Why is MF 'better' than 35mm?

[John McMaster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A friend saw something different to my M shots when I started using the S2-P, that was an on-line 1200 pixel long JPEG.......  I can see I big difference in tonality between the two systems and prefer to use the S whenever possible. 

 

john

[kparseg]

John, I agree with you on IQ from MF cameras. All I'm saying is that sometimes we think we perceive the difference because we know that this picture was taken with MF and another one was taken with 35mm camera. But how about the blinded test? Would we still be so confident we see the difference? 

 

A friend saw something different to my M shots when I started using the S2-P, that was an on-line 1200 pixel long JPEG.......  I can see I big difference in tonality between the two systems and prefer to use the S whenever possible. 

 

john

[John McMaster]

Depends on the subject I think, and what size it is being seen at.  I think Leica images are all good, I had some images taken with the Nikon D810 and the colours looked terrible (I owned a D800E for a month, hated it, same for a Fuji X-T1), just the vibrancy and natural look of them.

 

john

[xiaubauu2009]

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.

 

 

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

There is some difference with the 16 and 14 bit files and color. Comparing credo 80 to credo 50. I very much prefer the files from my credo 80.

[kparseg]

With all respect, you guys know which files are coming from which camera before you start comparing them. It's the same as when some people say they prefer colors from S006 vs. S007. If we do a blinded comparison test, paired images, side by side, then it'll be a more objective comparison. I think this is especially important for people who are about to enter MF world and want to justify more expensive gear. 

 

BTW, Neil has promised to show some paired images with Hassy lenses on S007 vs. H6D. Will wait till he comes back from his trip

There is some difference with the 16 and 14 bit files and color. Comparing credo 80 to credo 50. I very much prefer the files from my credo 80.

[adan]

I won't argue with the basic equation already given for MF vs. 35mm. A bigger sensor allows one to have either: more pixels of the same size and performance (more resolution) - OR the same number of larger pixels and the same resolution with better performance (bit depth, tonality, DR, ISO).

 

Additionally, the longer focal lengths needed to get the same field of view and "perspective" (e.g. 150mm on a Hasselblad or 95mm on an "S" vs. 75mm on a 35mm) also makes for a different look.

 

However, the difference is much larger between MF and 35mm on film. And some of the "mythology" about MF dates to those differences, which are minimized in digital for two reasons.

 

1) Digital "MF" is just not that much larger than 35mm. MF on film includes image formats up to 56mm x 84mm (6x9 - or even larger, in panoramic formats) - that is twice the area of the largest digital so-called "MF" sensor (54mm x 41mm)  and about four times the area of a 35mm piece of film or silicon. The "S" sensor (45mm x 30mm) is pitifully small compared to any true medium-format film format. The smallest film MF format is 645 - 56 x 41.5mm - in area that is 1350mm²  vs. 2324 mm², or almost twice the area as the S sensor. Compared to 6x9 MF film, the S sensor has 28% the area.

 

2) Film had a "fixed" sensor architecture for a given ISO - TMax 400 is TMax 400 in either format, with the same amount of grain/noise per mm². So the main reason for shooting MF (or larger formats) was eliminating the film grain by having twice or four times the number of mm² (bigger negative relative to grain size). Grain in 35mm is golfballs, compared to pin-pricks in MF. Of course, one could shoot ISO 20 film in 35mm that almost caught up to MF ISO 400 grain in a final print - on occasion.

 

Digital does "grainless/noiseless" (at least at lower ISOs) in any format, so 35mm-format digital is already halfway to equalling "grainless/noiseless" MF digital.

 

In other words, on film there is a huge difference between MF and 35mm - on digital, the difference is often much smaller (but not non-existent).

 

I personally won't bother with "MF digital" until I can get a 56x56mm sensor that will make full (uncropped) use of my beautiful-but-expensive Hasselblad/Zeiss 38mm Superwide lens. I'm not holding my breath.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

1) Digital "MF" is just not that much larger than 35mm. MF on film includes image formats up to 56mm x 84mm (6x9 - or even larger, in panoramic formats) - that is twice the area of the largest digital so-called "MF" sensor (54mm x 41mm)  and about four times the area of a 35mm piece of film or silicon. The "S" sensor (45mm x 30mm) is pitifully small compared to any true medium-format film format. The smallest film MF format is 645 - 56 x 41.5mm - in area that is 1350mm²  vs. 2324 mm², or almost twice the area as the S sensor. Compared to 6x9 MF film, the S sensor has 28% the area.

 

....snip....

