Jump to content

Does MF still have advantage over FF at all?


Einst_Stein

Recommended Posts

  • Einst_Stein changed the title to Does MF still have advantage over FF at all?
15 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

While MP  reached far beyond practical, and also on dynamic range, ISO, what exact advantage you are finding on MF over FF?

On the down side, the AF performance of MF is still not catch8ng up FF yet, nor the portability.

whats beyond practical for you, maybe still be practical for others, especially people who print big

Link to post
Share on other sites

As ever it probably depeds what you are doing, why and for whom. I do know medium format shooters who use digital backs on specialist cameras and produce stunning imagery, but they are few and far between. The larger than full frame more conventional systems are probably struggling to produce any imagery significantly 'better' than that from full frame as in order to do so their sensor size would need to be much larger than it currently is. In essence we have lost the equivalent of large format photography (5" x 4" and even 1/4 plate) which is a pity in many ways because the advantages such cameras had were due to their physical size and the mechanics this enabled. But as far as I can see, digital medium format cameras do not have dramatically larger sensors than full frame so the results will not be dramatically better most of the time (with exceptions of course😉).

I use to shoot 35mm and 645 and whilst the 645 was certainly 'better', images were rarely used in ways which really illustrated even this format shift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My S3 is better in image quality, color, size and DOF than the m10r. And same with the S2 over the M9

My Phase One IQ4 is better than the S3 on all of these points. Apart from allowing things such as dual exposure or frame averaging. 

70% of what I do is ff. 25 with the S, 5 with the Phase. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, frame-it said:

whats beyond practical for you, maybe still be practical for others, especially people who print big

How big is big?

My Epson printer needs 6600 x 4400 pixels for a DIN A3+ print. 

About MF versus FF. The DOF (depth of focus) differs of course, because one uses lenses with other focal lengths.

Edited by jankap
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can commit the heresy of including Non Leica Gear...

I've shot with FF cameras from Nikon, Leica, Canon and Sony. I have also had two copies of the Hasselblad X1D, and one copy of the Fuji GFX 50S, both of which are (to avoid a semantics fight) "larger than full frame"

My observations are just that: observations, with nothing to back them up.

To me, when examined closely, the files from the Hasselblad are absolutely a cut above any FF camera I've used, in terms of colour, richness, detail, and so on. I have to say that again though: when examined closely. I'd say that the Monochrom 246 (at least my copy, which I paired with a 50mm Zeiss Planar) actually matched it in terms of pixel-level quality, but obviously colour doesn't come into the comparison.

However, I didn't get that impression from the Fuji, which I would put on a level with the best FF cameras I've used.

This could be down to a hundred and one factors: the lens I used for each, the way I processed them, etc. 

Ming Thein did an interesting comparison between the Leica S2 and Nikon D800E (probably still on his website, which is still up last I looked) and he concluded that the Leica did have a slight edge in terms of overall quality (at low ISO), but he attributed a lot of that to the lenses, about which he said some very positive things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Me Leica! said:

I have to say that again though: when examined closely.

My point entirely, hence my 'significantly better' comment. Bottom line is that in purely esoteric terms then any larger format will probably be better (although lenses are more limited) but I do wonder just how many users actually make practical use of any 'quality' improvements they can achieve?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should be more specific, 

I was comparing different friends’s prints  from 61MP FF (36x24) and 100MP MF(44x33),  about 22”x33” to 33”x44” print size. Not apple to apple, since they are different subjects, but the larger does not show more impressive. What stands out is the subject and the handling, no hint about the sensor format. 

Is this a fair observation, practically?

Edited by Einst_Stein
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the film world, MF had a smoother transition of tones.  Not because the film was different, but because the same sized grain was enlarged less for the same image.  A 6x6 120 negative is still significantly larger than a 35mm negative. If you are not sure what this means, look at 1930’s 35mm images compared to ansel adams 1930’s 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.  His images looked like they were shot currently.  The smaller enlargement showed less ‘pixel peeping’ of the negative.  I just printed some 10x10 images from 120 and framed them and they almost look like digital images.

