alundeb wrote:
every little bit helps and 3 subtle differences added up is not so subtle anymore.
+1
Focusing on the format diff (not @ lighting/PP/etc). Here are the main things that I see different between the formats.
Projected image more relaxed @ less steep angles = smoother/refined transitions
No AA filter = crisper imagery (no blur/deblur needed)
Larger Pixels (for a given pixel resolution) = smoother tones (@ lower ISO\'s)
Different Algorithm = plays nicer with no AA / larger pixels / colors
Although, not focusing on PP ... the above factors do influence your PP such that it doesn\'t derive as much penalty from trying to \"sharpen\" as much in order to achieve the detail (no AA filter). The need for stronger sharpening to offset the blur/deblur more when applied globally will change the transitions and give us that baked look vs. natural look. I think that part of the MFD \"look\" is the more naturalness that one can achieve when they don\'t bake things as much.
When I shoot MF glass on my Kodak SLR/C, compared to most FF DLSR I am achieving all four of those differences (to a varying degree). I\'m not suggesting that anyone go grab an SLR/C instead of MF, but rather use it to point out that the subtle differences combined become more noticeable @ a bit less subtle, as mentioned above. Each of the above differences on their own, not so noticeable, but collectively they make a difference ... still somewhat subtle to many, but noticeable for a discerning eye.
But, there is still somewhat of a subtle difference (difficult to put into words) between subtle and not-so-subtle ... yet, we know it when we see it. However, when lighting and pp are present as a \"more than subtle\" difference, it is important to not wrongly attribute the difference to the format (which it is clear you understand the difference).
When I was looking into the possibility of stepping up to MFD (older/smaller/$$ vs. $$$$), I noted the differences essentially boiled down to those four main areas. Other than the obvious crop/FOV/real estate variance I saw I could gain some of those differences by using MF glass on SLR/C (with limitations @ WA/UWA). Again, the point here isn\'t to push the SLR/C as the answer for someone else, but to denote that these were the issues that I saw made for a \"difference\" between the DSLR format and the MFD format. Mounting MF glass on a Leica without an AA filter and using Capture One processing might be another way to harness some of the differences between formats without making the format change. Would it be the same thing, not exactly, but it would still address what I see as the four primary (other than obvious real estate diff) distinctions that separate \"the look\" difference between the two platforms.
Projected image (trig angle variance / well corrected glass)
No AA filter
Larger Pixels
Different Algorithm
Armed with the benefit of all the good info/perspective that your fellow FM\'ers have provided ... NOW, might be the time to beg, borrow or rent an MFD to use with your MF glass that you are already familiar with and can do a head-head comparison of your current camera vs. MFD. After that, the reasons why for the differences @ subtle/no-so-subtle may become more clear ... or become moot. It could just boil down to \"I like it\".
alundeb wrote:
every little bit helps and 3 subtle differences added up is not so subtle anymore.
+1
Focusing on the format diff (not @ lighting/PP/etc). Here are the main things that I see different between the formats.
Projected image more relaxed @ less steep angles = smoother/refined transitions
No AA filter = crisper imagery (no blur/deblur needed)
Larger Pixels (for a given pixel resolution) = smoother tones (@ lower ISO\'s)
Different Algorithm = plays nicer with no AA / larger pixels / colors
Although, not focusing on PP ... the above factors do influence your PP such that it doesn\'t derive as much penalty from trying to \"sharpen\" as much in order to achieve the detail. The need for stronger sharpening to offset the blur/deblur more when applied globally will change the transitions and give us that baked look vs. natural look. I think that part of the MFD \"look\" is the more naturalness that one can achieve when they don\'t bake things as much.
When I shoot MF glass on my Kodak SLR/C, compared to most FF DLSR I am achieving all four of those differences (to a varying degree). I\'m not suggesting that anyone go grab an SLR/C instead of MF, but rather use it to point out that the subtle differences combined become more noticeable @ a bit less subtle, as mentioned above. Each of the above differences on their own, not so noticeable, but collectively they make a difference ... still somewhat subtle to many, but noticeable for a discerning eye.
But, there is still somewhat of a subtle difference (difficult to put into words) between subtle and not-so-subtle ... yet, we know it when we see it. However, when lighting and pp are present as a \"more than subtle\" difference, it is important to not wrongly attribute the difference to the format (which it is clear you understand the difference).
When I was looking into the possibility of stepping up to MFD (older/smaller/$$ vs. $$$$), I noted the differences essentially boiled down to those four main areas. Other than the obvious crop/FOV/real estate variance I saw I could gain some of those differences by using MF glass on SLR/C (with limitations @ WA/UWA). Again, the point here isn\'t to push the SLR/C as the answer for someone else, but to denote that these were the issues that I saw made for a \"difference\" between the DSLR format and the MFD format. Mounting MF glass on a Leica without an AA filter and using Capture One processing might be another way to harness some of the differences between formats without making the format change. Would it be the same thing, not exactly, but it would still address what I see as the four primary (other than obvious real estate diff) distinctions that separate \"the look\" difference between the two platforms.
Projected image (trig angle variance / well corrected glass)
No AA filter
Larger Pixels
Different Algorithm
Armed with the benefit of all the good info/perspective that your fellow FM\'ers have provided ... NOW, might be the time to beg, borrow or rent an MFD to use with your MF glass that you are already familiar with and can do a head-head comparison of your current camera vs. MFD. After that, the reasons why for the differences @ subtle/no-so-subtle may become more clear ... or become moot. It could just boil down to \"I like it\".
Aug 21, 2013 at 07:08 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11756091 « Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference »
