gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #13 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes? | |
mdude85 wrote:
Phase One was making medium format backs with a 44x33 sensor from 2005, while the Pentax 645d was released in 2010. Referring to the 44x33 sensor as medium format was not so much a misnomer as it was redefining the meaning of medium format for the digital age — by the authorities in medium format digital systems. I guess that’s not “allowed” by the self-important bloggers out there.
For the last 20 years, we’ve been using a flexible meaning of medium and large format in the context of digital photography. I don’t even think there’s ever been a portable, widely available digital back that’s actually the size of the smallest acceptable medium format film, to say nothing of the larger medium formats. ...Show more →
This longreply is going to ”get into the weeds” a bit, since the subject of how formats compare is rife with misunderstandings, false assumptions, mythology, and hopeful wishes. If you or anyone else anren’t interested in “the weeds,” I understand. Feel free to read no further — but then also feel free to drop the discussion if unwilling to really understand the subject.
My friend was not using Phase One backs with what were then regarded as small sensors. He was using a larger format back on a Mamiya film body, as were other early adopters of the larger format.
Indeed, Pentax’s use of the “645” (d and z) name for their (fine) miniMF sensor cameras was what you call a misnomer. It clearly suggested that these cameras used the 645 format. There were plenty of people who initially thought that these cameras were digital versions of the familiar 645 film format cameras that Pentax and others had been making. Of course, they were not, despite looking like those earlier cameras. (One thing I give Fujifilm a lot of credit for is moving us past the assumption that larger format cameras had to look and operate like those old-school film cameras. Ironically, another thing that I and others give them credit for is bringing back some of the useful elements of the old-school designs in their x-trans cameras! Go figure…)
There have been (and are) several digital MF cameras that essentially match the actual 645 film format’s size, such as the Phase One XF IQ4 150MP. They provide the ostensible size advantages of what was formerly the smallest widely used film medium format in addition to the ability to produce very high sensor resolution.
As you read (right?) in my earlier post, the miniMF system is quite good and — as was my point — in many ways can equal th performance of large format 4x5 film.
So why do I think that it is important to make a distinction between the traditional film medium format film and the smaller digital formats? One argument for the larger miniMF* format that we frequently hear is that it provides some kind of magic that only comes from those larger film formats, something due to the larger size of those film formats. Some attribute this magic found in those old film formats to differences in how DOF works. Others attribute it to how lenses “draw” on their much larger areas.
But to the extent that this is plausible, the effect of the size itself would have to be quite small since the miniMF format is not really that much larger than full frame. Again, the actual size of the miniMF format is nothing like that of those vaunted film medium formats — its 33x44cm dimensions like approximately halfway between 24x36 full-frame and the (it varies) 42x56 cm or so image area of 645.
Here’s a helpful illustration of a range of formats:
https://i0.wp.com/gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpg
It is actually remarkable that those small formats over at the left can produce print quality that rivals that of the largest film formats at the far right, yes?!
(If you really want to understand the implications of format sizes, there are even deeper (but useful) “weeds” on this page. It is a bit dense, but there is a lot worth pondering there if you are interested formats and their potential effects on your photography.)
In any case — as demonstrated by the earlier mention and subsequent confusion about the term “large format” — it is unfortunate that companies (looking at you Fujifilm) have tended to take photographic terminology will long-standing, clear meaning and misuse it in misleading and confusing ways. I note that Leica, who also has made a series of cameras with equivalent size (though 3:2 aspect ratio) sensors initially did not call them “medium format.”
Those of us who started in the world of film and who actually shot 120 and 220 film recall that 35mm was, in those days, regarded as a significantly inferior medium when it came to image quality in anything approaching a large print. Then, and 11” x 14” print from 35mm was often regarded as being very big. (For examples, look closely at large prints of the classic 35mm “street photographers” from back in the day. Another favorite example of mine is the prints of talented photographer Galen Rowell. A close look at even moderately large prints of his work reveals substantial issues that would horrify many viewers — very large grain, very soft focus, etc.)
Back then, medium format (which usually meant 6x6 or larger) was significantly different than 35mm in all ways — certainly the grain was smaller in a print, the detail was much better, and any differences in “drawing” and DOF were much more significant.
Today this is no longer the case. First of all, current full frame systems produce very significantly higher image quality than what we got from 35mm film. We can easily produce an excellent 30” x 40” print from full frame, and very good prints at even larger sizes are quite possible This is literally more than an order of magnitude increase in print area with, I would argue, equal or better quality… and takes us easily into and beyond the print size range that was thought to require film medium formats or even large formats back then.
Now, couple that with the decrease in the size difference between print full-frame and miniMF and we can still start to see why the objective image quality differences between these formats is not nearly as great as that between 35mm film and medium format film. Is the larger digital format better? Objectively, it is. Will we see a difference of the scale that we saw between 35mm film and, say, 6x7 film? No, we will not. Are there situations in which it make sense to work with digital miniMF. Indeed there are? Are the differences large enough that it makes sense for a “typical” photographer to give up the pluses of smaller formats? Unlikely. (That applies directly to our OP in this case.)
In the end, the term “medium format” as applied to digital will almost certainly become the norm. I just wish that people would think about the whole format issue more rationally… and that companies would be more creative and honest about naming schemes.
And keep in mind that I’m not criticizing the format itself. It is a worthy and (for some photographers) very useful thing, and it can produce excellent photographic results. (If I were a photo god and could persuade Fujifilm, I would tell them to take this format and make it work like the best full frame camera systems — more and more diverse lenses, greater speed, and so forth. If they did that, their GFX systems would move from being a niche product to leading and driving the entire industry.)
Finally, whatever the value of your point is — and it is otherwise not an entirely wrong perspective — relying on ad hominems such as “not allowed by the self-important bloggers” does not strengthen your argument.
Dan
* I use the “miniMF” designation because it is accurate and acknowledges the inertia of the MF term. It accepts the “medium format” designation for the 33x44 format while acknowledging that it is a mini version (the smallest in existence) of formats larger than full frame. Some seem to think it is an insult to 33x44, but it is actually a positive description, considering how well it can perform despite being so small by comparison. Ultimately, it is probably a lost cause, but we all have windmills at which we are compelled to tilt, right? ;-)
|
