Full Frame vs MF

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

 

In some cases I will agree. But I have a lot of amazing old lenses that look pretty average on digital. In that regard I think it's more camera/lens combo. But I do understand what you re saying and I certainly agree that lenses go a long way to make a digital image look better, or more interesting.

 

But generally, film, the material, the process, the printing process, the chemical process, and the all subtle nuances in between all that that contribute have an entirely different end result. One that can be mimicked with digital but it's just not and never the same. So much of what goes wrong is as soon as you touch those sliders. Computer algorithms and colour aren't the same as a natural process.

[Paul J]

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.

 

Of course. Relativity is always at play with these things. But to through a spanner in those works, I'm spent 20 years as a digital convert who has gone back to film. That's a lot of years to get accustomed to something I don't really like as much.

 

But more importantly, it is about what is relative to your own work. If you prefer digital shoot it, same for film. The only difficulty is in learning about your own work, enough to know what is best for it. The rest is just a decision.

[Advertisement]

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

[pico]

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.

 

What medium format film lenses would you recommend?

I am prepared to experiment.

[LD_50]

Of course. Relativity is always at play with these things. But to through a spanner in those works, I'm spent 20 years as a digital convert who has gone back to film. That's a lot of years to get accustomed to something I don't really like as much.

 

But more importantly, it is about what is relative to your own work. If you prefer digital shoot it, same for film. The only difficulty is in learning about your own work, enough to know what is best for it. The rest is just a decision.

Many have gone back to vinyl records despite the measurable superiority of modern formats.

 

I think we agree that this is about a subjective view of the differences and not actually indicative of the superiority of film or digital.

[Paul J]

Many have gone back to vinyl records despite the measurable superiority of modern formats.

 

I think we agree that this is about a subjective view of the differences and not actually indicative of the superiority of film or digital.

 

 

They are both superior in their own ways. They are just different instruments. But the superiorities come down to an image per image basis, it's not really so defined. They just speak in a different way. It's the decision to use them for what ever reason that makes it superior for the photographer. That battle, like any art, is just having a reason.

[Jon Warwick]

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

I agree that many modern lenses are too harsh.

 

Although some (like the S lenses) seem to have a nicer balance of being gentler in their rendering, whilst also capturing loads and loads of resolution.

 

Your comments of old lenses on digital made me recall the marketing of the Leica Thalia lenses ...."although these are not vintage lenses, the Leica Thalias offer many of the characteristics that have led cinematographers to pair older lenses with digital sensors. They are smooth, forgiving, and clear without being overly sharp".

 

http://cw-sonderoptic.com/leica-thalia/

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My entirely subjective impression of new design lenses is that they fulfill the highly critical metrics of designers who have no appreciation of former aesthetics. Their designs speak to metrics that matter less every year.

 

If my opinion seems harsh, then look at the outcomes of such lenses.

Edited September 17, 2017 by pico

[LD_50]

My entirely subjective impression of new design lenses that they fulfill the highly critical metrics of designers who have no appreciation of former aesthetics. Their designs speak to metrics that matter less every year.

Why would I purposely design a lens for a "former aesthetic"? A perfect lens would simply show what's really there with no color shift, no fringing, no abberations, flat plane of focus, no distortion, etc. something like the Otus lenses comes to mind. If they were smaller and lighter I would love to shoot them.

 

Again, this idea that modern lenses and digital are sterile, or too sharp, or clinical, etc is simply a subjective opinion that some "former aesthetic" was preferable. The proliferation of Kickstarter campaigns to bring back old designs like the Petzvals is an example. These lenses don't say anything about modern lenses. They simply provide a look that some like.

 

To me it's like preferring a certain post processing look or an Instagram filter. It's fine to like them, but it says nothing more than what you prefer.

[LD_50]

If my opinion seems harsh, then look at the outcomes of such lenses.

I've seen some pretty good stuff from the Otus lenses (search Flickr), the Nikon 105/1.4, APO Summicron, etc. I also shot the Nikon 58/1.4 and 200/2 and really enjoyed their output. The Summilux ASPH 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 are pretty modern and I love their look. The 35/2 on my RX1 is great.

 

Maybe I'm not considering the right modern lenses or I'm looking for something very different in images.

