Jump to content

Full Frame vs MF


Csacwp

Recommended Posts

 

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 exceptional portraits, with the second a little more relatable, but you can see lighting and film differences.  Film handles highlights gracefully, and the latest CMOS (M10 and SL much better than M240) goes deep into the shadows with good tonality.  The second portrait with an "infinite softbox" for lighting makes great use of this film quality.  The strobe and 240's more limited DR make the modelling of the face in the first portrait a bit awkward. How would it have come out if you had "exposed to the left" another half stop and then lifted the shadows in post?

 

I liked the question someone asked before -- so what did the subjects think?

 

scott 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I liked the question someone asked before -- so what did the subjects think?

 

I missed that. Neela really likes the result and really enjoyed the experience as well. We spent about 20 minutes chatting as part of the approach, which is nice when usually people are willing to engage but only in a limited space of time. Hayley never got in touch which is a shame. This happens about 20% of the time and is always disappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to shoot with the GFX 50s today.  A great camera, but not for me (it is too hard to manually focus due to inadequate EVF zoom and overly sensitive focus peaking).  It DOES feel phenomenal in the hand... Fuji just nailed the ergonomics.  It's also incredibly light- despite the size, you could handhold it all day and not get tired.  In fact, my SL with M lenses is far heavier and more difficult to hold for extended periods of time.  

​I'm starting to think I may as well complete my collection of M glass now and buy a MF camera in a year or two.  With 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 90mm, I'd be set on the M.  I also just got a job that might require me to pick up an SL zoom, and while I don't want to spend the money on one when it could be spent on an M prime, I don't see much of a way out.  I'm a portrait and travel photographer, and I prefer a slower workflow that is well suited by manually focused primes, but I am being hired to shoot speakers on a poorly lit stage at a large event hosted by an even larger client, and I'm not sure if I trust my abilities to nail focus with a 90mm Summicron on the SL.  Then again, I suppose I could bump up the ISO and take a lot of pictures to ensure that some are in focus.  In the long run I'd probably enjoy the 90 cron M more than the 24-90 or 90-280 (though the latter is tempting as a dedicated SL portrait lens).  Or I could not get any of that stuff and purchase an X1D, X-H adapter, and 100mm f/2.2...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to shoot with the GFX 50s today.  A great camera, but not for me (it is too hard to manually focus due to inadequate EVF zoom and overly sensitive focus peaking).  It DOES feel phenomenal in the hand... Fuji just nailed the ergonomics.  It's also incredibly light- despite the size, you could handhold it all day and not get tired.  In fact, my SL with M lenses is far heavier and more difficult to hold for extended periods of time.  

 

​I'm starting to think I may as well complete my collection of M glass now and buy a MF camera in a year or two.  With 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 90mm, I'd be set on the M.  I also just got a job that might require me to pick up an SL zoom, and while I don't want to spend the money on one when it could be spent on an M prime, I don't see much of a way out.  I'm a portrait and travel photographer, and I prefer a slower workflow that is well suited by manually focused primes, but I am being hired to shoot speakers on a poorly lit stage at a large event hosted by an even larger client, and I'm not sure if I trust my abilities to nail focus with a 90mm Summicron on the SL.  Then again, I suppose I could bump up the ISO and take a lot of pictures to ensure that some are in focus.  In the long run I'd probably enjoy the 90 cron M more than the 24-90 or 90-280 (though the latter is tempting as a dedicated SL portrait lens).  Or I could not get any of that stuff and purchase an X1D, X-H adapter, and 100mm f/2.2...

 

The X-H adaptor is still manual focus at this stage and, as much as I like my X1D, it's slower in use than almost anything out there. Start up is 6-7 seconds. AF is adequate but pedestrian. Great for travel work and portraits. Not so much for event shooting. The handling and lenses are sublime though. Handling is better than either the SL or GFX. The GFX startup and AF are faster than the Hasselblad. 

 

The 90mm Summicron is a doodle to focus on the SL. Easy. Simple. No probs Bob :).... Hit rate will be in the high 90% range. I have the zoom. I like the zoom. I'd shoot the zoom (because of the IS). But the 90mm cron asph is awesome on the SL and super easy to focus. I don't even need peaking or magnification 95% of the time.

 

If the client allows, consider an off cameras flash and shoot the 'cron stopped down a bit. Something like an AD200 would be ideal for this type of shooting.

 

Heck, I've shot plenty of this type of stuff with the 90 on an M. Just use the EVF if in doubt.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gordon, I think you are right. I'll complete my full-frame kit and buy into a medium format system at a later date. I'll also look into an ad200, but I do not think the client will want a flash on stage. It would be distracting during the interactions between speakers and during the speeches themselves. I might be able to get away with an on camera flash or speedlight for the reception afterwards. Any recommendations for what type?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting side note, Steve Huff just replaced his SL and other Leica gear it appears for a Hasselblad X1d. Will be interesting what he says in future reviews.

 

Yes and in one of his posts he says this is X1D at 25,600 iso and the actual image is at iso 6400! You cannot trust anyone these days... I start to feel most of the "reviewers" on the net are actually good sales people that know how to influence others.

Edited by Daedalus2000
  • Like 2
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

Hi, Gordon,

 

What do you mean by "an appreciable difference in rendering?" I have not shot medium format in many years, and too much has changed in the interim for my MF experiences to be all that relevant, but I am curious what you are seeing with regard to rendering. Are you referring to the depth of field, the resolution, differences in dynamic range, or differences in lenses?

