Does MF still have advantage over FF at all?

[Me Leica!]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

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?

I know what you mean. It's not something obviously tangible. The Fuji files just didn't have that (puts on beret and enters pretentious artist mode) je ne sais quoi which the Hasselblad files did have. Interestingly, the nearest thing I've got to the Hasselblad files were files from the M Monochrom 246, in terms of the sheer excellence of pixel quality. 

A few weeks ago I saw a Phase One setup for sale in a used camera store here. Way, way, way out of my budget (and complete overkill for someone like me who doesn't print), but I'd be lying if I didn't think "man, I would kill to try that out".

 

 

[frame-it]

9 hours 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, 

so funny

perhaps you haven't seen the super high-resolution billboards in far-east Asia, gorgeous from far away, and from a meter away its like seeing a full quality image on the computer screen.

don't club the whole world into just your region

the world is quite big, and different people have different requirements

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, frame-it said:

so funny

perhaps you haven't seen the super high-resolution billboards in far-east Asia, gorgeous from far away, and from a meter away its like seeing a full quality image on the computer screen.

don't club the whole world into just your region

the world is quite big, and different people have different requirements

You don't have to travel the whole world to understand the size and viewing distance, though I do travel the world often.  

[frame-it]

20 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

You don't have to travel the whole world to understand the size and viewing distance, though I do travel the world often.  

yes

my point was, look at a super resolution billboard, then you will really see the difference & there IS a difference in quality and details between FF and MF, though some people with lower budgets hype up the FF Megapixels as being equal to or better than Medium Format or even Large Format..sensor surface area DOES matter.

someone said theye getting bad/not nice results with their GFX100, well, i get gorgeous results with my GFX 50 using leica M/R and other vintage lenses.

everyone's workflow and processing is different.

Edited June 5, 2023 by frame-it

[benqui]

I think there is still an advantage of MF but I do not know whether we really see the difference on a monitor. I use the Hassi X2D a lot and I love the colors of this camera. Postproduction of the files is done in a minute and the results are beautiful.But this is of course just a matter of the personal taste. Especially the combination with Leica lenses is a lot of fun. 

[pgk]

4 hours ago, frame-it said:

..... there IS a difference in quality and details between FF and MF, though some people with lower budgets hype up the FF Megapixels as being equal to or better than Medium Format or even Large Format..sensor surface area DOES matter.

Yes, but users who genuinely need the improvements offered by MF are few and far between these days. FF is adequate for the vast, vast majority of needs. And depending on the subject matter FF can also be used to create bigger, stitched files for some uses. The title of the thread asks a question. The answer has to be that for most photographers the advantage is probably not relevant. For a few it will be. But as I have said elsewhere the 'hype' that MF is substantially better, can be cropped more, etc., etc., is for most just 'hype'. Those who need and can use MF to their advantage will probably be well aware of its advantages and utilise them.

Caveat; I still have 5x4 and 10x8 camera. They too have their advantages, but again not for much generalist photography. As ever, discussions really need to be far more situation specific. 

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, pgk said:

Yes, but users who genuinely need the improvements offered by MF are few and far between these days. FF is adequate for the vast, vast majority of needs.

Hence the smaller volume of S systems produced and the higher price.  But Leica has always been a niche in some areas…

[BernardC]

21 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

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.

Not necessarily. There's a trend in photography where artists print big and practically demand that you look at the image closely in order to appreciate the work.

That's not really a new thing. I've played the game of walking through the Louvre and guessing the decade a painting was produced, based on the size of the frame. Most of these huge canvases are hung just above floor level (the top is meters above your head, obviously), and let you walk-up to within arm's length.

 

However, I don't think that the advantage of medium format is in resolution. It's micro-contrast. You don't necessarily see more detail, but the detail that you see seems "more alive." There is a perfectly logical physical explanation for this, and it has to do with MTF.

