Why is MF 'better' than 35mm?

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The differences are clear straight away. Obviously more-so on some backs or cameras than others. They are so significant that I never bothered doing any exact and direct comparisons. It's a OMG moment when they hit the screen and going back to 35mm is quite a surprise.

 

It's even more-so when you start adjusting the files and you can push it forever and still keep incredible IQ with little degradation. With the new CMOS backs you can, within a fair scope, pick any shutter speed and aperture you like and get a solid image from.

 

I shoot 35 and MF cameras side by side but never exact comparisons. I use them for different purposes and the difference is so great there was never any need to compare.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Paul J

[Guest]

The differences are clear straight away. Obviously more-so on some backs or cameras than others. They are so significant that I never bothered doing any exact and direct comparisons. It's a OMG moment when they hit the screen.

 

I have shoots where I've shot cameras side by side but never exact comparisons. The difference is so great there was never any need to do that.

mate it’s in your face with theH6D100c. It’s got the wow factor

[Advertisement]

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

[djmay]

The differences are clear straight away. Obviously more-so on some backs or cameras than others. They are so significant that I never bothered doing any exact and direct comparisons. It's a OMG moment when they hit the screen and going back to 35mm is quite a surprise.

 

It's even more-so when you start adjusting the files and you can push it forever and still keep incredible IQ with little degradation. With the new CMOS backs you can, within a fair scope, pick any shutter speed and aperture you like and get a solid image from.

 

I shoot 35 and MF cameras side by side but never exact comparisons. I use them for different purposes and the difference is so great there was never any need to compare.

[djmay]

I think the question was about viewing a processed image, not viewing the raw files in LR or other. Of course the differences in the raw files are immediately visible. However, after compression and posting a low resolution file, the differences are lost on screen. That is why I compared prints. I was especially interested in how the digital results compared to the 4x5 film. S 006 does very well compared to a print from 4x5 film. Monochrom was not as good as S and better than M-P 240.

 

Jesse

[Jon Warwick]

I think the question was about viewing a processed image, not viewing the raw files in LR or other. Of course the differences in the raw files are immediately visible. However, after compression and posting a low resolution file, the differences are lost on screen. That is why I compared prints. I was especially interested in how the digital results compared to the 4x5 film. S 006 does very well compared to a print from 4x5 film. Monochrom was not as good as S and better than M-P 240.

 

Jesse

What size prints did you use for this comparison?

 

I’d agree with your views about the hierarchy of S vs Monochrom vs M240, but I do go back and forth on the first two (especially with the 50 APO on the M246).

 

The M240 is certainly the weakest of the lot - by quite a wide margin in my view.

[Guest]

What size prints did you use for this comparison?

 

I’d agree with your views about the hierarchy of S vs Monochrom vs M240, but I do go back and forth on the first two (especially with the 50 APO on the M246).

 

The M240 is certainly the weakest of the lot - by quite a wide margin in my view.

jon

TheS knocks spots off the monochrome......... no comparison IMHO

Neil

[John McMaster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think different is a better description, I often use my original Monochrom at 5000ISO for effect.  There is a 80cm x 120cm print of a 5000ISO image just behind me, I cannot see how the S would have improved it ;-)

 

john

[djmay]

What size prints did you use for this comparison?

 

I’d agree with your views about the hierarchy of S vs Monochrom vs M240, but I do go back and forth on the first two (especially with the 50 APO on the M246).

 

The M240 is certainly the weakest of the lot - by quite a wide margin in my view.

Hi Jon,

 

The image (not the print) is 28cm on the long side. Why 28? Because most of my darkroom prints from 4x5 have an image length of 28cm. Therefore, I made prints from the digital files also on Ilford photographic paper with the same image length.

 

Many people talk about print size when comparing camera formats. However, they are missing the benefits of smoother tonality, which also holds up as the print size increases.

 

That the M 240 is not as good as S or Monochrom, is not saying that digital M is not good; digital M is great, and the others are even better.

