Most MF images in the main thread here are rather heavily doctored in one way or another, or indeed several ways. Michael Reichmann once got into trouble with his audience for pointing out the essentially static and staid appearance of large format photography. It lacked sparkle, and compositions appeared overly fussy and orderly.
The reason film MF looked so wonderful was (i) the low element count, all-spherical lenses (no ED nor asph, but highly leaded) and the character they therefore bought to the table. Which is why so many images today are shot using them on current MF bodies.
And the modern lenses are souped up as well, akin to FF practice. I looked up a '25V' - it has a very commercial-level 13/10 design with four aspherical surfaces and three ED elements. They lie at the very opposite end of the MF lens design spectrum.
I agree there is little to choose between well executed full-frame and high-end modern MF Why would there be?
And (ii) the reason many full-frame shooters are under-awed at digital MF is best explained by the differences in *capture surface real estate*, which is a far cry from what we saw in film days. And film was (and is) a much softer medium where the sharpness epidemic was more appropriate among users.
Here are the ratios of surface area of various film formats against the familiar 24x36 dimension shared by 135 film and 'full-frame', together with that of the seemingly ubiquitous 44x33 unit (which shares its pixel pitch of 3.76m with Sony's 61mp unit) :
Film Format
645 : 2.66 times the full-frame real estate
6x6 : 3.62 "
6x7 : 4.34 "
6x9 : 4.65 "
What is the eq. 33x44 figure? 1.68 times the sensor area of 61mp full-frame. A 33x44 image returns just 68% more to a common output frame than does a Sony a7rIV/V. Better than a rounding error, but hardly a revolution.
A 6x7 E6 transparency was (and is) a wonder to behold, because it has 435% more resolution than 135 for any given print or output medium size, and it used the right glass.
selahsean wrote:
I'm looking for some advice on adding a digital Medium Format to my current setup. I actively shoot a Leica M10M and Nikon ZF, but lately have been wanting to do landscape.
You already have two perfectly good cameras for landscape. There's absolutely nothing about this genre that suggests a bigger sensor. My wife is mogging 95% of landscape photographers with an iPhone. Sean, be a man and say out loud what's really going on.
For me, these are pluses of Fuji Gfx - common batteries with my X-T bodies, familiar menus, much more affordable, adapting vintage lenses, bigger lens selection, I use C1 software.
I am aware of areas where HB has jumped ahead with the X2D2 but I'm optimistic Fuji will pay attention and not lag behind. So for now, I'm happy to stay with Gfx. And I trying to avoid looking at the HB's too hard as they are beautiful to say the least. What luxury to be contemplating the choice.
No small medium format will evoke the euphoria after a full-format 60MP camera. Slightly better resolution, slightly better color. This is only noticeable in large prints. Modern optics are simply not impressive.
That's why many truly professional landscape photographers use real medium format with Phase One, including monochrome. But then, many of these many return to large format film and sheet film. Only then is the difference visible, even in small prints. Everything else is just psychology.
philip_pj wrote:
Most MF images in the main thread here are rather heavily doctored in one way or another, or indeed several ways. Michael Reichmann once got into trouble with his audience for pointing out the essentially static and staid appearance of large format photography. It lacked sparkle, and compositions appeared overly fussy and orderly.
The reason film MF looked so wonderful was (i) the low element count, all-spherical lenses (no ED nor asph, but highly leaded) and the character they therefore bought to the table. Which is why so many images today are shot using them on current MF bodies.
And the modern lenses are souped up as well, akin to FF practice. I looked up a '25V' - it has a very commercial-level 13/10 design with four aspherical surfaces and three ED elements. They lie at the very opposite end of the MF lens design spectrum.
I agree there is little to choose between well executed full-frame and high-end modern MF Why would there be?
And (ii) the reason many full-frame shooters are under-awed at digital MF is best explained by the differences in *capture surface real estate*, which is a far cry from what we saw in film days. And film was (and is) a much softer medium where the sharpness epidemic was more appropriate among users.
Here are the ratios of surface area of various film formats against the familiar 24x36 dimension shared by 135 film and 'full-frame', together with that of the seemingly ubiquitous 44x33 unit (which shares its pixel pitch of 3.76m with Sony's 61mp unit) :
Film Format
645 : 2.66 times the full-frame real estate
6x6 : 3.62 "
6x7 : 4.34 "
6x9 : 4.65 "
What is the eq. 33x44 figure? 1.68 times the sensor area of 61mp full-frame. A 33x44 image returns just 68% more to a common output frame than does a Sony a7rIV/V. Better than a rounding error, but hardly a revolution.
A 6x7 E6 transparency was (and is) a wonder to behold, because it has 435% more resolution than 135 for any given print or output medium size, and it used the right glass. ...Show more →
I should have pointed out I also shot film from (everything from half frame to large format and everything in between). I absolutely understand all of the technical and "output" reasons that a digital MF kit is either not worth the investment or to a certain extent indistinguishable from FF digital. I think there's a part of me that enjoys the experience of trying something new. Again my focus isn't making large prints or commercial photography. To me the end results matters much less than the experience of making images. I do this because it changes something in me and makes me feel more alive when I making photographs. For now there's an itch for something new something that might inspire me to spend more time making different kinds of photographs. Something slower and more considered closer to shooting film back when I did that. Again not in results but in process.
Personally, I just decided on the 50sii, prefering the overall IQ of the old sensor (that was also in the hasselblad cameras as you surely know). In comparison videos, I found that the global Rendering of the 50MP sensor was way more saturated than from the newer 100MP sensors.
And since you know the Fuji colors - they for sure have waaaaaaay more experience with "color science" than Hasselblad. After all, people all over used their film stocks for ages. They will also be adding more film sims and adjusting the current ones with each new camera generation.
This video by J.Marcus helped me decide on the old 50MP sensor:
As im not that dependent on lightning fast IQ or the 7 fps of the 100ii, ill see if the 50sii satisfies the urge for primo IQ. The 50sii shows fast enough AF for what I need. Thats of course also lens dependent (LM MOTORS!)
I researched a lot regarding lenses, and let my overall impression "wow factor" decide on my choices. I wanted the pop from the GF 63 over the "perfection" of the GF 55. Got the 45-100 over the 35-70 also for the pop and focal range. The wide angle GF Zoom is also high on my list - if I would use it that is.
Just now found out about the Mamiya 645 lenses. Manual focus of course. today I bought the 80/2.8, 150/3.5 & 300/5.6 (great video by cam mackey on YT adapting vintage lenses on the 50sii).
Extremely cheap lenses atm with very very nice rendering. I paid $260 for all 3 in mint condition...
Also the Nokton 1.2 by Cosina works well on GFX, but im not buying it again.
If you havent seen it, there is a spreadsheet online, showing lenses that adapt well (like the canon 40 2.8 pancake, lol), noting how heavy they vignette.
Fun times, amazing prices to be able to get into the Greater Format!
remember that its about the lenses. Find a lens that you really really love, that was at least my reason for switching systems.
From Fuji X to Sony for the CV65
& back to Fuji for the GF63
date your camera bodies
marry your lenses