Most of us here are familiar with magnification. MTF charts usually display three sets of lines (10, 20 and 40 cycles/mm is typical for Leica). A larger sensor and lower magnification means that your fine detail is effectively shifted-up to the next higher set of lines, which makes it much clearer.

There's a limitation to this, of course. APO-Summicron SL lenses are so good that they outperform almost all medium format lenses even if you enlarge images more. I suspect that's why Stuart prefers them to medium format. Many medium format lenses are still based on old film formulas, so they aren't as competitive as they were in the previous century. A lot of the newer MF lenses are built to a mass-market price, which also limits their performance. The S lenses are the main exception, but they are a decade older than the SL lenses. I suspect that the next generation of mirrorless medium format lenses from Leica will re-establish the hierarchy.

[irenedp]

9 hours ago, frame-it said:

yes

my point was, look at a super resolution billboard, then you will really see the difference & there IS a difference in quality and details between FF and MF, though some people with lower budgets hype up the FF Megapixels as being equal to or better than Medium Format or even Large Format..sensor surface area DOES matter.

someone said theye getting bad/not nice results with their GFX100, well, i get gorgeous results with my GFX 50 using leica M/R and other vintage lenses.

everyone's workflow and processing is different.

I changed a GFX 50s for a 100 in 2019 (sold the 100 late last year). The 50 worked beautifully, and I think part of the reason is that the lenses were more than able to capture the resolution, but I don’t think that is the case with the 100. The Leica S lenses are significantly better and hold their water  A fuji lens costs a fraction of a Leica lens and they are not as good by any means.

On the other hand the color rendering of the 100 raws is different (more “Fuji”) in temperature and saturation from the 50s. Everything can be changed  in post but it’s a nuisance. The color is just not accurate. 

 

 

[epines]

Some MF advantages over FF, in my opinion:

• The massive viewfinder is MUCH better for composition and working with subjects. It’s a night-and-day experience compared to 35mm.
• Flash sync at all speeds, up to 1/1000 with the S. This is huge in my work.
• The S lenses are the best I’ve ever used. And I also have a Hasselblad H system, a Nikon D850 system and an Alpa system. The Alpa lenses are of course also spectacular, but at apertures around f/8 and f/11. The S lenses have gorgeous clarity and sharpness wide open at f/2.5 and f/2.8. You can see it just looking through the viewfinder. It’s hard to go back to anything else.
• I find the S3 to be cleaner at high ISOs than my D850, at least up to 3200. Dynamic range is also better. Shadows remain very clean even when you raise them extensively.
• Overalll build quality of the S is top notch, beyond any 35mm camera I’ve used.
• You can really push around and beat up the files. They have incredible color, tonality and depth, even after heavy-duty post processing.
• There is a real, albeit intangible, difference with MF files. They’ve always seemed to have more depth to me, likely the result of many factors combined. I’ve been shooting professionally for 22 years, and I’ve barely shot 35mm since getting my first Hasselblad H system around 2008.

Many of these points may also apply to the Hasselblad X system, but you can’t tether to Capture One with that, which is a deal-breaker for me. I also vastly prefer the S’s optical viewfinder to an EVF. Shooting with an EVF is like having a TV screen between myself and the subject.

 

[JohnathanLovm]

I had an opportunity to test drive GFX100S for few hours. I personally think unless you shoot something need extreme high ISO, there is almost identical between 44x33 and 135 format in average ISO range. The only thing I noticed that the GFX100s’s noise looks finer and image more detailed due to 100MP size. Other than that it’s more Fuji colour science vs Leica colour science.

With the release of Q3, I’m more convinced that the Q3 is “mini Hasselblad” especially after I saw someone compare with X2D 38V lens.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cs4mJnZI6Cl/?igshid=MmJiY2I4NDBkZg==

[John McMaster]

Not too sure what you can tell from an Instagram photo 😉

john

[pgk]

1 hour ago, John McMaster said:

Not too sure what you can tell from an Instagram photo 😉

john

My point entirely😆.