MM and Medium Format

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was fortunate enough to try out an MM for a week a little while ago and I was very impressed with the files. I had a lot of fun using it, and I have been tempted to buy one ever since. Now here is the catch: I promised myself that I wouldn't buy any new cameras unless I get rid of some gear. I have been thinking about selling my medium format gear, but this afternoon I decided to shoot some pictures with it. I am in love with the photos and I came to a realization that may seem obvious to some of you: we have reached a point where the way a lens draws is much more important than megapixel count, dynamic range , etc. I really don't like the size of my medium format system, but whenever I shoot with it, I get photographs that I don't think I could get with a full-frame camera. The lenses draw differently, and the three-dimensional look goes beyond shallow depth of field.

 

I will be doing more "testing" (shooting real photographs), while I'm pondering my decision to keep or get rid of my medium format system for an MM. Meanwhile, let me know your thoughts on the subject.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[anupmc]

Maybe a S (Type 006) in your future?

[BerndReini]

Ha! I can tell you what my magic shield against the S2 is (aside from price): I love the 4:3 format for portraiture. In my opinion, maintaining the 3:2 format for the S-system was a mistake, but that's just me.

[Jeff S]

The MM will likely be revised based on the new M platform. I'm very pleased with the new M for my b/w (and color) work, and love the improvements to the RF, shutter feel and sound, better battery and processor, weather sealing, illuminated (and 2m) frame lines, etc. Having used it, I'd be disappointed in the M9-based MM, despite its b/w files. I'll be interested, though, to compare some future MM with its M sibling for b/w; the latter isn't too shabby now, even better than my M8.2, which I preferred to the M9 for b/w.

 

I base my judgment on prints, which for me are not big enough to warrant lugging around MF or LF gear anymore. Despite my pleasure over the new M, I find that I can realize the same or greater print improvements (at 'reasonable' print sizes) through changes to the PP end of the chain than through camera/lens changes. This includes improvements to the printer, inks, software, papers, profiles, lighting and display conditions, etc.

 

YMMV....and only tests based on your criteria and preferences (both workflow and end results) matter.

 

Jeff

[BerndReini]

I wouldn't be lugging around medium format gear for the extra pixel count either. My feeling though is that the larger sensor size/ film size adds dimension to the photograph. My subjective hunch is that a photograph shot with a 50mm at 1.4 on a full-frame camera does not look as "round" as a photograph shot on medium format with an equivalent 80mm lens at let's say f4. Even with depth of field and field of view being equal, the fall-off with the larger format appears more gradual. Now, whether this warrants lugging around the extra gear, that is a whole different question I have to answer for myself.

[Paul J]

As well as the focal length, it's the tonality that the larger area of Medium format gives over a small sensor. More room for more colour between colour and tone between tone.

 

What Medium Format kit is it?

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a Contax 645 with a P25 back. It is an old system, but the results continue to amaze me.

[Jeff S]

I wouldn't be lugging around medium format gear for the extra pixel count either.

 

I made no mention of pixel count, only prints. And of course sensor size is the issue. No different than in my darkroom days when I weighed the pros and cons of negative size in regard to final print. I find less differences in the digital world (regarding sensor size), but as I said, much of this is due to the PP end of things, which offer me far more control and flexibility than I could muster in a darkroom. Subtle tonal gradations, etc. can result from far more than than format size...but that's just my experience.

 

Jeff

[Paul J]

It's a great system and the lenses are about as good as you get. Personally, I really wouldn't sell it. I've kept my Blad and Phase One system despite the fact I don't use it so much. When I do, when it's the right tool you just can't beat it. It's jaw drop material.

 

I think the Contax is a relatively small camera too btw, but perhaps that is just me.

[algrove]

Bernd- I know your situation, except

 

-I happen to own the MM and love it for B&W. After shooting with it for a few days and then when I come back to color shooting I do believe it helps me see colors better. But, that's just me.

 

-I happen to own the M and use it for color not B&W so far, but of those that shoot B&W with the M, they like the results. Maybe having the MM and the M is no longer necessary.

 

-I happen to own an old "V" MF kit which is connected to a Phase one digital back also. When I want great landscapes I use this and I do like what the CCD gives me. Thank gosh, they seem to not be able to make large MF sensors yet in CMOS.

[CaptZoom]

-- -- --

 

OP,

While I agree with Jeff regarding PP having a significant effect on the final image, I also agree that larger sensors are able to catch subtleties which give the the overall image much better tonality. Assume good PP techniques are applied, MF will yield better results than FF. None of this means anything, if you don't use your MF gear. Regardless of the gears capabilities, you should keep/purchase the one you're more likely to use.

