Full Frame vs MF

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Keep in mind the image circle of either the S system or the Fujifilm GFX system is far smaller than that of the film 645 format. And back in the day most of the Contax 645 lenses, for example, were f2.0 or 2.8. The S and GFX systems were spec’d specifically so that the resulting lenses wouldn’t be humongous. All so-called medium format systems including Phase and Leaf don’t use a senor size anywhere close to what used to be the medium format film areas for the same reason.

 

 

Absolutely. Still f2.0 on minMF is about 1.6 on a 35mm sensor (aspect ratios aside). So we're only 1/3 off what would be called "fast" in 35mm terms. Lenses like the Noctilux are still super specialised, even in 35mm land. An S 100mm Summicron is smaller than a Sigma Art or Otus with comparable IQ and DOF. So an S007 and 100mm cron is no bigger than a D750 and 85 Art. The 110mm f2 Fuji is almost exactly the same size and weight as the Sigma Art. Fast miniMF lenses don't need to be any bigger than the larger 35mm lenses.

 

I'm the first to acknowledge that for wide and standard focal lengths 35mm is the leader in great lenses with thin DOF. However Fuji and Hasselblad don't have any 35mm cameras and it would make sense for them to make faster lenses for miniMF. Especially in a time where the Otus, Art and SL 50 have become accepted as an OK size for 35mm.

 

I also think we need to acknowledge that at least in part, the reason medium format lenses were slower is that they simply couldn't make the glass good enough in the sizes required. There was also less demand for fast glass for artistic purposes. 35mm lenses were fast to keep the ISO down. Those times are gone.

 

Now we're getting away from where larger than 35mm sensor bodies are huge and hardly field equipment to a place where an X1D is smaller than an SL, surely Hasselblad and Fuji are at least discussing the possibilities of slightly larger and much faster glass.

 

Gordon

[sillbeers15]

I use the Leica S with four Leica S lenses; 24, 30, 70 and 180. I take the entire set in the field and it is indeed a simple workflow. I also have a M-P 240, which is also simple. On the basis of image quality, FF is no match for the S. The lens motor problem affected a minority, however it was frustrating for that minority. I have traveled extensively with the S kit and recommend it enthusiastically. That 56% increase in sensor size plus the lens quality, etc. cumulatively make a very big difference. Additionally, the weather resistance makes shooting even in horizontal rain possible; I know from experience.

 

I noticed some owners of both SL and S have provided input.

 

Jesse

 

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850L using Tapatalk

Jesse,

You must be one of the lucky few with a donkey and an assistant to support the logistics.

[bencoyote]

Something that it seems has not been said is that there seems to be a bit of a personality difference between MF and 35mm format shooters. MF shooters seem to be more inclined to carefully setup a shot, control the lighting, work on it heavily in photoshop and make one picture. 35mm shooters Tend to be a bit more shooters and more often mobile. They produce more shots and seem to work on them less. I think broadly speaking, this inclination is reflected in the kind of work produced. A certain kind of photographer is drawn to a particular kind of equipment that inclines one to a general workflow which ultimately produces work that is subtlety different.

 

So broadly speaking there is a 35mm look and a MF look but it’s only partly a result of the equipment.

[lx1713]

MF shooters seem to be more inclined to carefully setup a shot, control the lighting, work on it heavily in photoshop and make one picture.

 

And vice versa, actually. I got amazing results from my M8 by using it just so. I printed hundreds of 20"x30" prints for years just by treating the process with the care needed for enlargement. So it's not a format issue    MF and LF just give the final results a richer tone, depth and details.

[lx1713]

A very important difference if that's what's needed.

[Paul J]

When the 645 medium format SLRs first came onto the scene, manufacturers had the same hope as they do today that it would succeed as a higher end alternative to 35mm SLRs. They hoped the increased image quality would be compelling enough for the same people who would otherwise buy into expensive pro 35mm SLR systems. They were marketed as field cameras. But that never happened. The various 645 cameras were almost always used as studio or portraiture cameras, with the exception of the Pentax 645/645N which was sometimes used as a field camera. (Probably because it was cheap.) That market just never took off. People who really wanted image quality would go for 6x6 or larger and for portability and lens range they would go for 35mm. It was an awkward market segment.

