Why is MF 'better' than 35mm?

[retcheto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't understand conceptually why medium format should have better image quality than 35mm. Is it just that with a larger sensor it's easier to get more megapixels out of it? Does that mean that as 35mm sensors increase in pixel density that difference will go away?

 

Or is it because the larger sensor size permits lenses to behave differently? Is it because the lens's image size is bigger and that inherently increases resolution? Is it really bigger lenses that make the difference (ie easier to manipulate light with more glass)?

 

I have an M246 monochrom now and I absolutely love it, but I've been considering getting maybe a Hasselblad X1D (just GAS basically). I'd like to better understand the theory behind larger sensors and why that improves image quality and resolution.

 

For example, would a Hasselblad at 50MP outresolve a 42MP full-frame Sony A7RIII, at least in theory, because of the physical dimensions even if they were the same megapixels?

[John McMaster]

Did you ever use MF or LF film cameras?  Larger sensor and 16bit colour depth are part of the reasons, but it is more than pure resolution.  Do you just look for fine resolution, or does the overall colouring and look of the image have an impact?  The S images are much more to my taste than FF 35mm...

 

john

[Advertisement]

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

[retcheto]

No I never used MF or LF film cameras, I'm still fairly new to 'real' photography. I'm not really into shooting color, so it's more the resolution (although of course gray tones matter...). I shoot landscapes so I want the greatest ability to print large when needed. I'm really happy with the M246, but I'd like to understand what's happening physically with a larger sensor that permits improvements.

[pico]

A larger sensor can have larger pixel wells and still have the same or better resolution than a smaller sensor which has smaller pixel wells because larger pixel wells collect more photons faster than smaller ones; small pixels tend to 'fill up', bleeding signals to neighboring wells, adding to noise. Larger wells also tends to less diffraction where a circle of confusion spans wells.

 

Advancements of in-camera image processing algorithms and techniques, have been highly improved but larger sensors nonetheless need less enlargement/magnification to achieve normal and greater viewing distance resolution and fidelity in general (color). Larger sensors can also avoid some of the intense, thus slower in-camera processing necessary in small sensors.

 

Advantages are most clear with large prints or large screen displays. How large depends upon our expectations, of course.

 

My press photographer friends all choose lower resolution cameras because they need only relatively small prints, modest display sizes, fast cycling (processing), and good ISO performance.

[retcheto]

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I knew there had to be some sort of physical effect going on 

[xiaubauu2009]

If you mean 'better' in terms of Image quality, then, yes it is better for the reason of bigger sensor pitch, better microlens, etc etc as stated above. But you have take into consideration that MF is actually a very small market and being a small market, it will have slower development rate. Hence the sensor technology and the lens technology is much slower than 35mm system, and sometimes, this slow-ness actually influence the whole user experience, and in some cases even Image quality, for example, until recently, MF got its first share of Mirrorless camera, but the mirrorless camera system uses a 3~4 years old CMOS sensor tech that is quite slow and the AF system is a CDAF ( I can understand that you want accuracy than speed), which is quite a bit slower than the same period 35mm mirrorless camera that already have PDAF + CDAF which is both a lot of faster and just as accurate... same goes with the lens (more modern coating, faster focus, with optical quality just as good).

 

So I think if you ask why is MF better than 35mm, nowadays, it's not as pronounce difference as maybe when S was announce 10 years ago, and the tech is definitely less advance. But I think sony's 44x33 sensor has kind of closes the gap now with the soon going to be announce 100mp Backside Illuminated sensor, which I hope will be a lot faster and cleaner ISO performance.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't understand conceptually why medium format should have better image quality than 35mm. Is it just that with a larger sensor it's easier to get more megapixels out of it? Does that mean that as 35mm sensors increase in pixel density that difference will go away?

 

Or is it because the larger sensor size permits lenses to behave differently? Is it because the lens's image size is bigger and that inherently increases resolution? Is it really bigger lenses that make the difference (ie easier to manipulate light with more glass)?

 

I have an M246 monochrom now and I absolutely love it, but I've been considering getting maybe a Hasselblad X1D (just GAS basically). I'd like to better understand the theory behind larger sensors and why that improves image quality and resolution.

 

For example, would a Hasselblad at 50MP outresolve a 42MP full-frame Sony A7RIII, at least in theory, because of the physical dimensions even if they were the same megapixels?

The misconception here is that image quality is determined  MP count. It is not.