So, what do we get from MF digital?  It is still the same concept.  One of two things happens, the larger sensor has the same pixel size, so there are more pixels, and just like film (same grain size) the image is enlarged less, so noise, edge of lens abberations, etc., are all less visible.  Or, the image is cropped and still equivalent to 35mm.  Or two, the sensor has larger pixels, so the same pixel count, but has more variations in light capture and nuances of the digital image, still providing a better overall image.

This is only true given the same print size for both system.

If the goal is to post in instagram, then using a Q1 is just as good as an S3.  I think the differences are in prints and books, not monitors - for the current FF / MF (i.e, M11 - S3).

Just my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, davidmknoble said:

In the film world, MF had a smoother transition of tones.  Not because the film was different, but because the same sized grain was enlarged less for the same image.  A 6x6 120 negative is still significantly larger than a 35mm negative. If you are not sure what this means, look at 1930’s 35mm images compared to ansel adams 1930’s 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.  His images looked like they were shot currently.  The smaller enlargement showed less ‘pixel peeping’ of the negative.  I just printed some 10x10 images from 120 and framed them and they almost look like digital images.

So, what do we get from MF digital?  It is still the same concept.  One of two things happens, the larger sensor has the same pixel size, so there are more pixels, and just like film (same grain size) the image is enlarged less, so noise, edge of lens abberations, etc., are all less visible.  Or, the image is cropped and still equivalent to 35mm.  Or two, the sensor has larger pixels, so the same pixel count, but has more variations in light capture and nuances of the digital image, still providing a better overall image.

This is only true given the same print size for both system.

If the goal is to post in instagram, then using a Q1 is just as good as an S3.  I think the differences are in prints and books, not monitors - for the current FF / MF (i.e, M11 - S3).

Just my opinion.

I am in favor of larger format back in the film era. I am still in favor of larger sensor size up to now. What you said is perfect correct, theoretically.

Theoretical facts stand only up to some extent. Just like the high resolution, high dynamic range, high ISO sensitivity, etc,  Once reach the practical diminishing return, it no longer matters. 

The question is, is now the time for MF?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the print sizes you mention, you are being limited by the printer, not the resolution. So you are not likely to see a difference in resolution because they are output more or less the same. If you print huge, you might see a real difference. The biggest difference, which holds true for film as well as digital, is usually the depth of field differences. The fact that a normal lens is longer for a larger format, and inherently has less depth of field. You can cheat by using a lens at a wider aperture on 35mm, but it does not always work perfectly. I would say the other thing hurting medium format in the digital world is that typically the most advanced sensors in 35mm are ahead of the most advanced sensors in medium format. This is not always the case, but it is at times. In the case of the S2 and M9, the S2 was way ahead because it was the same sensor at double the size, and they had learned some tricks from the M9 that they could bake into the S2 design.

The other thing that tends to hold is that larger formats are in a way more forgiving on both sensors and lenses, in that they require less enlargement. To take it to an extreme, a 10 times enlargement from a 35mm sensor is 9.5x14". A ten times enlargement from an 8x10" negative is 80x100 inches. I remember from working in the darkroom in the past that my teacher told me that one of the reasons some people like large format is that it meant less spotting of negatives. It is not because they have less dust (they usually have more), it is just that you are enlarging so much less so the dust is much proportionally smaller on the print than it would be on 35mm or medium format. The same applies to digital, but it is more in the sense that you are not really pushing as hard. It is easier on the lenses and easier on the sensor, so you wind up with fewer artifacts, smoother tonality, and less noticeable lens aberrations.

All that said, 35mm is not so incredible that you really don't start to see any of these avantages until the reproduction ratios get really big. So from a practical standpoint, yes, 35mm can stand in for MF in most cases at this point. But all else being equal, the larger the sensor the better the quality (up until DOF becomes impractical...35mm and smaller are way better for macro, for example).

Edited by Stuart Richardson
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Me Leica! said:

 

To me, when examined closely, the files from the Hasselblad are absolutely a cut above any FF camera I've used, in terms of colour, richness, detail, and so on. I have to say that again though: when examined closely. I'd say that the Monochrom 246 (at least my copy, which I paired with a 50mm Zeiss Planar) actually matched it in terms of pixel-level quality, but obviously colour doesn't come into the comparison.

