Medium Format Look

[Jan1985]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the German Section of the Leica Forum is a thread and discussion about the Medium Format Look.

So the question to the international Leica S Users. What is your opinion? Does the Leica S produce an own look with a unique signature? is there a big advantage in image quality to camera with full format sensors? Would be interesting to get some information.

[mgrayson3]

My 2p: Each system has its own look. The more I shoot, the more I want MY look and not the camera and RAW processor's look. The Leica S has a, to me, extremely appealing OOC file. This is a combination of lens design and choice of tradeoffs in sensor and processing. If that has any downside, it's that I can get stuck admiring Leica's image and forget to look for my own.

At this point, all the systems have superb technical output. As long as the files are pliable enough, I'm satisfied. 

As to the original question, I think the looks that manufacturers choose for different sensor sizes are different. Yes, there are real physical differences, but I believe that they are overwhelmed by different choices of lens design and RAW profiles. I do tend to use the largest sensor I can carry (hence no Phase backs or 4x5 film), but I can't say it's just because of the size.

Edited February 12, 2019 by mgrayson3

[Advertisement]

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

[helged]

I find it interesting that friends and others - without any in-depth experience with photography - tend to stop with the prints from Leica S (compared with those from Leica M, SL or Nikon). It could be that this is entierly by chance, that I take different types of photos with the S-system compared to other systems, but it is interesting nevertheless. 

Personally, I (generally) prefer the files from the S over the other systems I have experience with. Obviously given good light conditions, particularly since the S006 files quickly degrades at  ISOs over 400. 

I also prefer the look from the S despite the truly outstanding SL primes. Could it be bit depth difference between the two systems? Colour calibration? The very, very fine, albeit the not the optically perfect S-lenses? Tuning/calibration of the sensor? I have no idea - but something there is - methinks... And I would assume that the same holds for other - somewhat comparable systems - X1D and GFX included.

[Agent M10]

8 hours ago, helged said:

I also prefer the look from the S despite the truly outstanding SL primes. Could it be bit depth difference between the two systems? Colour calibration? The very, very fine, albeit the not the optically perfect S-lenses? Tuning/calibration of the sensor? I have no idea - but something there is - methinks... And I would assume that the same holds for other - somewhat comparable systems - X1D and GFX included.

The S2 was the first camera, if I remember right, that was created from the ground up for digital. Leica was thinking outside the box when it was introduced, and the lenses were best-in-class at introduction. I haven't checked out the other MF systems because I never have felt the need to. The S lenses provide a look that you don't see with the other systems, something more organic, something more than about the number of pixels. The rendering is gorgeous. The hard thing is parting with the system if it doesn't fit in your wheelhouse. 

[Photon42]

I think my S2 produces a different look to the M10, for instance. There are several factors at play here, of course. Medium Format look is often synonymous with all of some of the following: shallow depth of field, high focus acuity, smooth tonal transitions and smooth transition between sharp and blurred areas of the image. If you are able to create this with a different format,  I would think the only difference then is the lenses (micro contrast, contrast, ...) and the sensor idiosyncrasies, just like with differences between systems of the same format. In the end, my S2 does not have an outrageously larger sensor than, say, a d810, with approximately the same pixel count. If have shots with the d810, which do tick quite some boxes of the aspects listed above.

[Stuart Richardson]

The S system, built from the ground up with few compromises, has a synergy that one does not encounter in most cameras. This is one of the reasons that it outperforms or matches cameras that are of similar or slightly higher resolution. Within reasonable limits, the lens performance is more important than the sensor performance, at least when you have decent light. So step one is get the lenses right, which is something Leica has done better than most other manufacturers because they are not compromising on budget and also because they think of lenses more as a system than as single units. This is another advantage that seems to separate Leica...rather than seeing each lens as a unique object, it seems as though Leica tries harder to achieve uniformity of color, look and performance across their lens range. Look at Sony, for example. They have some good lenses, but their lens range is schizophrenic....they have G masters, Zeiss branded Sony lenses, Zeiss lenses by Zeiss, cheap Sony lenses and so on. They all have a different feel and different priorities. The S lenses were designed from the ground up for the S system and only the S system. Notice how good the Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X series lenses are? They have the same benefit. 

The next big advantage is that, with all else being equal, a larger sensor stresses the lenses and technology less. The S2 and S006 sensor is basically a doubled M9 CCD, which is an enlarged M8 CCD. It was older technology, but also the pinnacle of that older technology. Leica and Kodak had years of experience getting the best out of the sensor and tuning the response. When it comes to resolution, pushing the technology to its max will yield the best results, but image quality is much more than resolution (and I say this as someone who really does make use of the high resolution and was waiting for years for it). In comparison to 35mm cameras, the per pixel quality of the MFD cameras is generally higher and the sensors have a better signal to noise ratio, which leads to better color differentiation, lower noise and just generally better performance. Like all things, there is a balance, but I would say that it is generally good to have a modern sensor that is one step down from the bleeding edge of resolution. 

Finally, the difference in sensor or film area inherently creates a different look in certain circumstances...having for example a shallower depth of field for any given field of view. This does not show up in every image, but it does play a subtle trick, particularly for images taken somewhat close up and wider open. In portraiture for example. I still use 4x5, 8x10 and 6x7, and honestly prefer them even to the S in terms of the way they render images...I wish we could get a digital 4x5, but obviously the costs involved and lens/body challenges are totally impractical. That said, it still looks different, just like medium format, and that will always have value for some people. 

