Full Frame vs MF

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently had the opportunity to chat with Leica Akademie instructor Oliver Vogler who shoots extensively with S & SL. I popped the question to him : 'When would you not consider the SL not good enough and you need to reach for the S?' His reply was: 'When I needed to produce a really large print,...oh and when I shoot in the studio.'

[Paul J]

I recently had the opportunity to chat with Leica Akademie instructor Oliver Vogler who shoots extensively with S & SL. I popped the question to him : 'When would you not consider the SL not good enough and you need to reach for the S?' His reply was: 'When I needed to produce a really large print,...oh and when I shoot in the studio.'

 

 

Both good answers but the most obvious to me is the difference in aesthetic.

[Advertisement]

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

[cpclee]

I’ve met Oliver and he said he has not shot the S outside of the studio for 6 months because of how good the SL is. He also appreciates the speed of working with the SL. In his view, SL images are not so distinguishable from the S’s unless your print sizes are beyond what 24mp will permit. Personally, though, I see some dynamic range and tonality advantage to the S images I’ve seen, including Oliver’s!

 

The quality of his prints are examplary. If this forum will see his images, everyone will shut up about the SL versus the M or why the zooms because for what he shoots, the SL + zooms are the perfect combination.

Edited October 4, 2017 by cpclee

[BigBabyEarl]

I own both and I've used both the 007 and 006 (currently 006 for price and CCD experience). With lenses like the 50 SL the immediate difference is negligible on first glance. However, coloring a 007 file or even a 006 is night and day from the SL. The dynamic range and resolution allows you to go so much further. The way I have it TODAY is that the SL is the work horse and the S with the 100 S is really a speciality setup. With the OVF its really a pleasure. The EVF is amazing too as I can see the image right away as well as share through the eye piece with friends as soon as the image is captured. They both check a box. I'd like to get a 45 S and maybe a 30 or 24 and have a simple S system that really isn't that crazy expensive. The SL with the zooms and and 50/ upcoming lenses is a problem free, image machine. The S 006 at $4800 with a 3 year warranty and dramatically discounted lenses really give a good excuse to have both. Plus, the S to SL adapter really works well. The 100 S on the SL with multiple focus points is fast (fast enough) and fun.

[ZHNL]

I would say the biggest advantage of S006/S007 over m or SL is not DR but rich mid tone tonarity with good exposure files. The color, the tone are all in different level IMO.

 

That difference is especially obvious during process image and viewing on calibrated screen at pixel level or viewing at large print size.

[tom0511]

I agree about the midtones and also about the colors which are even better with the S. Having said this I use the SL much more often because of the speed and flexibility and slightly smaller size (of the body)

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I would say the biggest advantage of S006/S007 over m or SL is not DR but rich mid tone tonarity with good exposure files

 

They're the same thing aren't they; dynamic range is the ability to record a wider gamut of lights and darks, which gives you more graduations in the tones between them no?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

They're the same thing aren't they; dynamic range is the ability to record a wider gamut of lights and darks, which gives you more graduations in the tones between them no?

 

More graduations would be related to bit depth. DR is how deep into the shadows and highlights before there is no detail recorded.

 

Gordon

[sillbeers15]

Both good answers but the most obvious to me is the difference in aesthetic.

We all know that the S files would be better than the SL. You oberviously missed the obvious answer. 'Not enough reasons to use the S instead of the SL'

[Paul J]

We all know that the S files would be better than the SL. You oberviously missed the obvious answer. 'Not enough reasons to use the S instead of the SL'

 

 

I think you may have missed my point actually. The one reason I can think of using the S is the one reason I would use it over the SL.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Paul J

[geetee1972]

More graduations would be related to bit depth. DR is how deep into the shadows and highlights before there is no detail recorded.

 

Gordon

 

Aha, that's useful information thank you. I understand things better now.

[lx1713]

I started exploring the possibility of getting a MF as work seems to be swinging in that direction 

So I was a little taken aback at the unhappy posts of some professionals at the S forums. While most things seems positive, I have to really sieve out the issues and say no to my clients for the moment.

 

 

A few months ago I had a try out with the S and I must say I didn't expect to shoot a model handheld under relatively dim conditions with a

medium format sensor camera (I sort of leapt from large format film to digital APSC in a single step and didn't looked back except for 35mm sensor cameras)

The files exceed my expectations. Reminded me of my Sinar with the Macro Sironar. I could see little difference between the SL (90-280) files and S except when enlarged. It was impressive.

