Canon medium format...

[hendrik-sg]

low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.

What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen.

Other point is, for a portrait shooting no model at all will meet the (quality) requirements, at least before hours of work for a really good makeup artist. And even then the pics can be used to judge the work of the makeup artist . Maybe even on a porn site, you will not want to see this level of details.

So MF can be clearly better than FF, but the whole workflow must be there and i can not do this. If i could afford such equipment, the money would be better invested by taking photography (workflow) lessons for 1 year

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/6

 

[scyrene]

Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.

Cleaner image at higher ISO is almost never considered as waste.

That's what interested me most about the 645z. I would have enjoyed trying it out for astrophotography

 

[Larsskv]

low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.

What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen.

Other point is, for a portrait shooting no model at all will meet the (quality) requirements, at least before hours of work for a really good makeup artist. And even then the pics can be used to judge the work of the makeup artist . Maybe even on a porn site, you will not want to see this level of details.

So MF can be clearly better than FF, but the whole workflow must be there and i can not do this. If i could afford such equipment, the money would be better invested by taking photography (workflow) lessons for 1 year

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/6

When comparing 5Dsr to Phase IQ180 in your link, I must say that the Phase isn't really that impressive. It has higher resolution and shows more details, but the details aren't crisp, compared to the 5Dsr and the aging 85 f1.8 lens. In my mind this comparison speeks in favor of FF compared to MF, when price, lens selection and general usability is taken into account.

 

[Dylan777]

It's nice to see each of us approve to photography in different ways

Although latest Fuji & Has x1d MF sensor not twice larger than FF, it's about 70%ish larger. How much are we going to gain from this 70% larger sensor?...time will tell.

I believe Has x1d are now shipping. I'm looking forward to see how these MF will perform in real life.

 

[Pookie]

low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.

What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen.

Other point is, for a portrait shooting no model at all will meet the (quality) requirements, at least before hours of work for a really good makeup artist. And even then the pics can be used to judge the work of the makeup artist . Maybe even on a porn site, you will not want to see this level of details.

So MF can be clearly better than FF, but the whole workflow must be there and i can not do this. If i could afford such equipment, the money would be better invested by taking photography (workflow) lessons for 1 year

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/6

I think you meant on FF. The Larsskv is very wrong here. Never had a problem with DOF or fast lenses on MF. In both digital and film MF. Take a look at 20 year old Mamiya lenses... still considered a benchmark for sharpness in MF. On the Pentax the 90 f/2.8 is ridiculously sharp and has an insanely thin DOF wide open.

 

[Larsskv]

low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.

What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen.

Other point is, for a portrait shooting no model at all will meet the (quality) requirements, at least before hours of work for a really good makeup artist. And even then the pics can be used to judge the work of the makeup artist . Maybe even on a porn site, you will not want to see this level of details.

So MF can be clearly better than FF, but the whole workflow must be there and i can not do this. If i could afford such equipment, the money would be better invested by taking photography (workflow) lessons for 1 year

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/6

I think you meant on FF. The Larsskv is very wrong here. Never had a problem with DOF or fast lenses on MF. In both digital and film MF. Take a look at 20 year old Mamiya lenses... still considered a benchmark for sharpness in MF. On the Pentax the 90 f/2.8 is ridiculously sharp and has an insanely thin DOF wide open.

Oh, I dont think I´m wrong at all. Sure MF will have great bokeh, thin DOF, and fantastic sharpness, but the question is if that is a reason to choose MF over FF. I challenge you name one MF lens that has shallower DOF than the 85mm f/1.2 on FF, given the same framing and distance to the subject.

 

[mackguyver]

I already have 5DSR a slew of sharp lenses ;D

Good to see you again. Hope everything went well

Thanks, Dylan, things are going better, but still not shooting a whole lot. From your signature it looks like you don't have any Canon gear anymore, or am I reading that wrong?

On the MF question, I agree with Private on this one, and for me, the biggest thing I would like is a higher flash sync speed. 1/250s is workable with ND filters and such, but I would love to be able to shoot flash outdoors the way the MF guys do.

 

[Dylan777]

I already have 5DSR a slew of sharp lenses ;D

Good to see you again. Hope everything went well

Thanks, Dylan, things are going better, but still not shooting a whole lot. From your signature it looks like you don't have any Canon gear anymore, or am I reading that wrong?

On the MF question, I agree with Private on this one, and for me, the biggest thing I would like is a higher flash sync speed. 1/250s is workable with ND filters and such, but I would love to be able to shoot flash outdoors the way the MF guys do.

That correct, I no longer have any Canon gear. I do missed it sometime.

