Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Quote:Dave, there's more than IQ (in terms of resolution and other parameters to measure). If you go larger than FF, not depending on MP-count, you get necessarily longer focal lengths. These change the proportions of in focus / out of focus parts in a picture. Wether that's to my taste or not, the curse of larger than FF formats is shallower DoF - and the best pictures of these cameras not only convince by the amount of detail but also by isolating the subject much more than fast FF lenses can.
I had better bokeh with a 110/2.8 in front of the Mamiya 645 than I had with a Zeiss 85/1.4 in front of a Contax/Yashica. Not to mention the difficulties in focussing very fast lenses with only a matte screen in a comparatively tiny finder.
The longer focal length being equivalent to the shorter focal length on FF, there are no changed proportions at all, actually.
The issue with the current "affordable" MF is that it is to film MF what MFT is it FF: a lot smaller imaging size. It does not even approach the smallest of medium format size (645). Because of the small MF sensors used, you can't get shallower DOF with the lenses on offer.
With a crop factor (compared to 135 format) of 0.79x, the 110mm f2 is a 87mm f1.6 FF equivalent.
Of course, it is fine to prefer a certain lens over another, and very understandable that one has preferences for certain lenses.I for instance prefer how the Tamron 85mm f1.8 VC USD renders over how the Nikkor AF-S 85mm f1.8 renders.
What I do not like about the design decisions of Fuji: the bigger sensor does not bring a possible more shallow DOF because of the lens line up. The mirrorless advantage of size and weight seems lost, Hasselblad seems to have gotten that right with their latest. And it is not a pretty camera to look at.
Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
BC, your understanding doesn't come out of practice. However, I agree (and always said) this "medium format" they call it these days is just what APS-H to APS-C is - a little more extra (than FF). The biggest MF sensors just approach what the smallest film MF ever was, 42 × 56 mm (53,9 × 40,4 with the biggest sensor on a Phase One)
Look at the pictures of this GFX user https://adriancmurray.com/photography/gf...pressions/ and if you say you can easily get that with FF, I wanna see solid proof. Otherwise I'd call you brightTrump or brightDonald, I don't want to decide that now <_<
You're still riding the dead equivalence horse. Ask the money back you paid for the DoF calculator, it's only "alternative facts".
:lol:
It probably should be called SMF, "small medium format", it's a long way from the medium format of my old and sadly missed (stolen) Voigtlander Bessa II of which had a negative size of 3 1/2" X 2 1/2" or 6 X 9 cms. as opposed to 4.38 X 3.29 cms!
Posts: 558
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
6
Quote:
I had better bokeh with a 110/2.8 in front of the Mamiya 645 than I had with a Zeiss 85/1.4 in front of a Contax/Yashica. Not to mention the difficulties in focussing very fast lenses with only a matte screen in a comparatively tiny finder.
That has probably more to do with the lens design than the film/sensor size though. Of course medium format lenses being easier to design and manufacture may help a lot. I was talking about a similar thing with Toni the other night. Everyone says Canon EF 50/1.8 II had awful bokeh with its straight 5 blade aperture, even though most Hasselblad C lenses have exactly the same aperture shape and nobody ever said they had bad bokeh.
Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
Not many Hasselblad users here anyway 
But the smaller sensor size gets the more precise lens manufacturing has to become, meaning normal tolerances decreasing to very tight ones.
Posts: 2,711
Threads: 592
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
15
Quote:Hi old friends,
more then 10 jears ago I was active here.
I´ve made my setup from canon 400D and 50d + bunch of lenses from 8..300mm including macro and fixed focal length.
tripods filters flashes and reflectors.
That was enough for me, and I have never fill limited as photographer except for TS=17mm
I see that you guys are went further FF 1/2FF 1/4FF 2*FF MLC etc. I have never touched such thinks.
I have mastered adobe photoshop CS
My question is do I miss something as photographer?
Regards,
Miro
One more thing to add, 50D successor is IMHO Canon 7D and not all plastic Canon 60D.
During the last period we gained a lot in resolution but in image quality let's say for the noise it is at best 2 stops IMHO it's barely more than one fstop, the remaining comes from amelioration of noise reduction algorithms.
Adobe CS lacks plenty of features, software did gain plenty of new features, of course you can do the same thing with CS but now it'smucg much more practical and easier OTOH you can't now buy PhotoShop but you can subscribe on monthly fee basis
Posts: 558
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
6
Yep, they pretty much changed the name to 7D and sold it for 600$ more.
Hi Miro,
Is it 10 years ago? I reckon it was no that long ago, but anyway welcome back.
What have you done since the last time your were here? Took some beautiful images? Where can we find them?
Kind regards,
Reinier
About the SMF. Do all the MF format cameras have smaller sensor than they had negatives or slides?
How come? Has it to do with money? Just like Apsc you have the problem with a crop factor as well.
I guess for large format it is the same problem? I have seen Jack Dykinga once with a digital back for his LF camera, but the article did not share any details.
Check out his website http://www.dykinga.com, really worthwhile.
I always wanted to go for MF or LF photogrpahy, but my back never agreed......
Kind regards,
Reinier
Posts: 558
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
6
Most recent (designed in this century) medium format camera systems mostly have the same size digital sensor as their negative backs. That's because they are designed to be 6x45 systems though, no real 6x6 or larger systems going on here. And even then, it took most of those companies at least a decade to get a true 6x45 sensor.
Checking the sensor size and seeing they are merely 54x40mm can be deceiving btw, as 6x45 film actually measures something like 56x42mm or so. Focus breathing or viewfinder coverage has more of an effect on the image size so that 2mm difference is mostly irrelevant.
|
