More Medium Format Talk [CR1]

[Don Haines]

To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC. If yow want wide, MFN has it best, if you go long, crop sensors, and FF somewhere in the middle.

Look at sport photography.....see all those people with the FF cameras and the 600mm lenses? With an APSC camera you can get the same field of view with a 400mm lens, but at the cost of image quality. A MF shooter would need a 1500mm lens to get the same field of view, but would have superior image quality. Obviously, this is not practical and MF will never fit this segment of the market.

Studio work is a different story... The lenses are more normal sized and you can put more pixels and/or better pixels on the subject, but for higher cost. It's not for me, but I can certainly see the market for it.

To my mind, use the most appropriate tool you can afford for the job..

 

[dryanparker]

Look at sport photography.....see all those people with the FF cameras and the 600mm lenses? With an APSC camera you can get the same field of view with a 400mm lens, but at the cost of image quality. A MF shooter would need a 1500mm lens to get the same field of view, but would have superior image quality. Obviously, this is not practical and MF will never fit this segment of the market.

Regarding the field of view, you are spot-on. But readers should bear in mind, a 600mm lens is still 600mm regardless of platform. With MF, you get the FF field of view, plus a great deal more, so that 600mm appears to be a shorter focal length. (You may have been making this point.)

As for practicality, I shoot the RZ. It is HIGHLY impractical for most stuff you might use a FF to shoot. It's heavy and awkward. It's made for slow, methodical tripod work. That said, I absolutely love it.

My longest lens is currently a 210mm, which offers the field of view of 102mm on FF. The resolving power of the lenses is pretty incredible, and with a 60x70mm negative, my desktop scans are north of 65MP. Pretty cool!

 

[Pi]

To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC.

How can a format (without a specified lens) have FOV? Does MF has something wider than 12mm on FF?

 

[V8Beast]

I played with one at one of my local camera shops. When all the reps from all the companies were there showing off all their gear. Leica was represented. I tell ya... I played with the Canon 1DX, 5D3 and a Nikon D4... But the Leica S2 impressed me the most. I took some stupid, simple picture in the store with it.. And I was BLOWN AWAY by the image. The colors were so rich and detailed.

Touche. The only medium format files I've had a chance to play with are files I hunted down online, but the tonal range and latitude in those files are astounding to say the least.

Cost aside, I have to wonder how many printing mediums exist that can take advantage of what medium format has to offer over 35mm? Car mags, at least in America, are printed on terrible paper with terrible ink. I know an independently wealthy car photog that shoots with a D800 and a Hassleblad. I'm sure the color, DR, and tonal gradations look incredible on his monitor, but by the time they're printed on paper, those medium format images are indistinguishable from what you'd get out of a lowly 35mm Canon sensor.

Obviously, there's much more budget and far superior printing in high-end fashion photography, but how many other forms of photography does that apply to that makes it practical to dish out the extra bucks for medium format? Even if I worked in an industry with the caliber of printing required to take advantage of medium format files, I'd never make enough money to justify the expense.

 

[dryanparker]

To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC.

How can a format (without a specified lens) have FOV? Does MF has something wider than 12mm on FF?

Well, you use FF as a benchmark. The FOV is basically the crop factor...so APS-C is 1.6x compared to FF, so a 17-55mm zoom on a 7D is kinda like the 24-70mm on a 5D. This is because the APS-C sensor is physically smaller than FF, so the area of view it records is similarly reduced. This has the effect of cropping the FOV into what appears to be a longer focal length.

On the MF Mamiya RZ that I use, the "crop factor" is 0.48 because the 6x7cm film negative is so much larger than a FF sensor. This makes my 65mm fairly wide, with a 32mm FF equivalent FOV.

 

[LDS]

Cost aside, I have to wonder how many printing mediums exist that can take advantage of what medium format has to offer over 35mm? Car mags, at least in America, are printed on terrible paper with terrible ink.

Don't think about magazines - think about high-end catalogues (people in their own field - i.e. fashion, textiles, etc. have a really trained eye, you need high quality images), art reproduction, museum collections imaging, old photo copies, and so on. This images may be printed carefully on high-end paper, maybe in limited batches at high prices. That's where MF (and LF) has been always used, and still has some edge. Sure, it's a different market than the wedding/wildlife/sport one where other formats rules, it's almost all work with camera on a tripod and carefully designed images, but it exists, and it is paid well.

 

[Dylan777]

HOW MUCH?

 

[dryanparker]

HOW MUCH?

A LOT.

 

[privatebydesign]

How about one Yashica TLR with it's negatives scanned at 4800 dpi? That gives about >128 MP doesn't it?
I don't know the price...