 

As to the current segment of 30mmx45mm of digital cameras (which include the Leica S, the GFX 50,s and the X1d), I’m personally curious whether it will catch on. It is not that much bigger a sensor than 35mm fullframe’s, which is 24mmx36mm, and is far smaller than what a 645 format sensor would have been (45mmx60mm). So arguably it has even less image quality advantage over 35mm fullframe that 645 film had over 35mm film. But on the other hand, cameras like the GFX 50s don’t cost signigicantly more than a pro grade fullframe camera. That might be enough of a factor to drive sales.

 

 

Your curious wether it will catch on? They have been popularly and successfully used for more than a decade when prices have exceeded £20K for the back or camera alone. Anyone who says "it's not much bigger than 35mm" and "has less advantage over 35mm" clearly hasn't used or even spent much time looking at the files from these cameras.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a very good point. The only real advantage is 16 bit files other than the slightly larger size. I do think in terms of 6x6 as the next step up from 35mm. Thanks for the point.

 

6x6 is no different to 645 unless you are always printing full frame. You aren't really benefiting from anything more in terms of "medium format" over 645. The main point of 6x6 was being able to crop the image without having to rotate the camera and also having cropping freedom - but generally speaking you are always cropping down so resolution becomes less or equal.

 

645 is medium format.

 

Another common fallacy is people saying the current 645 medium format digital isn't even full frame because it's not 6x4.5 sized sensor

 

645 nominal film size is actually - 56 × 41.5

and 6x6 nominal film size is - 56 × 56

[Paul J]

Really? I used a Contax 645 extensively as a field camera. Before that I use Hasselblads mostly with 645 backs too. In my experience 645s from a variety of manufacturers were heavily used as field cameras especially the Bronicas and Mamiyas.

 

 

I don't get how anyone could say that 645 was never used as a field camera and never taken out of the studio. I did and still do. All my friends did and many still do.

 

Nonsense.

[lx1713]

6x6 is no different to 645 unless you are always printing full frame. You aren't really benefiting from anything more in terms of "medium format" over 645. The main point of 6x6 was being able to crop the image without having to rotate the camera and also having cropping freedom - but generally speaking you are always cropping down so resolution becomes less or equal.

 

645 is medium format.

 

Another common fallacy is people saying the current 645 medium format digital isn't even full frame because it's not 6x4.5 sized sensor

 

645 nominal film size is actually - 56 × 41.5

and 6x6 nominal film size is - 56 × 56

 

Thanks but I was referring to the size difference being smaller between the S and SL sensor, as compared to the film size difference of 6x4.5 and 35mm. When it comes to formats I think in percentage terms and I was grateful for that point. When I was using a Sinar, they had a multi format back which was an amazing convenience. 

 

But I'm considering the 56% bigger as sufficient for my needs and thinking more of the 16 bits as the real decision I need to weigh. Many people who I work with tend to be swayed more by the colour palette than sheer sharpness. 

 

However I do appreciate your point. 6x6 happens to be a wonderful aspect ratio for me that I rarely revisit in use but love.

[lx1713]

I had the Mamiya 645 and the RZ67. I rarely used the 645 because I was mostly in the studio and the RZ was the better option. 

[Paul J]

Thanks but I was referring to the size difference being smaller between the S and SL sensor, as compared to the film size difference of 6x4.5 and 35mm. When it comes to formats I think in percentage terms and I was grateful for that point. When I was using a Sinar, they had a multi format back which was an amazing convenience. 

 

But I'm considering the 56% bigger as sufficient for my needs and thinking more of the 16 bits as the real decision I need to weigh. Many people who I work with tend to be swayed more by the colour palette than sheer sharpness. 