 

It's the season of life, I guess, I didn't needed the extra pixels then so I stepped away from temptation. Now temptation is back with a bunch of reasons 

 

Nonetheless, I'm anchoring the SL as my mainstay cos I can either start working on video now or I never will. The rather unexpected situation at the S forums have given me pause because when I first considered the S2 they didn't have a zoom yet and Leica is new at the MF game. I figured give them some time to flesh out the system. Now I can't just jump in to get a mature system with a professional MFD support functional in place. A bit of a conundrum. I wonder if I should continue researching or just give up. Mind you, living with lower resolution image quality expectations, is merely a professional response I'm capable of taking, so the SL sits nicely in my toolkit but possibly not an S.

Edited October 7, 2017 by lx1713

[thighslapper]

I see no signs of sensor technology hitting a ceiling any time soon......

 

Pixel density, dynamic range and sensitivity all are inexorably increasing ...... as is processing power......

 

From an optical point of view, 35mm equivalent (and possibly APS-C) seems the sweet spot for reasonable size lenses whilst still offering good control over DOF.

 

I'm not sure what future MF has when the other formats catch up in pixel numbers and DR....... no doubt MF will stay a notch ahead..... but quite what I would do with 100mpx files that can have yet more shadow detail extracted I don't know ...... everything will end up looking like HDR with retina blasting clarity if you are not careful.... Maybe nice to have the facility, but I'm not sure the trade-offs are worth it.

 

...

Edited October 7, 2017 by thighslapper

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I see no signs of sensor technology hitting a ceiling any time soon......

 

Pixel density, dynamic range and sensitivity all are inexorably increasing ...... as is processing power......

 

From an optical point of view, 35mm equivalent (and possibly APS-C) seems the sweet spot for reasonable size lenses whilst still offering good control over DOF.

 

I'm not sure what future MF has when the other formats catch up in pixel numbers and DR....... no doubt MF will stay a notch ahead..... but quite what I would do with 100mpx files that can have yet more shadow detail extracted I don't know ...... everything will end up looking like HDR with retina blasting clarity if you are not careful.... Maybe nice to have the facility, but I'm not sure the trade-offs are worth it.

 

...

 

Mostly it'll give the measurebaters a benchmark to declare every other great sensor immediately obsolete. A few of us who can print really large might go there (haha.. I probably will) but for most it'll be bragging rights. Generally tech moves forward so manufacturers have something new to sell. Not because we need it. I'm not sure most people need more than 12-16MP.

 

There's also the issue that most "medium format" is only miniMF. It's like stepping from APSC to 35mm and often (mostly??) the differences are small enough to be difficult to see. A "full frame" MF sensor will still look very different to 35mm.

 

What might happen though is that probably Fujifilm, will start releasing more fast lenses for their miniMF option. A f2.0 miniMF lens may be equivalent to a 1.6 in 35mm terms but the extra sensor real estate does give a different look under some situations. Something that portrait and wedding shooters might jump on.

 

My SL kit is now pretty much exactly what I wanted it to be but for personal shooting I'm starting to take a miniMF camera out more and more.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I started exploring the possibility of getting a MF as work seems to be swinging in that direction 

So I was a little taken aback at the unhappy posts of some professionals at the S forums. While most things seems positive, I have to really sieve out the issues and say no to my clients for the moment.

 

 

A few months ago I had a try out with the S and I must say I didn't expect to shoot a model handheld under relatively dim conditions with a

medium format sensor camera (I sort of leapt from large format film to digital APSC in a single step and didn't looked back except for 35mm sensor cameras)

The files exceed my expectations. Reminded me of my Sinar with the Macro Sironar. I could see little difference between the SL (90-280) files and S except when enlarged. It was impressive.

 

It's the season of life, I guess, I didn't needed the extra pixels then so I stepped away from temptation. Now temptation is back with a bunch of reasons 

 

Nonetheless, I'm anchoring the SL as my mainstay cos I can either start working on video now or I never will. The rather unexpected situation at the S forums have given me pause because when I first considered the S2 they didn't have a zoom yet and Leica is new at the MF game. I figured give them some time to flesh out the system. Now I can't just jump in to get a mature system with a professional MFD support functional in place. A bit of a conundrum. I wonder if I should continue researching or just give up. Mind you, living with lower resolution image quality expectations, is merely a professional response I'm capable of taking, so the SL sits nicely in my toolkit but possibly not an S.

