Reading mode: Light Dark

Is MF dead?

Go to last post
tbcass

tbcass

Forum Pro
Messages
65,107
Solutions
15
Reaction score
32,948
Location
Central, NY, US
Why is this post dismissed so cavalierly?

(a) The issue of FF vs. MF is more general than just the A900; how can the previous poster not recognize that this applies to the 1DSMKIII and 5DMKII?

(b) If (a) is true, then this is indeed the right forum. Maybe the post would motivate some members of the forum who have MF cameras to repeat these tests using the cameras mentioned above. That would be very interesting.

--
Mike S
 
MF would always have more real estate and hence more resolution given a specific technology. It is like people comparing Leicas to MF in film days. No matter if they use kriptonite for make their lenses MF would always be ahead due to size ratio. It is just common sense.
 
At the top end, when we have medium format digital backs now in the 50mp and higher range, yeah, we don't need to test THOSE against a 20mp 24x36mm camera.

But most of us who have been using medium format for the past 30 years for its lower grain and higher sharpness at enlargements up to 30x40 or so (wedding and portrait photographers) are NOT operating in the rarefied atmosphere of $50,000 camera backs.

The choices we're making right now are between 24x36mm cameras and medium format backs, both in the 21-24mp range.

A lot of the bickering on these forums over the number of focusing points, and weathersealing, shutter blackout, and frames per second is just static for wedding and portrait photographers. Our Mamiyas were never any more weathersealed than a roll of toilet tissue, autofocus--where it existed--sucked with only one focus point and very slow at that, mirror blackout was a full second, and we counted "seconds per frame," not "frames per second."

Canon USA has been marketing the 1Ds and the 5D to us wedding and portrait photographers, and over the last two years we have been putting down our Mamiyas and picking up 5D cameras in droves.

If you look through the US publications of wedding and portrait photographers, magazines like "Professional Photographer" and "The Rangefinder," you will see a dramatic shift in the last couple of years from Mamiya to Canon 5D. It's startling--you leaf through the magazines and it's 5D, 5D, 5D, 5D...more than any other single model of camera.

Mamiya's been skunked, and certainly there is high interest in a camera with even greater IQ at an even lower price.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
Member said:
If (a) is true, then this is indeed the right forum. Maybe the post would motivate some members of the forum who have MF cameras to repeat these tests using the cameras mentioned above. That would be very interesting.
Click to expand...
I do wall portraits. I discovered that for my work, the 5D1 fully matched my Mamiya RZ67 cameras in most cases. Portraits have the unique situation in which only so much resolution is needed and no more: If the camera resolves facial hair, the image is as sharp as it needs to be. Nobody wants to see any more detail than that. And facial hair is easy to interpolate--it's just dark lines--so if the camera resolves it in the original image, it can be sucessfully upsampled almost indefinitely.

But the caveat is: If the camera resolves facial hair in the original image.

The 5D1 did that in portraits from headshots to about 3/4 length with the sharpest lenses. I can hang a 20x30 from my 5D1 next to one from my Mamiya with no apologies.

But the 5D1 isn't as successful resolving facial hair with full-length and group shots, and when those were enlarged to 30x40 and greater, results were below that of my Mamiya RZ67.

But they were darned close...the 5D1 only needed a small resolution boost to put it fully into Mamiya-kill territory.

I've got a 5D2 on order, and my Mamiyas are suffering high anxiety.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
You just agree with me that there is no need to test. For wedding photographer to go with a 22MP MF instead of a 22MP 35mm full frame would be crazy. Convenience is way above the marginal gain in sharpness from MF. Besides they need high ISO. But does that has anything to do with death of MF? No! MF like you said is way above 35mm in resolution at 60MP. So MF would always be above 35mm when you compare the best to the best. Everybody was doing weddings with their 4MP 1D a few years ago.
RDKirk said:
At the top end, when we have medium format digital backs now in the
50mp and higher range, yeah, we don't need to test THOSE against a
20mp 24x36mm camera.

But most of us who have been using medium format for the past 30
years for its lower grain and higher sharpness at enlargements up to
30x40 or so (wedding and portrait photographers) are NOT operating in
the rarefied atmosphere of $50,000 camera backs.

The choices we're making right now are between 24x36mm cameras and
medium format backs, both in the 21-24mp range.

A lot of the bickering on these forums over the number of focusing
points, and weathersealing, shutter blackout, and frames per second
is just static for wedding and portrait photographers. Our Mamiyas
were never any more weathersealed than a roll of toilet tissue,
autofocus--where it existed--sucked with only one focus point and
very slow at that, mirror blackout was a full second, and we counted
"seconds per frame," not "frames per second."

