Csacwp Posted September 7, 2017 Share #1 Posted September 7, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm a happy user of the M240, M246, and SL. For months I've been toying with getting an S007 and 100mm Summicron for portrait work (I currently use a 75mm Summilux and 90mm Apo-Summicron for that purpose). While the image quality and dynamic range of the MF sensor is stunning, part of me finds the images produced by it to look unaturally good. I'm starting to feel that there is something more "normal" and "honest" about the way full frame sensors render people. Does anybody else have similar thoughts? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 Hi Csacwp, Take a look here Full Frame vs MF. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LD_50 Posted September 7, 2017 Share #2 Posted September 7, 2017 I don't have any idea what this means. If anything many MF portraits I see are of a similar style with extremely thin DOF or the Platon style headshots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share #3 Posted September 7, 2017 It's hard to explain. Many digital medium format portraits look plastic and too smooth/sharp. It's incredible from a technological standpoint but to my eye, Leica's full frame sensors capture a more honest, realistic looking photo that is easier for the viewer to relate to (since it looks similar to how it would if you had actually been there for the moment). Now as for MF film, I love the way it looks, especially for black and white, but I feel like I can get very close to that look with my M246 and apo M lenses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 7, 2017 Share #4 Posted September 7, 2017 The (potential) differences show up in print. But just as in the darkroom, it takes a skilled printer to take advantage of the source material.... the camera is but one link in a long chain. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted September 7, 2017 Share #5 Posted September 7, 2017 I think OP has similar to something discovered by some of us with FF related to APC-S sensors-lenses. With APC-S the FF lenses feels not "honest" and "normal" and made specifically for APC-S lenses while giving same FOV as on FF are not giving same "honest" and "normal" perspective. Same for S APC-S MF sensor, IMO. It is cropped MF. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted September 7, 2017 Share #6 Posted September 7, 2017 Use one or the other, but buying a 007 just for one purpose seems stupid to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted September 7, 2017 Share #7 Posted September 7, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does anybody else have similar thoughts? Most definitely not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share #8 Posted September 7, 2017 It would only be for studio portraiture. I've spent a lot of time testing the 007 in person and do not want to carry it around, especially to the types of places I bring my M. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted September 7, 2017 Share #9 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) I think I understand what you're talking about. It's a little like the experience between high end digital and analogue audio; a lot of people still much prefer the sound of analogue even though it has more 'noise'. We don't experience a photograph the same way we experience a person in real life, so the idea that a photograph is made better by offering more startling detail I don't think holds true. It can be better as a result but not neccessarily so. But I think what's really going on here is that our nature is imperfect; people aren't perfect. The presence of flaws in some way makes an image more engaging because it reduces the tension we experience in engaging with the image. The imperfections are actually what make us human and a portrait that has a slightly degraded representation of reality is easier for us as viewers to engage with. It would only be for studio portraiture. I've spent a lot of time testing the 007 in person and do not want to carry it around, especially to the types of places I bring my M. I do however think that an S would be a mistake. It;s so crazy expensive compared to say a Fuji GFX and I don't think the Leica is going to be any better, maybe even worse? Edited September 7, 2017 by geetee1972 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted September 7, 2017 Share #10 Posted September 7, 2017 I do however think that an S would be a mistake. It;s so crazy expensive compared to say a Fuji GFX and I don't think the Leica is going to be any better, maybe even worse? The list prices may be high, but the prices you actually purchase for are far from list price Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 7, 2017 Share #11 Posted September 7, 2017 Besides landscape I find portraits one area where MF excells. 3 areas: 1) very good and natural skin color 2) very smooth transition between the sharp/focus plane and the background 3) very nice midtone range which also is a benefit for skin 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 7, 2017 Share #12 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) It's hard to explain. Many digital medium format portraits look plastic and too smooth/sharp. It's incredible from a technological standpoint but to my eye, Leica's full frame sensors capture a more honest, realistic looking photo that is easier for the viewer to relate to (since it looks similar to how it would if you had actually been there for the moment). Now as for MF film, I love the way it looks, especially for black and white, but I feel like I can get very close to that look with my M246 and apo M lenses. I feel exactly the opposite: the larger the format the more natural and less plastic do images look. Edited September 7, 2017 by tom0511 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 7, 2017 Share #13 Posted September 7, 2017 this is what I also believe to see ..... I'm starting to feel that there is something more "normal" and "honest" about the way full frame sensors render people... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted September 7, 2017 Share #14 Posted September 7, 2017 the larger the format the more natural and less plastic do images look. Certainly larger formats offer better intertonal balance with more natural gradations between colours and tones. Have a look at the work of Sally Mann - this example is just so wonderful: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share #15 Posted September 7, 2017 Yes, the tonality produced by MF is incredible- no argument from me there. It's more the smoothness and incredible resolution that I find unnatural looking. 