 

I have just made a 90 x 60 cm test print from a Monochrom file and it is fantastic in detail and tonality. It was a shot that I did while testing the Monochrom. If I did not own the S, I would own a Monochrom. This is the image, although the quality will not be evident.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Jesse

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

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)...

 

I'm well aware but I was of course talking about medium format in very general terms, and most have 2x zooms at best.

 

Besides the brightest medium format lens I know of is the 80mm f2 Planar for Zeiss Contax (6x4.5cm format).

 

 

P.s.: Correction, theres of course also the recent Fujinon GF 110mm f2.

 

According to rumors, third party might even come out with f1.4 lenses for Fujifilm GFX.

Edited May 3, 2018 by LichtUndDunkelheit

[xiaubauu2009]

I'm well aware but I was of course talking about medium format in very general terms, and most have 2x zooms at best.

 

Besides the brightest medium format lens I know of is the 80mm f2 Planar for Zeiss Contax (6x4.5cm format).

 

 

P.s.: Correction, theres of course also the recent Fujinon GF 110mm f2.

 

According to rumors, third party might even come out with f1.4 lenses for Fujifilm GFX.

 

 

That's a third party lens by Mitakon, Chinese brand, manual focus... huge.... and not that nice to be honest.

 

There's rumor of a X1D 1.4 lens official by Hasselblad, but it could be DJI propaganda at work in an deliberate attempt to swing people to buy into a half baked product, joking, the X1D has come a long way since the early days. At any rate, lens with such huge aperture and still need to cover 44x33 sensor and perform at a level that is expected from a high end MF digital camera with small pixel pitch will not be a small lens. It completely wipe the 'compact-ness' off from the equation.

Edited May 3, 2018 by xiaubauu2009

[John McMaster]

Mamiya 645 80/1.9 as well as the Hasselblad 110/2

 

john

[xiaubauu2009]

Mamiya 645 80/1.9 as well as the Hasselblad 110/2

 

john

 

 

That's a sweet lens! very good bokeh, but the CA is quite bad.

[Herr Barnack]

 

Why is MF 'better' than 35mm?

 

In a nutshell, medium format is better if your intent is to make large exhibit quality prints, or if you are doing commercial work, still shots for a video or movie or if your plan is to produce coffee table size books. 

 

As for wedding work, to the best of my knowledge digital full frame 35mm systems are viewed as acceptable by the vast majority of brides and grooms these days.  The era of demanding medium format for weddings as in the film days is pretty much over as are the days of buying large, costly wedding albums full of 8x10 prints.

 

As for screen viewing, social media use and online sharing, I cannot see the point of investing the amount of cash that getting even a basic digital MF kit would require.

 

JMHO.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[retcheto]

Thanks, I think that’s it in a nutshell and that’s what I’ve learned.

 

MF is really for large prints, etc which is what I’m interested in and that’s what I meant with my question.

[Jeff S]

Thanks, I think that’s it in a nutshell and that’s what I’ve learned.

 

MF is really for large prints, etc which is what I’m interested in and that’s what I meant with my question.

Also potentially better color and tonal gradation once the prints are large enough (not necessarily very big) to discern. And it also allows one to crop significantly, not just print big, without deterioration of IQ.

 

As always, the user matters more than the gear, but MF does provide more potential capability than just large prints. And some potential disadvantages, depending on needs and preferences.

 

Jeff

[pico]

[... snip good stuff ...]

As always, the user matters more than the gear, but MF does provide more potential capability than just large prints. And some potential disadvantages, depending on needs and preferences.

 

I find MF and LF so much easier to wet print than 35mm. With 35mm I was trying to achieve outcomes close to impossible - before digital. Vacillating now, but the swing is still to larger film.

 

Some Monochrom images posted here are breathtaking. Something important has happened and my eyes are open again. If only I could wet-print the images. (To anticipate rebuttal, I admit that I do not own a film scanner. So shoot me.)

Edited May 4, 2018 by pico

[Jeff S]

I find MF and LF so much easier to wet print than 35mm. With 35mm I was trying to achieve outcomes close to impossible - before digital. Vacillating now, but the swing is still to larger film.