 

 

I personally won't bother with "MF digital" until I can get a 56x56mm sensor that will make full (uncropped) use of my beautiful-but-expensive Hasselblad/Zeiss 38mm Superwide lens. I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

How about 9x11....   http://www.largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/

 

Jeff

[Paul J]

I won't argue with the basic equation already given for MF vs. 35mm. A bigger sensor allows one to have either: more pixels of the same size and performance (more resolution) - OR the same number of larger pixels and the same resolution with better performance (bit depth, tonality, DR, ISO).

 

Additionally, the longer focal lengths needed to get the same field of view and "perspective" (e.g. 150mm on a Hasselblad or 95mm on an "S" vs. 75mm on a 35mm) also makes for a different look.

 

However, the difference is much larger between MF and 35mm on film. And some of the "mythology" about MF dates to those differences, which are minimized in digital for two reasons.

 

1) Digital "MF" is just not that much larger than 35mm. MF on film includes image formats up to 56mm x 84mm (6x9 - or even larger, in panoramic formats) - that is twice the area of the largest digital so-called "MF" sensor (54mm x 41mm)  and about four times the area of a 35mm piece of film or silicon. The "S" sensor (45mm x 30mm) is pitifully small compared to any true medium-format film format. The smallest film MF format is 645 - 56 x 41.5mm - in area that is 1350mm²  vs. 2324 mm², or almost twice the area as the S sensor. Compared to 6x9 MF film, the S sensor has 28% the area.

 

2) Film had a "fixed" sensor architecture for a given ISO - TMax 400 is TMax 400 in either format, with the same amount of grain/noise per mm². So the main reason for shooting MF (or larger formats) was eliminating the film grain by having twice or four times the number of mm² (bigger negative relative to grain size). Grain in 35mm is golfballs, compared to pin-pricks in MF. Of course, one could shoot ISO 20 film in 35mm that almost caught up to MF ISO 400 grain in a final print - on occasion.

 

Digital does "grainless/noiseless" (at least at lower ISOs) in any format, so 35mm-format digital is already halfway to equalling "grainless/noiseless" MF digital.

 

In other words, on film there is a huge difference between MF and 35mm - on digital, the difference is often much smaller (but not non-existent).

 

I personally won't bother with "MF digital" until I can get a 56x56mm sensor that will make full (uncropped) use of my beautiful-but-expensive Hasselblad/Zeiss 38mm Superwide lens. I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

The difference between MFD and 35mm is far greater than what the numbers you are toting suggest. It's night and day difference. You are basing your thoughts purely on film day criteria and it doesn't translate with digital. It's a different game and It's not just about surface area.

 

Just shoot film on your 6x6 and enjoy it. The V system was my favourite and I wish they continued to upgrade the system. The lenses are some of the nicest you can find but they don't work so well on digital, they would need an updated design and same for the bodies. I found 40-50MP to be their limit. Lens and camera tolerances are just too loose and focussing it accurately is such a chore that it becomes a distraction. Even the ground glass becomes difficult to look at because of the pattern etched into it makes it difficult to see proper focus. And even when you think you have proper focus you just don't. I had never really noticed that ground glass pattern in film days! I had no need to see it. But with high res digital you become so much more aware of missed focus and so concentrated on focussing that you see it and it makes it more difficult it has a limit of what it's capable of resolving. A 40MP 6x6 is unlikely. and I don't think you'll see a 6x6 back unless they make an EVF to go with it which makes it more doubtful. I think that if we do see a bigger sensor then 645 in our life time it will likely be somewhere in between 645 and 67.

 

The H system is a much better platform than the V for high res digital. I agree that 6x7 and 6x9 film has a nice look, and is unique but 645 digital surpasses it in most measurable ways.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Paul J

[Guest]

The difference between MFD and 35mm is far greater than what the numbers you are toting suggest. It's night and day difference. You are basing your thoughts purely on film day criteria and it doesn't translate with digital. It's a different game and It's not just about surface area.

 

Just shoot film on your 6x6 and enjoy it. The V system was my favourite and I wish they continued to upgrade the system. The lenses are some of the nicest you can find but they don't work so well on digital, they would need an updated design and same for the bodies. I found 40-50MP to be their limit. Lens and camera tolerances are just too loose and focussing it accurately is such a chore that it becomes a distraction. Even the ground glass becomes difficult to look at because of the pattern etched into it makes it difficult to see proper focus. And even when you think you have proper focus you just don't. I had never really noticed that ground glass pattern in film days! I had no need to see it. But with high res digital you become so much more aware of missed focus and so concentrated on focussing that you see it and it makes it more difficult it has a limit of what it's capable of resolving. A 40MP 6x6 is unlikely. and I don't think you'll see a 6x6 back unless they make an EVF to go with it which makes it more doubtful. I think that if we do see a bigger sensor then 645 in our life time it will likely be somewhere in between 645 and 67.