To me, it just tool and I buy the tools that fit my shooting style. Keep in touch

 

[mackguyver]

I already have 5DSR a slew of sharp lenses ;D

Good to see you again. Hope everything went well

Thanks, Dylan, things are going better, but still not shooting a whole lot. From your signature it looks like you don't have any Canon gear anymore, or am I reading that wrong?

On the MF question, I agree with Private on this one, and for me, the biggest thing I would like is a higher flash sync speed. 1/250s is workable with ND filters and such, but I would love to be able to shoot flash outdoors the way the MF guys do.

That correct, I no longer have any Canon gear. I do missed it sometime.

To me, it just tool and I buy the tools that fit my shooting style. Keep in touch

From what I know of your shooting, your current gear makes sense, and will do.

 

[Aaron D]

The perfect camera for me would be a FF mirrorless with 16 bit captures (and all the image beautiful-ness that goes with that) AND compact, sharp TSE lenses to go with - all with filter threads (as opposed to bulging-basketball fronts). And 30 MP is plenty.

 

[Pookie]

low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.

What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen.

Other point is, for a portrait shooting no model at all will meet the (quality) requirements, at least before hours of work for a really good makeup artist. And even then the pics can be used to judge the work of the makeup artist . Maybe even on a porn site, you will not want to see this level of details.

So MF can be clearly better than FF, but the whole workflow must be there and i can not do this. If i could afford such equipment, the money would be better invested by taking photography (workflow) lessons for 1 year

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/6

I think you meant on FF. The Larsskv is very wrong here. Never had a problem with DOF or fast lenses on MF. In both digital and film MF. Take a look at 20 year old Mamiya lenses... still considered a benchmark for sharpness in MF. On the Pentax the 90 f/2.8 is ridiculously sharp and has an insanely thin DOF wide open.

Oh, I dont think I´m wrong at all. Sure MF will have great bokeh, thin DOF, and fantastic sharpness, but the question is if that is a reason to choose MF over FF. I challenge you name one MF lens that has shallower DOF than the 85mm f/1.2 on FF, given the same framing and distance to the subject.

Nice qualifier after the fact... as for a fast MF lens, try Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 or Hasselblad 110 f2 or Contax 645 80mm f2

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why not?

Market size...or rather, lack thereof. A couple of years ago, a senior Leica exec estimated the size of the MF market – global, industry-wide – at 6,000 units per year. I just don't see Canon going after a slice of a minuscule pie.

 

[Larsskv]

If a 50mm MF prime is 35mm on 35mm format, and it has a f/4 aperature for MF, what is the equivalent 35mm aperture?

On a DOF-calculator, I compared an 85f/1.2 on a FF camera to the Phase One MF camera.

On two meters, the DOF with the 85f/1.2 on FF is 4cm.

The crop factor the Phase has to FF is 0,64. Therefore, to have the same field of view as 85 on FF, you need 85:0,64=132mm lens on the Phase one.

To achieve 4cm DOF at two meters, with an 132mm lens, it needs an aperture of f/2.

I´m no expert, but I don´t know of any lenses for the Phase One around 135mm, that has an aperture of f/2 og wider.

The new Fujifilm will have a crop factor of 0,79 compared to FF, same as Pentax 645. Compared to 85mm on FF you need a lens of 85:0,79=108mm to get the same field of view. If you want a DOF of 4cm at two meters on a 108mm lens, the DOF calculator says it needs an aperture of f/1.8. The widest aperture of the new Fujifilm-lenses is f/2.8.

I´m not saying that medium format cameras don´t have advantages over FF (I wouldn´t know, because I have no experience with it), but with regards to achieving thin DOF, you might actually be better of with FF and wide aperture lenses.

 

[Larsskv]

low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.

What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen.

Other point is, for a portrait shooting no model at all will meet the (quality) requirements, at least before hours of work for a really good makeup artist. And even then the pics can be used to judge the work of the makeup artist . Maybe even on a porn site, you will not want to see this level of details.

So MF can be clearly better than FF, but the whole workflow must be there and i can not do this. If i could afford such equipment, the money would be better invested by taking photography (workflow) lessons for 1 year

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/6

I think you meant on FF. The Larsskv is very wrong here. Never had a problem with DOF or fast lenses on MF. In both digital and film MF. Take a look at 20 year old Mamiya lenses... still considered a benchmark for sharpness in MF. On the Pentax the 90 f/2.8 is ridiculously sharp and has an insanely thin DOF wide open.

Oh, I dont think I´m wrong at all. Sure MF will have great bokeh, thin DOF, and fantastic sharpness, but the question is if that is a reason to choose MF over FF. I challenge you name one MF lens that has shallower DOF than the 85mm f/1.2 on FF, given the same framing and distance to the subject.

