Jump to content

Full Frame vs MF


Csacwp

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Monochrome with an apo lens has similar resolution to a medium format camera and has better tonal range than the m240, but it lacks the dynamic range of medium format, and I think it's the dynamic range and transitions of in-focus to out of focus areas that gives medium format its unique look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the improved dynamic range of MF for a given megapixel count. Higher bit depth and lower noise floor will provide greater dynamic range. Not certain it would matter much for a studio portrait, but it's certainly an inherent advantage to the format.

 

I'm curious about the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus part, though... Are you saying here is an advantage here for MF? Is it something about the lenses or the format? What is the difference in the transition vs. the same transition in full frame or smaller formats?

 

I don't shoot with medium format so I don't know what you are seeing. Can you explain?

 

Thanks - Jared

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monochrome with an apo lens has similar resolution to a medium format camera and has better tonal range than the m240, but it lacks the dynamic range of medium format, and I think it's the dynamic range and transitions of in-focus to out of focus areas that gives medium format its unique look.

 

Again, sorry- but you're wrong. The M246 w/ the APO has nowhere near the resolution of a scanned 6x7 film. In regards to dynamic range, only referring to film- no, the M246 has far more shadow recovery than black and white emulsion and so it would be fair to say it actually has more dynamic range than medium format film. I think it would be best to drop that comparision because its just not accurate. The M246 and medium format film should not be compared. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Well with respect what he or she is trying to say is what he or she is seeing. If you think there's a problem then it's down to you not understanding what they are experiencing and the OP's poor choice of words in conveying that. Either way, we have to assume that the OP has had an experience that they are trying to articulate to us so that we can share their experience of the thing.

 

I think I understand what they are on about but can't be sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The M246 and medium format film should not be compared

 

Well just in case you wanted to, here are two imags. One is from my SL (so not too dissimilar to the M240) and the other is medium format film scanned to a files size of about 15MB. It's obvious which is which because of the crop but interesting to see them side by side.

 

35mm digital:

 

35957732911_c134723af9_b.jpgNeela - The politics of Experience by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

MF Film

 

33451837696_1afb5d77ec_b.jpgHayley by Greg Turner, on Flickr

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonality-wise, looks to me that MF film still wins, which I'm not surprised by. I think film still has the lead in that department in general.

 

Well just in case you wanted to, here are two imags. One is from my SL (so not too dissimilar to the M240) and the other is medium format film scanned to a files size of about 15MB. It's obvious which is which because of the crop but interesting to see them side by side.

 

35mm digital:

 

35957732911_c134723af9_b.jpgNeela - The politics of Experience by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

MF Film

 

33451837696_1afb5d77ec_b.jpgHayley by Greg Turner, on Flickr

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tonality-wise, looks to me that MF film still wins, which I'm not surprised by. I think film still has the lead in that department in general.

 

I agree entirely, which is where I start to regrett selling my analogue stuff.

 

The only consolation is that the MF shot linked here was in just about the best natural light I've ever shot with. It was middle of the day in very thick fog on the coast so the light was just utterly wonderful. Every shot I took that day was a keeper. The 35mm linked here is shot with a strobe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well just in case you wanted to, here are two imags. One is from my SL (so not too dissimilar to the M240) and the other is medium format film scanned to a files size of about 15MB. It's obvious which is which because of the crop but interesting to see them side by side.

 

35mm digital:

 

35957732911_c134723af9_b.jpgNeela - The politics of Experience by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

MF Film

 

33451837696_1afb5d77ec_b.jpgHayley by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

 

Both great portraits, but I find them hard to compare  technically due to the different lighting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unusual that photographers talking about photography should have uppermost in their minds what they want from a camera and image. But from the sitters/victims I've chatted with about a portrait less is definitely more. Hide the spots and pimples, smoother skin, flatten the lines. And for this reason smaller formats, or film, that don't show every fine hair on the top lip of a glamorous woman tend to win out.

 

So it's not smooth transitions of tone that make sitters love film (or smaller digital images), it's the smooth transition from stark unadulterated reality to an idealised impression of the face that works, and making the subject happy is something portrait photographers have known for eons, until recently forgotten in the mad scramble for pixels. Probably even more frightening for the pixel brigade is the research that shows most people like images of themselves and friends of the type posted on Facebook than formal portraits of themselves, now that's something to conjure with.

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That shot of Hayley is wonderful, Greg.

 

Sure, the lighting is nice and even, but the tonality of her skin, and the dreamy expression you've caught - just lovely.

 

+1

and film has its appeal for sure (Just few month ago I bought some used equipment to develop B&film negative and positive myself), plus I think there were decades for film companies to optimized color of their film.

On the other side I believe it is very hard to compare digital and film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unusual that photographers talking about photography should have uppermost in their minds what they want from a camera and image. But from the sitters/victims I've chatted with about a portrait less is definitely more. Hide the spots and pimples, smoother skin, flatten the lines. And for this reason smaller formats, or film, that don't show every fine hair on the top lip of a glamorous woman tend to win out.