 

The H system is a much better platform than the V for high res digital. I agree that 6x7 and 6x9 film has a nice look, and is unique but 645 digital surpasses it in most measurable ways.

Well ritten Paul. I wish I could wrigt like that. When I first bought my Leica S system the M went to the dry box along with all my Nikon gear. I have since bought an H6D109c ( that you helped me with ) and now my S097 is also in the dry box......... it’s likw day and night when looking at the S files compared to the 100 megabytes files. Hell everyone that doesn’t own a H6D tells me I’m crazy taking it on safari......... I can’t wait to prove them wrong.

Pictures to follow

 

Neil

[Paul J]

Well ritten Paul. I wish I could wrigt like that. When I first bought my Leica S system the M went to the dry box along with all my Nikon gear. I have since bought an H6D109c ( that you helped me with ) and now my S097 is also in the dry box......... it’s likw day and night when looking at the S files compared to the 100 megabytes files. Hell everyone that doesn’t own a H6D tells me I’m crazy taking it on safari......... I can’t wait to prove them wrong.

Pictures to follow

 

Neil

 

 

Hey Neil 

 

The S is a really nice camera with some stunning rendering lenses and it is much better than 35mm. But the Hasselblad and Phase One cameras do knock it out of the park again though in some ways.

 

You're not crazy taking the H on Safari. Check out the work of Nick Brandt, probably some of the most memorable Safari work - it's all Pentax 6x7 film. There is a Nat Geo photographer, David Chancellor, shooting Africa on 6x7 Film too.

 

While you're at it, one of the best photographers and artists ever is Peter Beard. His books are probably some of the most interesting you can buy. That is how an artist sees Africa. His Art Edition book goes for thousands now, but if you can see it it will blow your mind.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Paul J

[pgk]

I don't understand conceptually why medium format should have better image quality than 35mm.

It doesn't. I some circumstances MF is better suited to the subject matter its being used for, such as landscapes and advertising IF that is, it is used appropriately with great control over the lighting or appropriate filtration. But in many circumstances MF is simply not better suited and 35mm is a more appropriate format.In days gone by (film) the vastly greater area used with the same emulsion and good lenses gave MF a clear advantage. With digital it can have an advantage but in general this is far less obvious than with film.

[Paul J]

It doesn't. I some circumstances MF is better suited to the subject matter its being used for, such as landscapes and advertising IF that is, it is used appropriately with great control over the lighting or appropriate filtration. But in many circumstances MF is simply not better suited and 35mm is a more appropriate format.In days gone by (film) the vastly greater area used with the same emulsion and good lenses gave MF a clear advantage. With digital it can have an advantage but in general this is far less obvious than with film.

 

 

You are talking about suitability and I somewhat agree.

 

But in terms of raw image quality, medium format digital, or film, trounces 35mm. The only thing 35mm had in it's favour was high iso but since CMOS sensors came into play that changed.

[pgk]

You are talking about suitability and I somewhat agree.

 

But in terms of raw image quality, medium format digital, or film, trounces 35mm. The only thing 35mm had in it's favour was high iso but since CMOS sensors came into play that changed.

 

The ting is that there are so many more options available for 35mm (equiv.) and image 'quality' is generally more than good enough for most of them so MF whilst it might offer better 'quality' does so with compromises such as lens availability/suitability, lack of macro products, lack of fast lenses, and more. Horses for courses MF has its place but it shines in these and not really so many others. MF has always had its adherent but the compromises made when utilising it often negates its virtues. FWIW I used to use 'blads, and superb Contax 645 and others and I've worked on formats up to 5"x4" but 35mm has always delivered more in terms of usability and does so today. The 'quality' issue has blurred even more with digital as the 35mm format delivers more than enough for most users.

 

Absolute image 'quality' is only relevant when its absolutely relevant and for most uses its somewhat academic. I do know people who use MF backs and produce outstanding material - they tend to be specialists though.

[Paul J]

The ting is that there are so many more options available for 35mm (equiv.) and image 'quality' is generally more than good enough for most of them so MF whilst it might offer better 'quality' does so with compromises such as lens availability/suitability, lack of macro products, lack of fast lenses, and more. Horses for courses MF has its place but it shines in these and not really so many others. MF has always had its adherent but the compromises made when utilising it often negates its virtues. FWIW I used to use 'blads, and superb Contax 645 and others and I've worked on formats up to 5"x4" but 35mm has always delivered more in terms of usability and does so today. The 'quality' issue has blurred even more with digital as the 35mm format delivers more than enough for most users.

 

Absolute image 'quality' is only relevant when its absolutely relevant and for most uses its somewhat academic. I do know people who use MF backs and produce outstanding material - they tend to be specialists though.

 

 

Yeah, there's no argument that Medium Format can be more limiting for some things. I have everything I need and want in my 35mm kit and pretty much everything anyone could ever need exists in some shape or form. But there are a few things I want that just don't exist in a medium format kit - but it seems technology is catching up with the limits of Medium Format and closing the gap there so i expect that will change in time.

 

But with regards to IQ differences, for some it matters and for others it doesn't. Wether that means anything to anyone is up to the individual. For me, the differences in IQ are significant and not something I could or would want to go without. But with that said, a 35mm camera is not something I could or want to go without either.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Paul J

[Guest]

Hey Neil 

 

The S is a really nice camera with some stunning rendering lenses and it is much better than 35mm. But the Hasselblad and Phase One cameras do knock it out of the park again though in some ways.

 

You're not crazy taking the H on Safari. Check out the work of Nick Brandt, probably some of the most memorable Safari work - it's all Pentax 6x7 film. There is a Nat Geo photographer, David Chancellor, shooting Africa on 6x7 Film too.

 

While you're at it, one of the best photographers and artists ever is Peter Beard. His books are probably some of the most interesting you can buy. That is how an artist sees Africa. His Art Edition book goes for thousands now, but if you can see it it will blow your mind.

 

Mate I looked at that Nick Brandt website.............amazing amazing 

I will be trying my best to capture stunning MF images like that in a few months time :) 

 

Neil

[Martin B]

Unfortunately medium -format is not well defined - especially now with digital "medium format" sensors. With film, different formats existed which are considered medium format, for example : 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5 (all in metric cm units - which is confusing for beginners since large format expresses the size in inches instead, for example 4x5" or 8x10"). IMO this traditional medium format has not much in common to what is marked and sold now as digital "medium format" which is just a sensor a bit larger than full frame format. In parallel there are also digital backs for traditional medium format cameras with much larger sensors - but they tend to be very expensive, one of the latest ones costs about $30k. 

 

The traditional medium format was originally developed as compromise between large and small film formats. It provides the better resolution than 35 mm film but also avoids issues with grain formation seen often with small format film. The resolution is not as high as with large format film, but cameras are smaller and more compact in medium format. 

 

This said, I shoot FF (full frame) with digital but have no intention to pay $$$$ for a bit larger sensor size with digital medium format. I still use traditional 6x7 medium format film when I see fit - the outcome is tremendous, and it is a lot of fun to use. Even better - you get a whole set of camera and lens(es) for less than $1K. 

 

Mamiya RZ67 Pro, Mamiya 110/2.8 Z lens, expired Kodak Pan-X 125 B&W film, developed in D-76 (1:1). Scanned with Epson V850.

 

Mamiya RZ67 Pro, Mamiya 110/2.8 Z lens,Fuji Velvia 100F slide film, developed with E-6 process. Scanned with Epson V850.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Martin B

[adan]

How about 9x11....   http://www.largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/

 

Jeff

 

Interesting to see someone pushing the envelope - but $106,000? (Not out of line - I always assumed a true 6x6 sensor would top $50K. Silicon master wafers are not cheap, and if you only get 1-4 sensors per wafer, and have to discard flawed ones....)

 

And there are scanning backs (the original original Leica S of the 1990s, e.g.) - but they take several seconds per exposure. Studio, or landscapes on a calm day.

 

Sensor size aside, I am sure that the MF digital cameras are more carefully engineered with more attention paid to every detail, especially as to the electronics and image processing and other considerations (such as including the sensor cover glass/filters as an "element" in the optical calculations for the dedicated lenses, bit-depth, etc). They are as perfect as technology allows, whereas 24 x 36 sensors/cameras are as perfect as a rational price allows.

Edited May 1, 2018 by adan

[kparseg]

The difference between MFD and 35mm is far greater than what the numbers you are toting suggest. It's night and day difference. You are basing your thoughts purely on film day criteria and it doesn't translate with digital. It's a different game and It's not just about surface area.

 Paul, any chance you can show paired images to see that dramatic difference? Not arguing with you, but I sincerely would like to see how different they are in IQ. 

[pgk]

And there are scanning backs (the original original Leica S of the 1990s, e.g.) - but they take several seconds per exposure. Studio, or landscapes on a calm day.

 

 

People seem happy to shoot stitched panoramas which takes some time to shoot. Pity the scanning backs didn't survive.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[djmay]

Paul, any chance you can show paired images to see that dramatic difference? Not arguing with you, but I sincerely would like to see how different they are in IQ.

It is unlikely you will see a difference on a screen. I have done prints of similar field of view with 4x5 film, S 006, M-P 240 and Monochrom 246. The difference is visible. If you are near Zurich, you can have a look.

 

Jesse