However, I didn't get that impression from the Fuji, which I would put on a level with the best FF cameras I've used.

This could be down to a hundred and one factors: the lens I used for each, the way I processed them, etc. 

 

I have the GFX100S, and I quite often struggle to get a rendering that I really want. I don’t know if it’s the amount of contrast baked into the Raws, or the color profiles, or the inherent rendering of the sensor and/or lenses, or quite what’s going on. The resolution is clearly there, but a feeling of “depth” when looking at the prints sometimes isn’t, no matter what I seem to do.

In comparison, I can play with M240 files, or SL2S files in particular, and the rendering lands so readily where I want it, and those  prints just seem to sing.

I’ve not really tried the Hasselblad digitals, maybe the rendering of their files are more akin to what I see with the Leica ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

At the print sizes you mention, you are being limited by the printer, not the resolution. So you are not likely to see a difference in resolution because they are output more or less the same. If you print huge, you might see a real difference. The biggest difference, which holds true for film as well as digital, is usually the depth of field differences. The fact that a normal lens is longer for a larger format, and inherently has less depth of field. You can cheat by using a lens at a wider aperture on 35mm, but it does not always work perfectly. I would say the other thing hurting medium format in the digital world is that typically the most advanced sensors in 35mm are ahead of the most advanced sensors in medium format. This is not always the case, but it is at times. In the case of the S2 and M9, the S2 was way ahead because it was the same sensor at double the size, and they had learned some tricks from the M9 that they could bake into the S2 design.

The other thing that tends to hold is that larger formats are in a way more forgiving on both sensors and lenses, in that they require less enlargement. To take it to an extreme, a 10 times enlargement from a 35mm sensor is 9.5x14". A ten times enlargement from an 8x10" negative is 80x100 inches. I remember from working in the darkroom in the past that my teacher told me that one of the reasons some people like large format is that it meant less spotting of negatives. It is not because they have less dust (they usually have more), it is just that you are enlarging so much less so the dust is much proportionally smaller on the print than it would be on 35mm or medium format. The same applies to digital, but it is more in the sense that you are not really pushing as hard. It is easier on the lenses and easier on the sensor, so you wind up with fewer artifacts, smoother tonality, and less noticeable lens aberrations.

All that said, 35mm is not so incredible that you really don't start to see any of these avantages until the reproduction ratios get really big. So from a practical standpoint, yes, 35mm can stand in for MF in most cases at this point. But all else being equal, the larger the sensor the better the quality (up until DOF becomes impractical...35mm and smaller are way better for macro, for example).

I actually don’t see the larger print size matters, Proper viewing distance is required to appreciate a whole picture, unlike pixel peaking, 

Practically the appreciable pixel distance is limited by our vision resolution. Once reached, larger print or higher resolution has diminishing benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I actually don’t see the larger print size matters, Proper viewing distance is required to appreciate a whole picture, unlike pixel peaking, 

Practically the appreciable pixel distance is limited by our vision resolution. Once reached, larger print or higher resolution has diminishing benefit.

Sometimes, yes, but I could equally say for some art that’s printed even mural size to c 90”, that the macro-micro visual can be very important, eg, Crewdson in particular, and Epstein for some of his works too, where I think the audience often dart close into the fine detail, because it’s those smallest of details (which need to be clearly resolved) that can be an important element of understanding the meaning of the image.

As an aside, and a nod to Stuart’s point about the 8x10, Epstein’s prints at 70x90” are things of beauty in themselves, an extraordinary level of detail and “atmosphere” combined, swallowing up me as the viewer who almost forgot the gallery was there.

Edited by Jon Warwick
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

While MP  reached far beyond practical, and also on dynamic range, ISO, what exact advantage you are finding on MF over FF?

On the down side, the AF performance of MF is still not catch8ng up FF yet, nor the portability.

I can't comment on Leica dMF (obsolete by now), perhaps your observations are true for S from the recent past. 