 

Some Monochrom images posted here are breathtaking. Something important has happened and my eyes are open again. If only I could wet-print the images. (To anticipate rebuttal, I admit that I do not own a film scanner. So shoot me.)

I enjoyed b/w wet printing 35mm, MF and LF, but digital printing compensates for my darkroom limitations, and not just convenience. It’s just so much more robust and flexible, even though there’s nothing like a luscious silver print.

 

I can assure you that as stunning as some online Monochrom pics are, my prints from the M9M (and M10) at times far exceed my screen presentations.... assuming of course a fully worthy pic. And my print tests with the S, GFX and the X1D over the last year are sometimes just as stunning in b/w. I have no desire to scan or return to the darkroom.

 

We live in good times photographically, not just with camera system choices, but with print options, including digital printers, inks, papers and related software. Amazing.

 

Jeff

Edited May 4, 2018 by Jeff S

[ChasMP]

Currently I am shooting with a 4x5 camera and three lens set up for my serious landscape work, an M10 & MP do everything else. I shoot Fuji Velvia and Provia exclusively and I have heard murmurs of them ceasing production of Velvia and Provia very soon, as heartbreaking as that is to me...

 

Anyway, I am looking for a digital alternative and I am leaning towards the S with a 30-90 Vario Elmar which will cover my three focal lengths nicely. I will surely miss the movements of the 4x5 camera when slide film is no longer produced for it, but the trade off will be a weather sealed, one lens solution. I am half considering an SL but I just don't think it will satisfy me after shooting LF film. I like a printed image, incredible detail and the aspect ratio of (4x5) & the MF sensor over the more elongated aspect ratio of 35mm cameras.

 

Thoughts?

[Martin B]

Currently I am shooting with a 4x5 camera and three lens set up for my serious landscape work, an M10 & MP do everything else. I shoot Fuji Velvia and Provia exclusively and I have heard murmurs of them ceasing production of Velvia and Provia very soon, as heartbreaking as that is to me...

 

Anyway, I am looking for a digital alternative and I am leaning towards the S with a 30-90 Vario Elmar which will cover my three focal lengths nicely. I will surely miss the movements of the 4x5 camera when slide film is no longer produced for it, but the trade off will be a weather sealed, one lens solution. I am half considering an SL but I just don't think it will satisfy me after shooting LF film. I like a printed image, incredible detail and the aspect ratio of (4x5) & the MF sensor over the more elongated aspect ratio of 35mm cameras.

 

Thoughts?

 

Yes, the Fuji slide films will go away unfortunately (myself also shooting Provia and Velvia films in 135 and 120 formats). IMO the digital "medium-format" is not really comparable to film based medium format of 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7 for example. The digital MF sensor is just a bit larger than a FF sensor - I personally don't see much benefit here for the increased price for such camera. Alternatively if going digital, have also a look at the Fuji GFX 50S camera. 

If I were you, I would change my 4x5 films and move to color negative films instead, for example Porta or Ektar. At some point you might be able to use Ektachrome - whenever Kodak releases it also in 4x5. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[John McMaster]

Currently I am shooting with a 4x5 camera and three lens set up for my serious landscape work, an M10 & MP do everything else. I shoot Fuji Velvia and Provia exclusively and I have heard murmurs of them ceasing production of Velvia and Provia very soon, as heartbreaking as that is to me...

 

Anyway, I am looking for a digital alternative and I am leaning towards the S with a 30-90 Vario Elmar which will cover my three focal lengths nicely. I will surely miss the movements of the 4x5 camera when slide film is no longer produced for it, but the trade off will be a weather sealed, one lens solution. I am half considering an SL but I just don't think it will satisfy me after shooting LF film. I like a printed image, incredible detail and the aspect ratio of (4x5) & the MF sensor over the more elongated aspect ratio of 35mm cameras.

 

Thoughts?

 

I would test the 30-90 first, it is the weakest lens in the S range, however if you are using it on a tripod at f11 it is OK.  Still not got the 'sparkle' of the prime lenses though...

 

john