Jman13 wrote:
Aren\'t sharp to blur transitions a function of lens design, and not inherent to the format? Explain how a slight increase in sensor size using a slower lens translates to a differing sharp to blur transition. The Leica lenses might give you a different look than what you get on the Sony/Zeiss lenses, but as a result of the format? Nah.
I also disagree that the difference in tonal gradation is undeniable...it\'s exceptionally subtle, and only really visible under very high magnification and careful pixel peeping. This is supposed to be the same sensor that\'s in the Pentax 645Z, right? I\'ve looked at head to head comparisons with the A7R II and the 645Z, and there is a very slight advantage to the 645Z, but it\'s only noticeable if you\'re looking at 100% and really peeping for it. Hanging a print on the wall, I bet if 20 images from great photographers were hung on the wall at 36\" wide, with 10 from the A7R II and 10 from the 645Z, of different subjects, I\'d place money that if a group of people were asked to guess which camera shot which image, the results would be no better than random chance. Heck, most people can\'t see much difference between prints from my m4/3 cameras and my A7II, and there\'s a huge difference in tonal gradation between those formats. (I have prints from m4/3, Fuji, Sony, etc, all over my house and I\'ve actually asked people to try to identify those from the best cameras, and they fail miserably.)
There is a big difference when looking at the Phase One 100MP X cameras....but I don\'t see a big difference at all with the 645Z.
Sure-- that\'s why I said diminishing returns.
It seems obvious, but it\'s funny that we all thing we\'re at the absolute best spot on the value for quality curve.
The 8 x 10 shooter thinks he\'s at the perfect spot.
The 4 x 5 shooter...
The MF shooter...
The crop-MF shooter...
Me, with my A7rII think I\'ve got the perfect spot.
The Fuji APS-C shooter...
The m4/3 shooter...
The 1\" sensor shooter...
The iPhone shooter...
And yet, invariably, even if all those formats were being shot on film with the same general chemistry and physical characteristics-- the images would have differences because of the format, the lens design (itself influenced by the format), exposure considerations, etc.
But look: Those folks who are shooting MF backs for work really aren\'t doing it because of placebo effect. Yes, it\'s a huge increase in cost for diminishing returns. Yes, a great photographer with m4/3 and a great photographer with MF can both produced beautiful prints. But there are differences...
Jun 21, 2016 at 01:55 PM
Previous versions of justruss's message #13613051 « Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless »