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

..I wish we could get a digital 4x5, but obviously the costs involved and lens/body challenges are totally impractical.

You should get your wish this year.  Meanwhile you’ll have to settle for the company’s 8x10 for $106k.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thephoblographer.com/2018/04/19/the-worlds-first-single-shot-8x10-digital-camera-is-yours-for-106000/amp/

http://largesense.com/products/4x5-large-format-digital-back-ls45/

Jeff

Edited February 13, 2019 by Jeff S

[BernardC]

21 hours ago, helged said:

I find it interesting that friends and others - without any in-depth experience with photography - tend to stop with the prints from Leica S (compared with those from Leica M, SL or Nikon). It could be that this is entierly by chance, that I take different types of photos with the S-system compared to other systems, but it is interesting nevertheless.

It's not just the S, although the S is a very special camera.

I noticed the same reaction as a teenager when I first tried medium format, on film. I remember showing a stack of 4x6 prints to my mother, and she would stop at the medium format ones.

In a way, the difference may be less obvious now, given that most photographs are viewed at low resolution on monitors.

[albertknappmd]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The S system, built from the ground up with few compromises, has a synergy that one does not encounter in most cameras. This is one of the reasons that it outperforms or matches cameras that are of similar or slightly higher resolution. Within reasonable limits, the lens performance is more important than the sensor performance, at least when you have decent light. So step one is get the lenses right, which is something Leica has done better than most other manufacturers because they are not compromising on budget and also because they think of lenses more as a system than as single units. This is another advantage that seems to separate Leica...rather than seeing each lens as a unique object, it seems as though Leica tries harder to achieve uniformity of color, look and performance across their lens range. Look at Sony, for example. They have some good lenses, but their lens range is schizophrenic....they have G masters, Zeiss branded Sony lenses, Zeiss lenses by Zeiss, cheap Sony lenses and so on. They all have a different feel and different priorities. The S lenses were designed from the ground up for the S system and only the S system. Notice how good the Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X series lenses are? They have the same benefit. 

The next big advantage is that, with all else being equal, a larger sensor stresses the lenses and technology less. The S2 and S006 sensor is basically a doubled M9 CCD, which is an enlarged M8 CCD. It was older technology, but also the pinnacle of that older technology. Leica and Kodak had years of experience getting the best out of the sensor and tuning the response. When it comes to resolution, pushing the technology to its max will yield the best results, but image quality is much more than resolution (and I say this as someone who really does make use of the high resolution and was waiting for years for it). In comparison to 35mm cameras, the per pixel quality of the MFD cameras is generally higher and the sensors have a better signal to noise ratio, which leads to better color differentiation, lower noise and just generally better performance. Like all things, there is a balance, but I would say that it is generally good to have a modern sensor that is one step down from the bleeding edge of resolution. 

Finally, the difference in sensor or film area inherently creates a different look in certain circumstances...having for example a shallower depth of field for any given field of view. This does not show up in every image, but it does play a subtle trick, particularly for images taken somewhat close up and wider open. In portraiture for example. I still use 4x5, 8x10 and 6x7, and honestly prefer them even to the S in terms of the way they render images...I wish we could get a digital 4x5, but obviously the costs involved and lens/body challenges are totally impractical. That said, it still looks different, just like medium format, and that will always have value for some people. 

I CONCUR...

The 007 is even more impressive as it expands the usable ISO to 3200 while remaining true to the S "look"...

Can't wait for the S3 in this regard..

Albert 😥

[Stuart Richardson]

18 hours ago, Jeff S said:

You should get your wish this year.  Meanwhile you’ll have to settle for the company’s 8x10 for $106k.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thephoblographer.com/2018/04/19/the-worlds-first-single-shot-8x10-digital-camera-is-yours-for-106000/amp/

http://largesense.com/products/4x5-large-format-digital-back-ls45/

Jeff

Of course, let me find my wallet...

Seriously though, I do not get what they are doing. While I appreciate that they are trying to make a digital large format camera, I do not understand why they made it so incredibly low in resolution....12mp for 106,000 dollars...I would imagine it would be a better idea to spend 6000 dollars on a really nice 4x5 setup and film, and pay 100,000 dollars to someone to process the film for you. It just so happens that I have a lab, and would be delighted to contract with anyone regarding this service. I will even deliver the film to you in person wherever you live in the world...

[mgrayson3]

IIRC, the low resolution 8x10 sensor was made for a film photographer who was spending too much on polaroids. He did the math and this sensor saved him money. It was never meant for a final image. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Even at current prices that is over 5200 8x10 polaroids to break even. You would have to be running quite the studio to need that many polaroids...either that or be pretty cavalier about your shots, which is not a characteristic that I really associate with many 8x10 photographers! Still, these things are rarely only about the money...

[geetee1972]

This thing we call the 'medium format look' is something I've been chasing for a long time. I found it originally in MF film, which just seemed to have a much smoother transition between colours and far better dynamic range than even FF digital but was much more fussy about the nature and quality of the light being used to expose the frame. I know it sounds churlish to also say this, but the running costs were also prohibitive. I was spending about £100 a month on processing and scanning five rolls of 12.

The Leica S I have was a ridiculous bargain (brand new for effectively £7500) but still makes the argument about the cost of film sound churlish.

But, it has the super smooth tonal transition and wide dynamic range that MF has. It's stilil not quite as organic as the best exposed frames I have from my Hasselblad, but it's pretty close.