35mm has more character. This topic isn't intended as a swipe at MF- it is just my personal thoughts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted September 7, 2017 Share #16 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) MF is too slow and heavy for me. The lenses are very boring (most in the middle of focal range, no fast lenses, no UWA, no tele). And I am completely happy with FF quality. Now with digital it is already insanely good. (especially the colors, and with the use of OIS). MF is not too good, it is simply too "always the same", no surprises, technique instead of inspiration, always on the edge of boring. Would I buy a MF camera just for portrait ? NO - what a waste of resources !!!! I have many FF lenses, so I am happy to use FF all the time - glad I do not have to switch. Digital FF is for me simply THE standard (in a positive way). (I do not know if it looks most natural - but I know it looks just as I like it.) When I look at old masters, even if they were using large format or MF at their time, their style was often FF like. So this is simply my preferred style. I am quite sure Ansel would be using FF today. Or others from his time. If FF should ever die, I will use DX/APS-C just as well, no problem. But currently I am very glad that digital came to FF. Edited September 7, 2017 by steppenw0lf 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsprow Posted September 7, 2017 Share #17 Posted September 7, 2017 I have a much loved M10, as well as several film Leicas. Also have a Hasselblad H6D-100c and can make the following statements after a good deal of experience. - Lugging around the H6D all day is a challenge - Images from the H6D: Amazingly life like, appear almost three dimensional Colors are beautiful, fine gradations across colors OOF areas are excellent, obviously lens dependent No plastic look to my eye, just the opposite - The M10: Avoids back and shoulder pain Is MUCH less costly Greater selection of excellent, zoom and fast lenses For what it's worth (I have no SL nor S) 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynp Posted September 7, 2017 Share #18 Posted September 7, 2017 I think I understand what you're talking about. It's a little like the experience between high end digital and analogue audio; a lot of people still much prefer the sound of analogue even though it has more 'noise'. We don't experience a photograph the same way we experience a person in real life, so the idea that a photograph is made better by offering more startling detail I don't think holds true. It can be better as a result but not neccessarily so. But I think what's really going on here is that our nature is imperfect; people aren't perfect. The presence of flaws in some way makes an image more engaging because it reduces the tension we experience in engaging with the image. The imperfections are actually what make us human and a portrait that has a slightly degraded representation of reality is easier for us as viewers to engage with. I do however think that an S would be a mistake. It;s so crazy expensive compared to say a Fuji GFX and I don't think the Leica is going to be any better, maybe even worse? A nice and clean S2 can be bought for around USD$4,000,00 and I have seen the S100mm for around the same money. To be honest, I don't see why anything newer and modern than the S2 is needed for portraits and studio. The S2/s006 sensor is magical in controlled light, in my view. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted September 7, 2017 Share #19 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) All four of the common formats used by advanced amateurs and professionals (Micro 4/3", APS-C, full frame, and medium format) are now capable of producing essentially noise free images at base ISO. All four formats have enough bit depth and dynamic range that no camera should be pushed very hard in a controlled environment such as a portrait session. All four formats are perfectly capable of capturing all the resolution that can be perceived in a moderate sized print. If one were to capture four equivalent images, I doubt you would find any differences that could be ascribed to the format itself. In other words, try the following. Take a head and shoulders shot under good, controlled lighting at base ISO using: 4/3", 45mm lens, f/2 APS-C, 60mm lens, f/2.8 Full Frame, 90mm lens, f/4 Medium Format, 100mm lens, f/5.6 All four images should be noise free--one might interpret that as "plastic". All four images should provide about the same subject isolation given the f-stops I listed (and those are reasonable f-stops for a head and shoulders portrait assuming one wants the depth of field to cover nose to ear). The full frame and the medium format lenses will likely have more "head room" in terms of narrowing the depth of field farther; neither of these lenses will be shooting wide open while the 4/3" and APS-C will either be wide open or within a stop of wide open. Still, these are all reasonable apertures to select depending on one's taste for subject isolation. I would expect nearly identical results. The focal lengths don't match up perfectly in terms of field of view, but they are about as close as you can get with commonly available lenses. Would there be some differences? Sure. Different lenses have different different characteristics, so the images wouldn't be completely identical. But I wouldn't expect one format to offer a more "honest" (gritty?) view. I wouldn't expect to see differences in resolution or edge contrast in a final print except perhaps from the character of the different lenses. Portraits tend not to benefit much from extreme resolution and micro contrast anyway, so one is just as likely to be lowering overall contrast and compressing tones in post as not. I'm not suggesting that micro 4/3" can do everything medium format can do or that there aren't differences in dynamic range between, say, a full frame camera with a given megapixel count and an APS-C camera of the same megapixel count. Pixel pitch still matters in terms of dynamic range (by raising or lowering the noise floor). There are still differences in bit depth between the various formats as well. But a portrait scenario just isn't going to push the cameras or the formats very hard. Noise should be nonexistent in all four cases. Depth of field / subject isolation should be identical. Resolution should be above what is needed or desired for this type of picture. Since I'm not pushing the cameras very hard, I would even expect colors to be equivalent (aside from differences in profiles, raw conversion software, camera brand philosophies, etc.). With the exception of how different lenses render, especially out-of-focus areas, I would think I could get essentially identical images out of all four. I don't see any particular format offering more or less "plastic" results. I don't see any format offering more "real" results. I suspect what the OP is referring is just differences in depth of field since the "equivalent" apertures listed above are not the only option. If an MF photographer and a full frame photographer were each shooting at f/2.8, for example, the full frame image would look more "real" because the depth of field would be greater, better matching the extreme depth of field our naked eye. Edited September 7, 2017 by Jared Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBabyEarl Posted September 7, 2017 Share #20 Posted September 7, 2017 It's hard to explain. Many digital medium format portraits look plastic and too smooth/sharp. It's incredible from a technological standpoint but to my eye, Leica's full frame sensors capture a more honest, realistic looking photo that is easier for the viewer to relate to (since it looks similar to how it would if you had actually been there for the moment). Now as for MF film, I love the way it looks, especially for black and white, but I feel like I can get very close to that look with my M246 and apo M lenses. With all due respect that absolutely makes zero sense. Regardless of it being film or digital- true medium format has everything to do with the relationship of the lens to the focal plane. An 80mm on 6x7 negative will yield a fov of roughly 40mm and in no circumstances EVER look similar to a Leica Monochrom. Ever. Unless the Monochrom was medium format than maybe, but what you're saying is unfortunately horribly misinformed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.