[BerndReini]

I don't even think it is a matter of tonal gradations. When I say three-dimensional, I mean how subtle the focus rolls from sharp into out-of focus. It is almost as if the lens wraps around a face in a portrait. I know that even with a small format, some lenses do this better than others. The Noctilux f1 for example has a very sharp fall-off from in focus to out of focus when you use it wide open. The 35mm summicron pre-aspherical is very "round." It is hard to describe.

[Guest badbob]

I can't say anything about perspective or any of that, just that b&w prints I have from the 2-1/4 and 3-1/4 inch film cameras are really hard to match for details with the MM. Maybe the digital MF cameras aren't as good as their film equivalents.

[Guido]

The MM is to digital MF what an iPhone is to the MM: it's a nice snapshot camera in relation, but absolutely no match for DMF when carefully arranged high-quality work is called for.

 

That said, you didn't mention anything about your shooting style. If you do general street and travel photography, by all means, go ahead. If you're into tripod-based landscapes and portraits however, you're probably going to regret the sale of your Contax pretty soon. Maybe research a better carrying bag/backpack solution?

[BerndReini]

Yup, that's pretty much what I thought. As for my shooting style: I shoot street work in color with an M9, portraiture with either with the Contax and P25 or a Fuji GF670 and film, and I shoot landscape and architecture on 4x5 with a Sinar X.

 

I have horses for courses, but sometimes I feel like the equipment is getting out of control. Storage, upkeep, charging batteries, getting everything ready for a shoot etc. is really a burden, but then every time I feel I should get rid of something, I can't get myself to do it. The good thing is that I really feel I have all the cameras I need to shoot whatever I am interested in shooting. I am not really tempted by the low-light lure of CMOS sensors and the speed of autofocus and other automation. I just get bogged down by gear sometimes.

[menos I M6]

I have a Contax 645 with a P25 back. It is an old system, but the results continue to amaze me.

 

Bernd, as some have mentioned, the 35mm Leica and your Contax 645 medium format system are two very different beasts.

 

I wouldn't even go so far (or look so short ?) as to making maximum print size the only/major deciding factory for either system. Entirely different look, tonality and the way, focus to out of focus areas in a scene transition are the main factors for me to use MF gear next to 35mm gear, not the higher detail and potentially larger print output.

 

In my opinion, both camera systems have very many fantastic characteristics, that complement each other and building a good kit from both systems gives you many advantages.

 

The M Monochrom indeed is an impressive piece of gear. It's M9 generation based hardware shares most characteristics (and issues) from the Leica M8/9 generation of cameras.

 

The output though, as you have already seen, is amazing.

 

This is a very personal decision to make, but I for myself would indeed sell that digital back as fast, as I could (it is likely the most costly piece of your C645 gear and the one that plummets in value most steeply), use film for the occasions, when I would want to have the medium format output from those fantastic CZ lenses and have a long, hard look at what Leica can do for you, to use those lenses (hint: second hand Leica S2 + Leica Contax 645 Adapter-S).

 

For me, the main decision would be which system I would use most. The Contax is slow and bulky enough to make many shots extremely difficult or even impossible to get, where the compact but capable 35mm camera excels.

 

If the budget is limited and you must under all circumstances continue to have both formats, a look at a less costly medium format system is another option.

I find the (film based) Mamiya 645 manual focus system incredible value for example.

 

The Contax 645 provides great resale value right now to potentially switch systems. There seems to be a Contax 645 resurgence ever other year ;-)

[01af]

In my opinion, maintaining the 2:3 format for the S system was a mistake, but that's just me.

No, it's not just thee. I feel the same about it.

 

A real innovation would have been the introduction of a new aspect ratio, 5:7 (say, format size 31.4 × 44 mm which would be the same diagonal as 30 × 45 mm). This aspect ratio would be half-way between 2:3 and 3:4 and match the aspect ratios of the A paper formats ... A4, A3, etc.

[Nick_S]

Personally, the smooth tonality and detail which I used to seek with medium format film cameras are plentiful in the Monochrom and I don't need the larger formats. Plus, I really like the rendering of the Leica lenses on this sensor (currently 50mm Summicron and 90mm Macro Elmar).

 

Nick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[doolittle]

Going by your rule of getting rid of gear before acquiring gear, the obvious choice would be to sell the M9 and get the MM. Embrace the change from colour to black and white street photography in the process

[erlingmm]

I have the MM and the S2, perfect combination. I have traveled extensively with the S2 (Barcelona, NYC, Vegas, SF), it is not as heavy to lug around as many think, but I use it mostly for people/landscape. MM is a gem, works in every situation, especially low light.