 

Yes there are issues with the S system. But most of them revolve around Leica's inconsistent and occasionally woeful service. They stood up at Photokina and introduced a Professional division and since then it's been crickets. Unless you're in Germany you wait months.

 

Having said that, the S system has worked out most of its technical kinks. The big on was the lens focus gears. There's a permanent fix for that now so if a lens goes down the fix is actually a fix. The S2 had some CCD corrosion issues but the S007 CMOS is rock solid. The lenses are absolutely spectacular. I have no hesitation using my S for work.

 

And the S lenses are amazing on the SL.

 

Gordon

[cpclee]

A high quality image at 10mp can be printed to at least 11”x17” in my experience, so indeed most people have no use beyond 10mp.

 

FWIW, I was told by someone from Leica that S lenses have been tested to resolve beyond 75mp.

 

Mostly it'll give the measurebaters a benchmark to declare every other great sensor immediately obsolete. A few of us who can print really large might go there (haha.. I probably will) but for most it'll be bragging rights. Generally tech moves forward so manufacturers have something new to sell. Not because we need it. I'm not sure most people need more than 12-16MP.

 

There's also the issue that most "medium format" is only miniMF. It's like stepping from APSC to 35mm and often (mostly??) the differences are small enough to be difficult to see. A "full frame" MF sensor will still look very different to 35mm.

 

What might happen though is that probably Fujifilm, will start releasing more fast lenses for their miniMF option. A f2.0 miniMF lens may be equivalent to a 1.6 in 35mm terms but the extra sensor real estate does give a different look under some situations. Something that portrait and wedding shooters might jump on.

 

My SL kit is now pretty much exactly what I wanted it to be but for personal shooting I'm starting to take a miniMF camera out more and more.

 

Gordon

[cpclee]

I won’t count on very fast lenses being available for the GFX 50 or XD1. Such lenses will need to be very large in order for optimal optical performance (same story as with the SL, that compared to film the made-for-digital lenses need to be bigger). Looking at the the sizes of these bodies, it seems they are going after a compact package with slower lenses, eg. typically not faster than f2.8.

 

Mostly it'll give the measurebaters a benchmark to declare every other great sensor immediately obsolete. A few of us who can print really large might go there (haha.. I probably will) but for most it'll be bragging rights. Generally tech moves forward so manufacturers have something new to sell. Not because we need it. I'm not sure most people need more than 12-16MP.

 

There's also the issue that most "medium format" is only miniMF. It's like stepping from APSC to 35mm and often (mostly??) the differences are small enough to be difficult to see. A "full frame" MF sensor will still look very different to 35mm.

 

What might happen though is that probably Fujifilm, will start releasing more fast lenses for their miniMF option. A f2.0 miniMF lens may be equivalent to a 1.6 in 35mm terms but the extra sensor real estate does give a different look under some situations. Something that portrait and wedding shooters might jump on.

 

My SL kit is now pretty much exactly what I wanted it to be but for personal shooting I'm starting to take a miniMF camera out more and more.

 

Gordon

[geetee1972]

I won’t count on very fast lenses being available for the GFX 50 or XD1. Such lenses will need to be very large in order for optimal optical performance (same story as with the SL, that compared to film the made-for-digital lenses need to be bigger). Looking at the the sizes of these bodies, it seems they are going after a compact package with slower lenses, eg. typically not faster than f2.8.

 

Besides, MF cameras are designed with a paritcular purpose in mind, one that assumes you will be shooting with lots of light, almost certainly in a studio.

[LD_50]

Besides, MF cameras are designed with a paritcular purpose in mind, one that assumes you will be shooting with lots of light, almost certainly in a studio.

The GFX and X1D don’t fit this purpose the way the previous digital backs did.

 

The camera makers know that people with disposable income will argue about “tonality” and dynamic range on forums and the MF cameras give them the platform to debate about.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[cpclee]

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.

 

The GFX and X1D don’t fit this purpose the way the previous digital backs did.

The camera makers know that people with disposable income will argue about “tonality” and dynamic range on forums and the MF cameras give them the platform to debate about.