Makten wrote: Nifty Fifty wrote:
Therefore, you can't perceive any difference on a screen beyond potential advantages in dynamic range or color reproduction.
I love when people tell me what I can perceive or not.
, I was going to say the same thing. Let me re-phrase: you (Nifty) may not be able to tell the difference, please do not tell me what I can tell, that is just lazy journalism and assumption.
It is sometimes difficult to tell when you look at two specific images, but when you look at a coherent body of work with certain camera/lens combinations, it becomes more and more clear what the capability is.
Medium format cameras, both in the film days and also now, just have a much more relaxed way of rendering. I am not sure what it is about it, perhaps the larger lenses make it easier to make certain corrections, or maybe the higher resolutions allow the lens designer to relax the design parameters around sharpness and use the degrees of freedom in other corrections, I am not sure what the technical explanation is, but I have always loved the medium format rendering. This is also why in the absence of all other marketing pressures, I always drift in the direction of medium format. While you may be able to capture something similar with certain FF or smaller cameras and specific lenses, getting it consistently is just really hard. Btw, I also have the CV 50/1,2 Nokton and it is indeed very good.
May 10, 2026 at 04:10 PM
Previous versions of carstenw's message #17035738 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
, I was going to say the same thing. Let me re-phrase: you (Nifty) may not be able to tell the difference, please do not tell me what I can tell, that is just lazy journalism and assumption.