to pull off the shot? It's more than the application of good compositional rules, it's also a technique for making the most out of the way a wide angle renders a given scene.
Now imagine what if I could see this same majestic landscape, and when I raised the camera to my eye, the mountains didn't seem to recede as far away? I can still use an interesting object in the foreground to create a nice composition that leads the viewer's eye through the image, but I can show them the scene more as I saw it with my human eyes. I realize this is subjective. It may be an advantage in some instances to minimize objects at infinity and exaggerate foreground objects, but not to me.
For the same reason – the comparison with human vision – medium format can give a normal to telephoto scene a unique quality. Is it better? I find it more interesting. Will you? I couldn't say. The example I gave a few posts ago (lighting not withstanding) of a Canon 5D with a Zeiss 50mm Makro @f/2 next to a GFX with the 63mm at f/2.8 demonstrates how changing formats and camera position to keep the same FOV affects the viewer's perception of the image. Can you see it? I can. Is it better? I like it better. I have always disliked the 50mm on full format because of the way it renders space. It makes me want to yawn, even with interesting compositions. But when I look at images from the 63mm on the GFX, my mind says, "Hey, wait, something's different here, I'm seeing a "normal" field of view, but with the perspective/spatial quality that says 'mild telephoto'. Interesting..."