Canon USA has been marketing the 1Ds and the 5D to us wedding and
portrait photographers, and over the last two years we have been
putting down our Mamiyas and picking up 5D cameras in droves.

If you look through the US publications of wedding and portrait
photographers, magazines like "Professional Photographer" and "The
Rangefinder," you will see a dramatic shift in the last couple of
years from Mamiya to Canon 5D. It's startling--you leaf through the
magazines and it's 5D, 5D, 5D, 5D...more than any other single model
of camera.

Mamiya's been skunked, and certainly there is high interest in a
camera with even greater IQ at an even lower price.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
Click to expand...
 
One reason to get into MF is the fact that most modern MF lenses outperform a lot of their 35 mm counterparts. The Mamiya 28 mm (which is something of 20 mm on a FF DSLR, depending on the back used) has no distortion, no cornersoftness and hardly any vignetting. Show me one lens for FF that can do that? Even the famous Zeiss 21 is not free of distortion. Unfortunately, MF lenses don't go any wider.

Another reason is that you can fit MF backs on Cambo Wides and the likes. And with a 23 mm Rodenstock on a Sinar Artec or Arca Rm3 you can get yourself a 15 mm tilt-shift lens. With hardly any distortion, sharp as a razorblade and without CA. Now, if Canon, Nikon or anybody else could make one for FF DSLR's, I'd get one, no matter the cost (These Rodenstock lenses aren't exactly cheap either). But sadly it ain't happening.

So, there are reasons's to get into MF, and some good ones to. But I agree, more and more tasks can be done with a good FF just as well.
 
Maybe in it's current form? However, with Canon playing the MP game and having to cram smaller and smaller micro MP's, I suspect MF will have to be brought down to the masses sooner than we think. Larger sensors are likely at some point. The 50D seems to be proof of this if you take DPR's and some others views. Granted, that model is a 1.6 crop and not FF, but it appears that there's a MP brick wall that it has hit and cramming any more smaller micron MP's into that sized sensor is going to be trouble. Then of course, adding more NR "smear ware" doesn't help the equasion either. If we are already seeing it with the 50D, 35mm FF can't be far behind in it's own brick wall with current CMOS tech.

--
I have a love affair with light.
 
free from the defects, but that the proprietary software is designed to process them out, in the same way Nikons', and now Canon's, software increasingly is being designed to mask lens flaws that cannot be economically designed away.
Jepe said:
One reason to get into MF is the fact that most modern MF lenses
outperform a lot of their 35 mm counterparts. The Mamiya 28 mm (which
is something of 20 mm on a FF DSLR, depending on the back used) has
no distortion, no cornersoftness and hardly any vignetting. Show me
one lens for FF that can do that? Even the famous Zeiss 21 is not
free of distortion. Unfortunately, MF lenses don't go any wider.

Another reason is that you can fit MF backs on Cambo Wides and the
likes. And with a 23 mm Rodenstock on a Sinar Artec or Arca Rm3 you
can get yourself a 15 mm tilt-shift lens. With hardly any distortion,
sharp as a razorblade and without CA. Now, if Canon, Nikon or anybody
else could make one for FF DSLR's, I'd get one, no matter the cost
(These Rodenstock lenses aren't exactly cheap either). But sadly it
ain't happening.

So, there are reasons's to get into MF, and some good ones to. But I
agree, more and more tasks can be done with a good FF just as well.
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com
 
Until now, there is no 35mm DSLR can come close to the resolution and tonality of the images produced by MF DBs. The full frame DSLR is improving rapidly and their prices have come down dramatically, thanks to the competition.

The MF world will need to adapt, evolve and change in order to compete. Until they choose not to, MF will not be dead. The DSLRs are quickly approaching the pixel density limit like the P&S before them. The MF DBs still have room to grow and the low end MF DB prices will likely come down to compete.
--
Nelson Chen
http://pbase.com/nelsonc
http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/
100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro



2008 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2008_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all
 
Mike Stratil said:
Why is this post dismissed so cavalierly?

(a) The issue of FF vs. MF is more general than just the A900; how
can the previous poster not recognize that this applies to the
1DSMKIII and 5DMKII?