 

However I do appreciate your point. 6x6 happens to be a wonderful aspect ratio for me that I rarely revisit in use but love.

 

 

Best not to listen to marketing and counter marketing. Just look at the pictures.

 

The S sensor is actually marginally bigger, in one one way, than the Phase One crop sensors. It's about the same, although the S gets cropped down a bit more with standard paper sizes. Because the camera is much smaller than the Phase One its easy to perceive it as less I think.

 

But the difference between the two is imperceptible in a print, or even pixel peeping. Infact, the S lenses in some cases make for better images.

 

But there is a world of difference between 35mm and any of the cropped sensors. Far more than what "50% more sounds like". Anyone who says otherwise has not used the cameras. It's also true that people see the difference and don't care for it or justify it, or it just have less use than what other people get from smaller formats like 10fps, handling etc. But it all goes into this internet soup and gets translated by some as "not that different" or "not much better".

 

Sharpness comes in all formats, even a 1" sensor can have a tonne of it. Larger sensors offer so much more goodness than sharpness. Colour, for one like you have mentioned.

[cpclee]

I was referring specifically to the likes of the Leica S, Fujifilm GFX 50s or the Hasselblad X1d which use a roughly 30mmx45mm sensor and lenses tailored to the sensor size to gain portability.  These are all recent models, and they are clearly marketed differently than prior, larger medium format cameras based off legacy film medium format form factors and lenses.  Perhaps they will become wildly successful, perhaps not.  Time will tell.  But I'm not sure how anyone can claim they have been "popular and successful".  What are you comparing to?  The yearly sales of all those 3 cameras might still not add up to the Leica M which itself is a niche product.

 

A 645 film frame (even if I use your unrounded dimensions) is about 2.7x the area of a 35mm frame.  The sensor area of those three cameras above is only about 1.5x that of 35mm full frame.  That's roughly the same as going from 35mm full frame to APS-C.  It will be huge for some, but not so huge for others.

 

Your curious wether it will catch on? They have been popularly and successfully used for more than a decade when prices have exceeded £20K for the back or camera alone. Anyone who says "it's not much bigger than 35mm" and "has less advantage over 35mm" clearly hasn't used or even spent much time looking at the files from these cameras.

[cpclee]

Not true.  It depends on what size paper your print to. Assuming 8x10 paper, if you work out the math, you will crop a 6x6 frame to roughly 6*4.8, but a 6x4.5 frame will get cropped to 5.625x4.5.  That means roughly 14% more film area will be used from the 6x6 frame.  It's all about the aspect ratio.  

 

6x6 is no different to 645 unless you are always printing full frame. You aren't really benefiting from anything more in terms of "medium format" over 645. The main point of 6x6 was being able to crop the image without having to rotate the camera and also having cropping freedom - but generally speaking you are always cropping down so resolution becomes less or equal.

 

[cpclee]

You and your friends don't make a big thriving or even sustainable market.   Again, time will tell.  Personally I want to see the format of the Leica S successful, as I'd love to pick up an S at some point.  But not everyone is going to care about the image quality gain.  Some people are bound to think it's very incremental.  

 

 

 

I don't get how anyone could say that 645 was never used as a field camera and never taken out of the studio. I did and still do. All my friends did and many still do.

 

Nonsense.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

You and your friends don't make a big thriving or even sustainable market.   Again, time will tell.  Personally I want to see the format of the Leica S successful, as I'd love to pick up an S at some point.  But not everyone is going to care about the image quality gain.  Some people are bound to think it's very incremental.

 

people have different standards of acceptable. Makes for a more interesting world. Same as those that get Leica and those that don’t.

 

I have a mate who I shoot with. He spent a couple of years telling me there was no difference between Leica and any other brand. When I tried out a Sony system he immediately told me to go back to my Leicas. That’s how I feel when I shoot 35mm. Sometimes you need to have it for a bit and then take it away to appreciate it. Nothing wrong with any format but I miss my miniMF.

 

I really do wish Leica would make me a MF SL.