 

I know one long time pro photog, cameraman who has switched from FF to dMF due to shift to huge and highest quality prints. Thousands dollars per print and more. 

It was not only about pixel count, but noticeable dynamic range difference. Last time I was with him in his studio, he was using FujiFilm dMF.

Size/weight is not much different from FF DSLRs he switched from. FujiFilm dMF is just as same as Leica SL2.

 

Where are plenty of large size examples from FujiFilm dMF on Flickr. The difference from FF is obvious (to me), but only on low ISO.

Once it is something like 6400 all quality is gone. FujiFilm dMF seems to be prone for moiré also.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

I actually don’t see the larger print size matters, Proper viewing distance is required to appreciate a whole picture, unlike pixel peaking, 

Practically the appreciable pixel distance is limited by our vision resolution. Once reached, larger print or higher resolution has diminishing benefit.

Where are some who are paying thousands even more than ten thousands for ultra large prints with demand to be close and see no quality degradation.

I have seen those prints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also depends on what you have.  In this discussion we talk about FF and MF as if you have no system and want to invest in one.  That is a very different question than, what do you have already?

The M11 is the closest I’ve seen yet from an M camera to an S. I think it is also well ahead of the SL system because the dynamic range is well ahead of the SL2 and the sensor density well ahead of the SL2S.  

Yet, the M11 is not inexpensive new, so if you have an older digital M, then the S system produces better dynamic ranges and the files are much more malleable.  Also, if you want the MF look, you need the wider f/stops.  The Noctilux have a special look wide open, much easier to achieve with an MF.  Yet again, the cost of those lenses is rather high.  

Some talk about the cost of the S system, but the lenses in the used market have almost always been really low compared to used M lenses.  

So even while the systems are getting closer, the MF system, if you have invested in some, for some styles of photography remain relevant, IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pgk said:

My point entirely, hence my 'significantly better' comment. Bottom line is that in purely esoteric terms then any larger format will probably be better (although lenses are more limited) but I do wonder just how many users actually make practical use of any 'quality' improvements they can achieve?

It depends. You have to ask each photographer why do they use a medium format. For instance, I use it a) for size, b) for depth, c) for color. I don't think it makes much of a difference in an image shown in a screen but I can assure you that it does on a wall. I expect it is ok if I use an example (one of the images is not made with a Leica). 

The image belongs to a project I am working on now. It will go in a book, and it also will go on a show in a wall. One is taken with a Leica S2. I didn't take it with the M9P because it would not give size (images in that exhibition will be pretty large), and the M2 with 37 MP gives decent size and definition up to A1. 

I really liked the image, but it had a defect (pretty obvious: although I tried to protect the highlights the light on the right of the scene was too much), and I thought that the image was really worth it, so I went and took it again, this time with a Phase One. The sensor is larger (6x4.5) will print to 120 x 180 cm, and although the Leica lens is very good, the definition, the depth of field and the color gradation is better. Here also the dynamic range was greater (the S2 does not have much). First image is the S2, second is the larger one. Afraid that the jpgs from mobile Lightroom aren't particularly decent, but hopes it illustrates the point. 

I also use MF to photograph artwork and editorial portraits when the client wants a large size. Other photographers will have their own uses, I reckon.

 

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!

Edited by irenedp
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I bought the S2 more than a decade ago, it blew the M9 away. I was selling huge enlargements and 10 mp couldn’t compete.

S lenses were better than M lenses. Resolution was basically four times as much as an M9. And you got AF, more dynamic range and weather sealing with the S.

Now an SL2 gives you weather sealing, better AF, IBIS, and resolution and lenses close to an S3. I think the S still wins on DR? An SL3 may be better than an S3.

I have an M11, SL2, and an S 007. I am no longer shooting the S. But I still love the optical viewfinder of the S. I keep the S because it’s trade-in value is depressing.

Starting from scratch today, I would skip the S, but one could assemble a very nice S kit used for less than an SL2 kit new. 
I’m curious why Leica would bother with an S4 mirrorless unless they go with a larger sensor.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...