All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.

 

[Sporgon]

I'm pretty convinced that the latest FF sensors have left MF film behind - in everything IQ wise. Some people still argue about more colours from film, but how are you going to view it ? As a transparency on a lightbox ? As soon as you scan, print, view on a monitor etc that ephemeral difference has been taken out anyway.

 

[Pi]

I'm pretty convinced that the latest FF sensors have left MF film behind - in everything IQ wise. Some people still argue about more colours from film, but how are you going to view it ? As a transparency on a lightbox ? As soon as you scan, print, view on a monitor etc that ephemeral difference has been taken out anyway.

In the good old times, people printed with enlargers and projected slides to big screens (bigger than our monitors). I agree that digital surpasses film, same format, at least, but I still remember how my jaw dropped when I saw landscape Velvia slides projected on a high quality screen. Today's digital projectors are much worse than that, even the high end home theater ones. I still have the slides but not the screen and the projector, and the digital scans are nothing exciting. Maybe because I scanned them with a Nikon film scanner?

 

[Sporgon]

In the good old times, people printed with enlargers and projected slides to big screens (bigger than our monitors). I agree that digital surpasses film, same format, at least, but I still remember how my jaw dropped when I saw landscape Velvia slides projected on a high quality screen. Today's digital projectors are much worse than that, even the high end home theater ones. I still have the slides but not the screen and the projector, and the digital scans are nothing exciting. Maybe because I scanned them with a Nikon film scanner?

I'm with you 100% on the wonder of well projected film transparencies. It's something that has been lost to the digital generation actually.

I remember when I was a young lad at school we had Nick Estcourt visit, a famous mountaineer who was tragically killed two years later in an avalanche whilst climbing K2 in 1978.

His lecture on the climb - I think it was the Matterhorn - was based upon slides taken by the climbers, and they were fantastic, especially projected to around 10 m wide. At the time I decided - right I want to produce pictures like that !!

I often wonder what happened to his wonderful collection of slides.

 

[dryanparker]

All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.

Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.

As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)

 

[unfocused]

The investments are huge, profitability is low with MF

WHY????

there are sold about 6000 MF units world over 2012 incl all brands
Leica is the only one who shows profit

Exactly why I don't believe we will be seeing a general purpose medium format Canon any time soon. As I said before, I can see it for military, police or security purposes, but general use? Nope.

I put it in the same category as a new APS-H camera or a full frame mirrorless camera. That is, they are about as likely to materialize as they are to be delivered by bigfoot riding a unicorn.

 

[privatebydesign]

All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.

Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.

As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)

When I compare 24"x36" Cibachromes from Velvia direct optical prints, or Lightjet prints from drum scans, they don't compare in detail to the same sized images printed from 21MP 135 format digital cameras. That is why I don't use my low use 1VHS's and went 1Ds MkIII's.

As for noise, my eyes see no noise, my digital camera records effectively zero noise at the iso's I use (sub 400, the same as the film I shot), why should I accept the compromise of noise/grain in film prints? Noise and grain are not "natural" looking, they are defects that we became accustomed to due to technological inadequacies, those inadequacies are no longer there so why accept them?

I am in the camp that firmly believes noise and grain do not add detail, as so many seem to misunderstand, they are comparatively crude devices that can be used to some stylish effect, if that is what is desired. Further, it is a lot easier to add the effect than take it away, I'll take the time and skill to shoot noise/grain free whenever possible and add in post if I want the style.

 

[PVS]

All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.

Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.

As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)

As for noise, my eyes see no noise, my digital camera records effectively zero noise at the iso's I use (sub 400, the same as the film I shot), why should I accept the compromise of noise/grain in film prints? Noise and grain are not "natural" looking, they are defects that we became accustomed to due to technological inadequacies, those inadequacies are no longer there so why accept them?

I am in the camp that firmly believes noise and grain do not add detail, as so many seem to misunderstand, they are comparatively crude devices that can be used to some stylish effect, if that is what is desired. Further, it is a lot easier to add the effect than take it away, I'll take the time and skill to shoot noise/grain free whenever possible and add in post if I want the style.

Have you checked corners or periphery of your eyes recently, I'm pretty much sure you don't get that much blur and lack of sharpness with any of the lens you might be using on that 1Dsmk3? Also the flare, when was the last time you were looking at the sun? Flare, blurry corners and other abberations are quite natural things yet most of the photogs try to avoid them.. Sorry, that 'natural' talk was the most invalid argument I heard recently.
People should just stick with their own preferences without giving any further explanations otherwise when someone writes a nonsense like the mentioned one it just gives a ground for suspicion other arguments in their posts might be corrupted as well.
I have yet to see architecture/landscape print shot with MF/35mm DSLR which could rival depth and DR most of the stuff shot on 120s or bigger.