Nice qualifier after the fact... as for a fast MF lens, try Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 or Hasselblad 110 f2 or Contax 645 80mm f2

I don´t know the crop factor of the Hasselblad lens/camera it is designed for, compared to FF. If it is like the Pentax 645, it will be very close to a 85/f1.2 on FF with regards of DOF, but the DOF of 85 f1.2 will be a bit thinner.

Please see my last post to see my reasoning behind this statement.

I used this DOF calculator: http://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

 

[Halfrack]

There are 2 big companies in medium format, and 2 companies that dabble in it. Hasselblad and Phase are all in, while Pentax and Leica are playing on the fringes. Don't get me wrong, I love the 645z, she's my next purchase.

All Hasselblad lenses are leaf shutters, and the latest ones sync at 1/2000th of a second. The big advantage of the X1D over the new Fuji, beyond shipment times, is that all the HC/HCD lenses, plus all the V series lenses will work (X1D-H adapter, H to V adapter). It's small, compact and proof that Sony will be making better 33x44 sensors at higher resolutions.

Crop factor depends on the back used - the 100mp backs, along with the 60/80MP are all a 1.0x native.

Want to know what 100mp shots are for? Everything, anything important, and most importantly, any time when motion prevents stitching. Prints with a 60" short edge are addicting.

If you want more info on MF gear, check out http://forum.luminous-landscape.com

 

[Ozarker]

Hi guys,
Just for fun

Let's say tomorrow Canon releases medium format in DSLR and mirrorless, would you:

1. Jump on it and sell your current FF or crop gear
2. Add to your current FF or crop gear

Big questions: why? or Why not?

Look forward to hear your feedbacks.
Dylan

Think I'd wait for Canon to have a stable of medium format lenses to go with it.

Just a question though... is what makes it medium format the sensor size? It can't be megapixels, right? Thanks

 

[Larsskv]

Hi guys,
Just for fun

Let's say tomorrow Canon releases medium format in DSLR and mirrorless, would you:

1. Jump on it and sell your current FF or crop gear
2. Add to your current FF or crop gear

Big questions: why? or Why not?

Look forward to hear your feedbacks.
Dylan

Think I'd wait for Canon to have a stable of medium format lenses to go with it.

Just a question though... is what makes it medium format the sensor size? It can't be megapixels, right? Thanks

Medium format isn't a standard. The term is used on a variety of sizes that is bigger than the 35mm format. The size of the sensor in Phase IQ180 is bigger than the size in a Pentax 645. Therefore you must be aware of the crop factors also when comparing medium format cameras and lenses.

 

[9VIII]

Given that the existing EF mount can "almost" fit one of these new "Medium Format" sensors, I think Canon should just go ahead and make a 1.7x larger sensor and stick it in an existing camera (mirrorless).

It would basically be as good as anything being offered by the competition, and natively support all existing EF lenses, and if they don't break the flange distance then all EF bodies would natively support all the new lenses.

By making the EF mount excessively large back in the 80's Canon may very well have futureproofed their system for the next hundred years.

 

[privatebydesign]

Er, image circle anybody!

EF lenses have an image circle from 44mm to 50mm depending on focal length and baffle designs. The TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 MkII have image circles of 67.2mm (and no auto focus).

A 135 format sensor has a diagonal of 43mm.

 

[AvTvM]

Hi guys, Just for fun
Let's say tomorrow Canon releases medium format in DSLR and mirrorless, would you:
1. Jump on it and sell your current FF or crop gear
2. Add to your current FF or crop gear
Big questions: why? or Why not?

No. Canon should not mess around with MF, just go ahead and launch a kick-ass mirrorless FF system. I would sell my FF mirrorslapper camera, keep my EF L glass, use it with an adapter and buy some nice and small new native pancake primes in order to go small with a small FF MILC.

MF is really only needed for less than 1% of all photographic tasks. MF is a market segment with no lack of established players who are slugging it out. Nobody is waiting for additional players. Fuji will learn it the hard way, they will loose a ton of money on their GFX. And I bet, Leica has not and will never recoup the S2 system development cost and resources wasted on it.

It is really absurd, how ALL camera makers except Sony stubbornly refuse to make the product needed for the largest future market segment: mirrorless FF system. Instead they choose to make action cams in 2016 (stupid Nikon), new MF systems in 2016 (stupid Fuji, stupid Ricoh/Pentax), or only dwarf-sensor mirrorless (stupid Oly, stupid Fuji, stupid Canon, stupid Nikon). It will be a future business case in all business schools on "how an entire industry f*cked up".