 

Not suggesting you are imagining things or are not correct, but I'm not understanding what's different about the images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Huff "replaces" his gear every time something new comes out. I personally think he is dishonest. Either way, for his style of casual photography, I doubt the X1D will work out for him. I don't think I've ever seen him mount anything on a tripod.

Dishonest? Don't you think that is rather harsh? No, he isn't. Anyway, have had the X1d myself for awhile and it's great. Not fast, but not all photography requires speed. And, oh by the way, you can do just fine with it without a tripod unless you have problems holding still. I still though hang onto my Leica gear. That would be tough to give up so shall be interesting if Huff sticks to the X1d or returns to Leica. Not a Huff fan but find his reviews interesting.......and honest. Mistakes are not dishonesty.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He mislabels photos in his reviews to make it appear as if cameras have better performance than they actually do, and since he speaks in hyperbole and apparently is an eternal optimist, I don't think his reviews are helpful. Obviously you can handhold the X1D, GFX 50s, etc, but unless you have rigamortis and are using a very fast shutter speed, you aren't going to capture all of the available resolution and sharpness the sensor has to offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He mislabels photos in his reviews to make it appear as if cameras have better performance than they actually do, and since he speaks in hyperbole and apparently is an eternal optimist, I don't think his reviews are helpful. Obviously you can handhold the X1D, GFX 50s, etc, but unless you have rigamortis and are using a very fast shutter speed, you aren't going to capture all of the available resolution and sharpness the sensor has to offer.

Duh. But a lot of people, including me, can hold quite steady. Takes practice. I often find a tripod makes no difference. Even at 1/45th second, can do. But, been doing it awhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He mislabels photos in his reviews to make it appear as if cameras have better performance than they actually do, and since he speaks in hyperbole and apparently is an eternal optimist, I don't think his reviews are helpful. Obviously you can handhold the X1D, GFX 50s, etc, but unless you have rigamortis and are using a very fast shutter speed, you aren't going to capture all of the available resolution and sharpness the sensor has to offer.

Handholding the GFX with either the 32-64 or 120 with OIS gave me astonishing sharpness handheld even viewing at 2:1 and 3:1. If the camera has any more to give, I think my head would explode. However, using the 110 without stabilization was a gamble - about half of all handheld shots had motion blur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and in one of his posts he says this is X1D at 25,600 iso and the actual image is at iso 6400! You cannot trust anyone these days... I start to feel most of the "reviewers" on the net are actually good sales people that know how to influence others.

Maybe a ghost changed the settings without him knowing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and in one of his posts he says this is X1D at 25,600 iso and the actual image is at iso 6400! You cannot trust anyone these days... I start to feel most of the "reviewers" on the net are actually good sales people that know how to influence others.

 

Looks like that was an error...

Next morning that was corrected.

(Note from his post: Last night I posted an image saying it was shot at ISO 25k, but it was my mistake. I was tired and posted the wrong photo. The correct 25K photo will be below)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Yes. This is why many are returning to film as a sort of visual vocabulary. Spend a week shooting and looking at film and then look at digital and digital looks awfully jarring in comparison. Hard, sterile, plastic, non-organic colour - although colour is getting better, it's more the post adjustment that effects it. Even shooting with the very best backs money can buy leaves me fiddling around in post trying to find the look I want sometimes - which is much easier to find in film with a straight print. It depends on what I'm shooting.

 

Personally I need digital, but I would prefer to shoot a lot more film for the same reasons. If only it were an easier and less cost prohibitive process in this day and age.

 

Medium Format film is for me a nice balance between the sort of artifice that works well in photography and reality. Large Format film starts looking hyper real (but I love it for some things), as does medium format digital.

 

Sometimes I want the look of medium format digital, or 35mm film, or medium format film, or large format film, or 35mm digital etc, etc, etc. Just depends on what I'm shooting,

 

Best to have them all, IMO, if and where possible. If you can just be happy with one format you are lucky - good for you!

Edited by Paul J
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. This is why many are returning to film as a sort of visual vocabulary. Spend a week shooting and looking at film and then look at digital and digital looks awfully jarring in comparison. Hard, sterile, plastic, non-organic colour - although colour is getting better, it's more the post adjustment that effects it. 

...................

 

Best to have them all, IMO, if and where possible. If you can just be happy with one format you are lucky - good for you!

 

Pretty much sums it up well.

I'm one of the people that's gone back to film ....4x5 in my case.  Probably around 100mp in resolution equivalent, but with amazing tonality, unharsh highlights, etc.

But i'm also using the digital M for a LOT of things.

Mind you, I do see a decent difference between digital harshness / jarring between my M and files i've taken with a S 007.  The latter is much better there ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the difference between film and digital is the lenses you strap to the front of them. Modern digital systems come with modern lenses. Super sharp, high contrast lenses that don't let you get away with anything.

 

Try shooting a 50 years old lens design on an M or a "classic" medium format lens on a digital body and the results are far less aggressive.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am convinced much of the perceived superiority of film's color and its "organic" look vs the supposed sterility of digital has a lot to do with what one is accustomed to.

 

In other words, if I've established film's look as my preference over the years, anything else may seem in a sense "wrong". It's much like the "cinema look" with 24p in video vs higher frame rates. I prefer the 24p look because it's what I'm used to. I know plenty of people who like the look of the higher frame rates that seem jarring to me.

 

28mm field of view is also something that I don't particularly care for though I bet it will grow in popularity over time because of the number of mobile phones with this effective focal length. People are used to that particular style of distortion for portraits and may consider the more classic focal lengths less appealing in the future.

  • Like 1
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...