(b) If (a) is true, then this is indeed the right forum. Maybe the
post would motivate some members of the forum who have MF cameras to
repeat these tests using the cameras mentioned above. That would be
very interesting.
Click to expand...
You are exactly correct. I thought this would be of interest in this forum as it deals with similar FF cameras produced by Canon and discussed in this forum. I did not post this in the Nikon forum as that company does not produce a high MP FF camera yet. There is a little too much Fanboyism going on.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
As more and more photographers switch to cheaper FF and fewer MF are produced it will come to the point that only a handful of photographers who need MF and are wealthy will buy then. It may get to the point that MF cameras are no longer economically viable to produce unless they drop the price to be competitive. Then it will be a matter of profit margins. Can they sell enough at lower margins to survive. MF will always have the potential to be better but if only a handful of photographers will buy them they're dead, simple as that, except maybe for custom made.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
It is all about economics, but cost to manufactuer a MF is dropping quickly too (agree R&D is spread over fewer bodies sold). I think we will see some changes in the MF market - look at the Leica S - but they have a place.
 
As with all digital systems you can edit defects out. With the Mamiya however you can still use film and as a digital camera it is an open system, unlike Hasselblad. Therefore they are designing their lenses to perform without the use of proprietary software. (Maybe that is one reason why it is three times more expansive than a Canon 24 1.4L?)

The Hasselblad 28 was designed to be used with a smaller imagecircle and proprietary software to get rid of the last bit of distortion and vignetting. I wonder how it will perform once they start to use real 645 sensors. They seem to have shot themselves in the foot when they proclaimed at the Photokina 2006 that 48x34 mm was 'Full Frame' digital-medium format.
Kabe Luna said:
Jepe said:
One reason to get into MF is the fact that most modern MF lenses
outperform a lot of their 35 mm counterparts. The Mamiya 28 mm (which
is something of 20 mm on a FF DSLR, depending on the back used) has
no distortion, no cornersoftness and hardly any vignetting. Show me
one lens for FF that can do that? Even the famous Zeiss 21 is not
free of distortion. Unfortunately, MF lenses don't go any wider.

Another reason is that you can fit MF backs on Cambo Wides and the
likes. And with a 23 mm Rodenstock on a Sinar Artec or Arca Rm3 you
can get yourself a 15 mm tilt-shift lens. With hardly any distortion,
sharp as a razorblade and without CA. Now, if Canon, Nikon or anybody
else could make one for FF DSLR's, I'd get one, no matter the cost
(These Rodenstock lenses aren't exactly cheap either). But sadly it
ain't happening.

So, there are reasons's to get into MF, and some good ones to. But I
agree, more and more tasks can be done with a good FF just as well.
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com
Click to expand...
 
I don't see anything out there yet that looks better then my $325 Pentax 645 in 120mm. Next week going to run a roll of Velvia in it, 15 shots, mail off, and no post, just great stuff back.
tbcass said:
Read this article. The future of super expensive MF cameras may
become shaky.

http://www.swiatobrazu.pl/_and_they_compared_to_one_another_hasselblad_h3_mamiya_afdiii_sony_alpha_900_821.html,1

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
Click to expand...
--

 
MF is not dead, but since the development of 35mm SLRs its use has diminished as a percentage of photographers using a particular format.

However, I think that as much as FF DSLR IQ has improved beyond what could be done with 35mm film, MF digital has also gone beyond what could be done with MF film. That is why a number of former LF photographers (who shot 4 x 5 film and scanned it) have moved to MF digital.

I think of it, to a certain extend, as the "new LF" format.

Cost is prohibitive for most right now, but the trend is down, and eventually the cost of MF gear will be more affordable for a greater number of photographers.

Dan
tbcass said:
Read this article. The future of super expensive MF cameras may
become shaky.

http://www.swiatobrazu.pl/_and_they_compared_to_one_another_hasselblad_h3_mamiya_afdiii_sony_alpha_900_821.html,1

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
Click to expand...
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
 
I for one do not believe for one minute that MF is dead....I have a aptus 22 and it is sharp as hel....no AAfilter to start with....!

And I read the "test" and they ACR for converting and the thing I discovert is that ACR is much softer and will not give the same DR as the original Leaf software.

furthermore its not only a question of pixels...

Howmany times have we not argued the differance between compact and DLSR(crop)....

And how maytimes have we argued that you can not compare crop cameras to ful frame ?

And this is EXACTLY the same!

you can not compare camera's simply because the have the same amount of pixels.!!!

It's a combination of A LOT of things and what I found out over the years
is that pixels is actualy not even one of them......!

And combined with the fact that I can put my MFDB on my Cambo ultima and have total control thats a winner.....(even if its just 22 Mpxl)
I know I can also put a 5DII on there but again...thats not the same!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top