[pico]

Why would I purposely design a lens for a "former aesthetic"? A perfect lens would simply show what's really there with no color shift, no fringing, no abberations, flat plane of focus, no distortion, etc...

 

What is really there considering the human eye? (let us not go into the very bad artifacts of cheap digital rendering which are not part of our physiology)  Are you suggesting that high-end lenses show what we should see if lens designers were to re-write our biology, psyche?

 

Bring on the UV, IR renderings, eh?

Edited September 17, 2017 by pico

[LD_50]

What is really there considering the human eye? (let us not go into the very bad artifacts of cheap digital rendering which are not part of our physiology) Are you suggesting that high-end lenses show what we should see if lens designers were to re-write our biology, psyche?

 

Bring on the UV, IR renderings, eh?

No. I'm stating what I stated. Color shifts. Abberations. Distortion. Non flat focal planes.

 

The human eye is pretty well understood in terms of the optics. Corrective lenses have been around a long time.

[Paul J]

but it says nothing more than what you prefer.

 

 

That is what photography is.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

What medium format film lenses would you recommend?

I am prepared to experiment.

 

What camera do you want to strap them onto? And what are you going to point it at?

 

I still have a soft spot for the old square format Hasselblad lenses. And some of the Pentax lenses I use on my 645Z are 40 year old designs and are wonderful. Not clinically perfect but they draw really well. I still remember how *revoloutionary* the T* coatings were.

 

That said, I didn't want to say I dislike modern lenses or that they're worse. Just that they're different. S glass is the best I've ever used. And I like the X1D lenses, hexagonal bokeh balls and all. For landscapes and things I like the ultra perfect modern lenses. For people something a bit gentler works nicely. S lenses seem to be a blend of both. They just need a body to keep up with them.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

My entirely subjective impression of new design lenses is that they fulfill the highly critical metrics of designers who have no appreciation of former aesthetics. Their designs speak to metrics that matter less every year.

 

If my opinion seems harsh, then look at the outcomes of such lenses.

 

Or is it that, in a world of high resolution monitors and 100% pixel peeping in the corners, that's what sells modern lenses? That and the combination of modern design, optics and digital corrections allows us to make lenses we simply couldn't 25 years ago. Those "metrics" are what modern lenses are tested and rated for. Someone thinks they're useful.

 

The job of a lens designer isn't to design beautiful optics. It's to design lenses that will sell. Ultra fast, ultra sharp and "transparent" lenses sell. Character lenses are the vinyl of photography.... Some of use still like them but we're not the mainstream. Too many bunyips on the internet telling people sharp equals good. Less sharp equals bad. When enough people do it it becomes accepted as truth by the masses. True or not.

 

20 years ago the combination of lens, light and paper made the finished product. If you wanted a softer gentler image you bought a "portrait" lens. You could sell a lens that had a look. Now buyers think they call replicate that in post and so they want all the detail so they can decide what to throw away. Of course most don't. They just over sharpen them and upload to facebook and instagram.

 

Gordon

[Lazytiger]

With all due respect to those who feel film to be superior to a modern digital sensor, that's a highly subjective perception. In my experience (30 years as a photographer and directing TV commercials for a living) digital offers everything that film does and a lot on top of it at a fraction of the price in money and environmental damage.... I never ever would look back to those 35mm days with prints, labs and telecines, even if my client would pay for it for some strange reason (which he wouldn't - there is a reason why even on the biggest advertising budgets when money does not matter film is no option any more. That simple reason being that digital delivers the better results).

 

Now that counts for HD to 4k resolution. Make of it what you want when it comes to photography.

 

Speaking about lenses I fully agree that many modern lenses only following mtf chart requirements have an unpleasant clinical sharpness to them. This is why I would prefer a 30 y/o 80 R to a highly praised, brand new Sigma Art 85 in many cases.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Lazytiger

[geetee1972]

With all due respect to those who feel film to be superior to a modern digital sensor, that's a highly subjective perception. In my experience (30 years as a photographer and directing TV commercials for a living) digital offers everything that film does and a lot on top of it at a fraction of the price in money and environmental damage.... I never ever would look back to those 35mm days with prints, labs and telecines, even if my client would pay for it for some strange reason (which he wouldn't - there is a reason why even on the biggest advertising budgets when money does not matter film is no option any more. That simple reason being that digital delivers the better results).