[Guest]

Once you start shooting MF its tough to go back to small format 135......for me anyway

Neil

[retcheto]

Once you start shooting MF its tough to go back to small format 135......for me anyway

Neil

Well I'm about to find out, X1D on the way... Thanks for the help guys, this helped me understand the difference a little bit better

[Guest]

Well I'm about to find out, X1D on the way... Thanks for the help guys, this helped me understand the difference a little bit better

 

Hold on...... X2D will have a 100mp option, also look at the new S007, you can pick one of those up pretty cheap on eBay for under 5k

[retcheto]

What I like about the X1D is the size. I do lanscapes and climb all over the place, so for me size is important and the X1D looks like roughly similar to an M240, at least the body

 

the S007's all look like they're more in the $12k range. The S006 do look like they're around $5k. The lenses are a bit pricey though (not that the Hasselblad's are cheap but I'm finding some good deals).

 

I just got an X1D for $5450 from Adorama. I figure that will let me get my feet wet with medium format in a small size, when the X2D comes out I'll look at that or maybe wait for the S008

 

Thanks for the help!

[Guest]

What I like about the X1D is the size. I do lanscapes and climb all over the place, so for me size is important and the X1D looks like roughly similar to an M240, at least the body

 

the S007's all look like they're more in the $12k range. The S006 do look like they're around $5k. The lenses are a bit pricey though (not that the Hasselblad's are cheap but I'm finding some good deals).

 

I just got an X1D for $5450 from Adorama. I figure that will let me get my feet wet with medium format in a small size, when the X2D comes out I'll look at that or maybe wait for the S008

 

Thanks for the help!

 

Cool.....your going to love your new camera :) 

[albertknappmd]

Once you use MF and appreciate its superior RESOLUTION and DYNAMIC RANGE, you will never look back. 

I shot with the R system for years before getting my first S2 back in 2010 and was amazed. 

I still keep my M system for street and stealth photography.

Albert     

[albertknappmd]

The S2 had issues as the ISO was limited to about 400-800. The 007 limit IMHO is about 1600-3200 so your options are far more plentiful than in hte past...

Albert     

[Guest]

Once you use MF and appreciate its superior RESOLUTION and DYNAMIC RANGE, you will never look back. 

I shot with the R system for years before getting my first S2 back in 2010 and was amazed. 

I still keep my M system for street and stealth photography.

Albert     

 

Man up and shoot street with your S :)  

 

Neil

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

Its mostly:

 

- Lenses made for medium format are usually relatively dark prime lenses, created to lowest tolerances and highest quality, with typically something like only f2.8 or even only f4 as maximum aperture. Zooms are rare and even if they exist, they typically offer only a 2x range.

 

- The large sensor area with all its consequences - better signal to noise and thus better color depth and better dynamic range, lower diffraction, and less demands on the lenses.

 

- It should also be noted that medium format is optimized for maximum performance at base ISO, while high ISO performance is usually a lot worse than for small format cameras.

[Guest]

 

 

- It should also be noted that medium format is optimized for maximum performance at base ISO, while high ISO performance is usually a lot worse than for small format cameras.

 

I don't agree with that statement http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D850,Phase%20One%20IQ3%20100MP

 

Neil

[John McMaster]

Its mostly:

 

- Lenses made for medium format are usually relatively dark prime lenses, created to lowest tolerances and highest quality, with typically something like only f2.8 or even only f4 as maximum aperture. Zooms are rare and even if they exist, they typically offer only a 2x range.

 

- The large sensor area with all its consequences - better signal to noise and thus better color depth and better dynamic range, lower diffraction, and less demands on the lenses.

 

- It should also be noted that medium format is optimized for maximum performance at base ISO, while high ISO performance is usually a lot worse than for small format cameras.

 

This is the S forum, many lenses are f2.5 and the zoom is 3x.  The S(007) is far better at high ISO values than my M(240)...

 

john

[Guest]

This is the S forum, many lenses are f2.5 and the zoom is 3x. The S(007) is far better at high ISO values than my M(240)...

 

john

exactly John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[kparseg]

Although all my recent cameras were MF, I'm curious how many photographers in a blinded experiment would be able to distinguish 16 vs. 14-bit color depth and the look from MF vs. 35mm format cameras. 

 

Did you ever use MF or LF film cameras?  Larger sensor and 16bit colour depth are part of the reasons, but it is more than pure resolution.  Do you just look for fine resolution, or does the overall colouring and look of the image have an impact?  The S images are much more to my taste than FF 35mm...

 

john

 

 camera is better than no image taken with MF camera. Thus, don't just look at the image quality but at the overall package.