 

[Dylan777]

HOW MUCH?

A LOT.

Ok...count me out

 

[Inst]

Canon's point of view is that they have a ton of 500nm fabs. These are extremely old fabs working on ancient processes, but they've been fully paid for, are relatively cheap, and produce sensors at high yield.

It is also the reason Canon can't compete with Sony with regards to sensors; most of Nikon's high DR sensors are produced on a 180nm process, allowing for more pixels as well as a more sophisticated / advanced A2D converter architecture that allows for lower read noise.

It's not a matter of design choice; Canon literally could not make a D800E if they tried: they simply do not have the technology.

Now, Canon currently IS working on its own 180nm technology, but first, Sony has already begun to move to 90nm for their P&S / Smartphone sensors, and second Canon only uses its 180nm right now for its own P&S, instead of larger format sensors.

===

So on a technology basis, what is correct for Canon to do? On one hand, it needs to chase Sony with higher megapixel and finer-architectured equipment; it's working on that, but on the other hand, it has all this technology and capital invested in its high-yield / low-cost 500nm production process.

What it can do with its 500nm fabs is to move them to medium format. The fabs are now essentially free; they've paid off themselves through years of arduous work producing APS-C and FF sensors. The fabs have extremely reliable technology; manufacturing experience has allowed them to drastically reduce the flaw rate in both APS-C and FF; they probably make more profit per FF or APS-C camera produced than Sony/Nikon, since Sony/Nikon needs to use a more advanced and thus less mature profit. It stands to reason that Canon has a reasonable shot at cheaply producing Medium Format sensors at a price none of the other producers can compete at, with better technology and higher quality than the existing producers.

With regards to the medium-format industry, Canon would likely be able to dominate the industry as its technology seems to be more advanced / mature than existing medium format technology. If you look at existing medium format cameras, many of them, while having far superior resolution to Nikon and other FF devices, they are lacking in high-iso performance and dynamic range. Simply by moving Canon's technology in, you would have something that is drastically superior to existing medium-formats.

On the other hand, by entering the medium-format market with an affordable but extremely capable 3k camera, Canon would then take the performance crown from Nikon. A Canon medium-format would automatically be the best-performing camera in the industry, and the halo effect from having Canon super-medium formats would aid sales in the rest of Canon's industry.

The best part? Sony and Nikon can't chase Canon into the medium-format market. With the 180nm technology, the likely flaw rate will be excessive, so they can't economically compete with Canon in MF. They might be able to produce a MF camera that outperforms Canon's variant due to its superior read-noise at low ISOs, but that MF would likely cost at least twice as much as Canon's offering.

As for the bodies; if Canon opts to buy Phase-One or some other producer, it can easily inherit that company's existing line of lenses. If the body system it supports has a longer flange distance than the EOS system, then that's great; because then Canon can use .5x wide-converters mounted between the lens mount and the EOS lens to adapt the lens for the MF camera.

It won't necessarily be that easy; afaik, you need a different wide converter for each lens, or otherwise need an adjustable wide converter, and there will be image quality degradation as a result, but a Canon MF system would then be supplied with a full range of lenses.

 

[Inst]

What I'm suggesting is that Canon move its APS-C work and some of its FF work from the 500nm foundries to their 180nm foundries. In that case, the sensor lines are freed up for MF.

Stiching them together; I'm not sure how much it would cost; MF is 4x the area of FF on 6x7 and maybe 2x the area on 64.5.

With regards to DR; a larger sensor automatically translates into more signal, improving the DR by providing a larger sensor size; hence the DR difference between APS-C and FF. Your shadows will still be just as noisy as on FF, but you have a lot more pixels that can be burnt off to reduce noise.

Or, you could do the Magic Lantern-style dual ISO trick where every other line of pixels is adjusted for high / low ISO, giving you greater DR at the cost of effectively losing half your pixels to improper exposure. With 75+ MP, you can do that and still have 37.5 effective MP.

 

[Pi]

NO
it depends on the read out noise=DR , and make a pixel binning etc at base iso destroy the resolution
stitched sensors is time consuming and the cost is much higher

He was not taking about stitching sensors or pixel binning. If you have a larger sensor with "pixels of the same size and quality" (same readout noise per pixel), at base ISO, the noise on image level will drop. This is equivalent to stitching images, indeed, but stitching is just a mental exercise.

EDIT: your post is hard to read for the lack of punctuation, I may not understand it well.