 

Gordon

[cpclee]

Here is Leica’s own CEO talking about many of the same things I’ve said. Namely, the S (and hence the later GFX 50s and X1d) was designed with an intentionally much smaller sensor than traditional medium format digital to be portable and to take advantage of lenses designed specifically for digital; the smallness of the medium format digital market today (which is but a fraction of the what medium format film used to be); and the smallness of production numbers. Three years into its release, S sales was about 100 units per month. That’s tiny and hardly a threat to professional full frame cameras, my point exactly. M sales are in the tens of thousands per year if you are curious.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/05/08/how-leica-camera-is-reinventing-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/?s=trending#776fb2b41365

[Paul J]

You and your friends don't make a big thriving or even sustainable market.   Again, time will tell.  Personally I want to see the format of the Leica S successful, as I'd love to pick up an S at some point.  But not everyone is going to care about the image quality gain.  Some people are bound to think it's very incremental.

The only thing that stoped the 645 movement of the 90's was the digital revolution. They were wildly popular and successful up to that point, no one I knew working professionally used 35mm cameras unless it was for a specific purpose. 645 was really the minimum accepted format in almost everything except PJ and sports.

 

Popular and successful doesn't just mean selling more than anything else.

 

You're arguing that a 56% bigger sensor isn't worth it but a 14% difference in film area is? The noticeable difference between 645 and 66 in a 10x8 print is sweet-fa. There is no perceptible difference in a 10x8 print shooting a 645 or 66 back on a Hasselblad.

[jaapv]

Here is Leica’s own CEO talking about many of the same things I’ve said. Namely, the S (and hence the later GFX 50s and X1d) was designed with an intentionally much smaller sensor than traditional medium format digital to be portable and the advantages of lenses designed specifically for digital; the smallness of the medium format digital market today (which is but a fraction of the what medium format film used to be); and the smallness of production numbers. Three years into its release, S sales was about 100 units per month. That’s tiny and hardly a threat to professional full frame cameras, my point exactly. M sales are in the tens of thousands per year if you are curious.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/05/08/how-leica-camera-is-reinventing-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/?s=trending#776fb2b41365

Actually that is above the predicted sales at introduction, which were 1000 units a year.

[cpclee]

I didn’t say medium format film was not a big market. It was. And medium format was far larger then than it is today. What I did say was among medium format film formats, the 645 was not the dominant format. Maybe in your neck of the woods things were different, but where I come from medium format film was mostly 6x6 (Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya 6) or larger (Mamiya 7, Mamiya RB, Pentax 67) etc.

 

The only thing that stoped the 645 movement of the 90's was the digital revolution. They were wildly popular and successful up to that point, no one I knew working professionally used 35mm cameras unless it was for a specific purpose. 645 was really the minimum accepted format in almost everything except PJ and sports.Popular and successful doesn't just mean selling more than anything else.You're arguing that a 56% bigger sensor isn't worth it but a 14% difference in film area is? The noticeable difference between 645 and 66 in a 10x8 print is sweet-fa. There is no perceptible difference in a 10x8 print shooting a 645 or 66 back on a Hasselblad.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[cpclee]

Indeed people have different stands. Like I said before, resolution notwithstanding, I personally see a noticeable difference in the dynamic range and tonality of the S over the SL, even if the Leica Academy instructor I spoke to, ironically, didn’t. To him, and in his words, whatever the advantage the S had in IQ was not enough to justify lugging it out of the studio in six months. YMMV

 

people have different standards of acceptable. Makes for a more interesting world. Same as those that get Leica and those that don’t.

I have a mate who I shoot with. He spent a couple of years telling me there was no difference between Leica and any other brand. When I tried out a Sony system he immediately told me to go back to my Leicas. That’s how I feel when I shoot 35mm. Sometimes you need to have it for a bit and then take it away to appreciate it. Nothing wrong with any format but I miss my miniMF.

I really do wish Leica would make me a MF SL.

Gordon