 

So it's not smooth transitions of tone that make sitters love film (or smaller digital images), it's the smooth transition from stark unadulterated reality to an idealised impression of the face that works, and making the subject happy is something portrait photographers have known for eons, until recently forgotten in the mad scramble for pixels. Probably even more frightening for the pixel brigade is the research that shows most people like images of themselves and friends of the type posted on Facebook than formal portraits of themselves, now that's something to conjure with.

 

I dont think a smaller sensor is less sharp or film does necessary show less wrinkles. I believe that would be much more a question of the lens, light and the post processing.

However the sharpness falloff from lets say sharp focused eyes to the background can look much harsher with smaller sensors IMO, and it also seems to look harsher with digital than it did with film.

I am for sure not a pro but I shoot many images of my kids with the different formats and the ones from the S often shine in this respect. Not so much sharpness, but color and overall natural and "real" look.

Anyways, I am not saying my impression/ opinion is the right one, but for my taste I dont agree with your findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The human eye and mind is easily habituated to changes.

 

Every camera and system has it's own signature and once you have used it for a while the look becomes 'normal' to the user compared to others. 

 

Comparisons at the sort of quality level we are discussing are essentially subjective ...... and particularly problematic unless the images are of the exact same subject under the same conditions.

 

We all tend to post pictures that show our particular point ...... which inevitably involves bias in choice. 

 

Take the same images, process them optimally, print to A3 or bigger, jumble them up and then ask folk to compare and for technical factors and preference, then analyse the results for statistical significance.

 

Anything else is just opinion.

 

The value of that is debatable. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both great portraits, but I find them hard to compare technically due to the different lighting.

Very true. I'll start a separate thread for anyone interested that compares the performance of the ask with MF film under different lighting conditions. Just for fits and giggles.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have 20x30" b&w portrait prints from a Pentax 67 that are touchstones/reference points for me. You won't see images like that generated by full frame 35mm EVER. I had the Fujifilm GFX for a while, and any of its lenses will get you that medium format look. I particularly liked the 32-64 (f/4 on medium format is more like 2.8 on full frame). The GFX also has a ton of autofocus points spread across the entire frame, and it's one of the few cameras that is as easy to move around the focus point with the joystick/button as the SL. I ended up getting the SL instead of the GFX, though, because most of my work needs the flexibility of having the 24-90 zoom range versus the 32-64's 24-50 equivalent. Another reason I moved to the SL is I preferred the way the Leica lenses render cloud detail – I would take the same shots with my GFX and my Q, and would always prefer the Q. Another consideration was color. You simply cannot push the warmth of the color balance or increase the saturation/vibrance of a GFX file (really any Sony sensor) the way you can with the Leica Q/SL without the colors looking "off" – yellows in particular are handled brilliantly by Leica. The 5D Mark IV comes close but not close enough.

 

All that said, keep in mind that getting the medium format look does not necessarily equate with getting a more beautifully-rendered portrait. I may own the GFX again at some point when they move to 100 megapixels, but for most uses, I prefer the way my Leicas render my shots.

Edited by hdmesa
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now I've got some GFX 50s raw files and processed them alongside SL files shot with the 50 apo. I have to say that they are fairly close in terms of resolution. The SL has better, warmer colors to my eyes, but the GFX 50s has better skin tones. Black and white conversions have a richer tonality from the 50s, although my M246 files bridge the gap somewhat. Still, I was surprised by how well the super sharp and vibrant SL files held their ground against the MF sensor. I did like the GFX 50s files a lot and am now considering one or possibly an X1d. Otherwise I will buy some M glass... 90 apo, 75 summilux, and possibly a 21 super elmar.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In your first add you wrote that one area you want to use the system is portrait. I am not sure if the x1d would fulfill your needs for portrait in regards of response/speed of the system. I would also make sure there is the right lens available for what you pln to do when choosing a mf system. If you have a chance to check out before buying, then use it before. the files are one thing, but handling and lenses are also very important factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

often the differences between formats is so subtle that it'a barely or not noticeable. However I know of nobody who has shot MF extensively who doesn't think there's an appreciable difference in rendering. Certainly you don't have to like a larger sensor but they're not the same.

 

Also the 100mm 'Cron S is an astounding lens. There's nothing else like it. One of the most un-boring lenses ever made.

 

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your first add you wrote that one area you want to use the system is portrait. I am not sure if the x1d would fulfill your needs for portrait in regards of response/speed of the system. I would also make sure there is the right lens available for what you pln to do when choosing a mf system. If you have a chance to check out before buying, then use it before. the files are one thing, but handling and lenses are also very important factors.

The X1D is fine except for start up times. I like using mine in studio.

 

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...