 

Now that counts for HD to 4k resolution. Make of it what you want when it comes to photography.

 

Speaking about lenses I fully agree that many modern lenses only following mtf chart requirements have an unpleasant clinical sharpness to them. This is why I would prefer a 30 y/o 80 R to a highly praised, brand new Sigma Art 85 in many cases.

 

Film still features in a lot of the world's best portrait studios (for example Platon) and in high end fine art and gallery exhibitions. Superior results are as you rightly point out, entirely subjective and are the result of perception. Commercial clients may well insist on digital media (I assume you mean digitally made rather than simply digitially delivered?) but that doesn't determine them as being absolutely superior in any and all instances.

 

As for lens quality and 'sharpness', MTF charts tell you next to nothing; how many line pairs a lens can resolve at a given distance is almost meaningless in determining the quality of an image. It would be a little bit like trying to determine the sound quality of hifi just by looking at a frequency response graph or the driving experience of a car based on the engine specifications.

[lx1713]

I don't really miss film because to me it's a canned look baked into the processes with limited override subsequently. If I liked the look, it's not an issue but if I changed my mind and realised it doesn't suit, I'm in trouble.

 

With a digital file. It's malleable, it allows me to give my client an image that can scale quickly to whatever appeals to the client relatively easily. Maybe not perfectly but then it's malleable.

 

Of course, in post production, artists can do whatever they want with the source material regardless of whether it's film or digital. They will want more detailed and richer source files to work them.

 

This is not the same as saying digital is superior to film, I just like an easy workflow

[BigBabyEarl]

SMH. "biggest advertising budgets... film is no option any more." Just not true. Maybe big budgets with nervous clients and agencies with extreme fear- but film is still very much an option for select projects. Digital does not deliver "better results" just different and instant. People can go home knowing they got it. Film still gets shot all the time. Cinema even more so. Bringing it back on topic, there is a definite trend towards larger format as cameras and sensors become more affordable. Fuji and Hasselblad (which is Sony and fuji actually) are selling brand new 50mp systems for costs never before seen. Once they age a bit, the used market will see even lower costs and more people will be able to afford to get in (see Leica S). I think eventually the gap between the medium format and the full frame 35mm format will be so small that it will really just be about aesthetics.

[lx1713]

Film still features in a lot of the world's best portrait studios (for example Platon) and in high end fine art and gallery exhibitions. Superior results are as you rightly point out, entirely subjective and are the result of perception. Commercial clients may well insist on digital media (I assume you mean digitally made rather than simply digitially delivered?) but that doesn't determine them as being absolutely superior in any and all instances.

 

As for lens quality and 'sharpness', MTF charts tell you next to nothing; how many line pairs a lens can resolve at a given distance is almost meaningless in determining the quality of an image. It would be a little bit like trying to determine the sound quality of hifi just by looking at a frequency response graph or the driving experience of a car based on the engine specifications.

I think it is also true that when the craftsman is so used to a medium and the tools to create his work, it's a little unreasonable to change what is a perfectly good workflow. Takes time to master something, even a tool that's not perfect to us may be magic for that craftsman.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lx1713]

SMH. "biggest advertising budgets... film is no option any more." Just not true. Maybe big budgets with nervous clients and agencies with extreme fear- but film is still very much an option for select projects. Digital does not deliver "better results" just different and instant. People can go home knowing they got it. Film still gets shot all the time. Cinema even more so. Bringing it back on topic, there is a definite trend towards larger format as cameras and sensors become more affordable. Fuji and Hasselblad (which is Sony and fuji actually) are selling brand new 50mp systems for costs never before seen. Once they age a bit, the used market will see even lower costs and more people will be able to afford to get in (see Leica S). I think eventually the gap between the medium format and the full frame 35mm format will be so small that it will really just be about aesthetics.

Thanks, that's a trend that's certainly happening. Larger formats.

 

I feel that sometimes we want to stand out by creating the aesthetic inherent in the lens and format but quite forgetting the power of the larger story being told. A larger format may not be helpful if we get caught up in aesthetic that is meaningful only to ourselves.

 

I like to think of digital as my productivity enabler but probably not my artistic side    A former boss of mine said photography is 90% sweat and 10% fun. I'm not keen to make it 99% sweat... beautiful as the results might be.