Reading mode: Light Dark

Just why is an MF back that much better?

Go to last post
RedFox88 said:
MPCat said:
RedFox88 said:
But if you want higher quality larger prints MF will always be better.
Click to expand...
"Better" in a completely arbitrary sense. Print quality depends on
far more than the number of pixels involved; at certain sizes and
Click to expand...
Ok, "Fine Art" and "Gallery Quality". Where print sizes are large
and they cannot be blurry or fuzzy when viewed close up. Happy now?
Click to expand...
We were looking at 20x30 'ish' size prints from the Canon 1dsII; nice framed wedding prints and I was totally disappointed. Prior to that we spent time looking at commercial prints from 30-something MP backs. The different in the print was obvious to me.

The difference was great enough that I swore I'd never purchase 35mm format that had less than 20 something MP if my intention is to print large. To me there is still a notable difference between a 35mm kit and a Med format.

Another thing, I think stopping down past f/10 or so is counter productive with my Nikkor lenses, which means if I'm shooting a gaggle of 8 people in a rough circle, I better be doing it with a 50mm lens (indoors in tight confines) or I'm running the risk of diffraction on one end, and too small of a depth of field in the other direction. Not too much wiggle room if I'm confined to shooting 10ft or so away from the group. With a Med Format lens, I could shoot at 100mm, get better looking facial features and be able to stop waaaay down without the results starting to look fuzzy.

I don't think med format is going away any time soon, although Nikon and Canon will without doubt stop many photographers who are/were on the fence about migrating to med format (16-31mp backs) from doing so.

Gallery prints? After spending a lot of time viewing the difference.. Med/Large format all the way is what I say without hesitation :)

To me, the sheer size of a high really high quality beauty, glamour, and fashion photograph taken with a large/med format, just can't be matched with a current 35mm kit.
--
Teila K. Day
 
The problem is that people NOT shooting MF are trying to explain the difference while I clearly state I'm shooting with both.

I'm also a working photographer so to be real honest IF I could get the same or close to results with a DSLR costing only 3000-4000 trust me I would sell ALL my MF gear :D

The comment about false detail is a CLEAR fact you really never shot with MF digital (or at least not the modern ones), I'm shooting a lot of hair for hairdressers and the detail is just stunning, when compared to the 5DMKII with a good lens the hair in the 5D is simply put a lot less defined.

Try talking to photographers who work outside with flash and you will notice that having that real ISO25/50 and the option of leaf shutter lenses is a REAL big issue.

I don't see a risc of shooting tethered, on location I use quickertek accus which run a MBP17" with everything on full for app 10 hours straight with a back connected. I cannot judge commercial work on a tiny display not even the wonderful display on the 5DMKII.

The funny thing is that when I show people the workflow and quality of the MF system (and I only use a 22MP leaf back on most occassions) people who always said to NEVER switch to MF are now thinking of switching, especially with prices coming down so hard, a few years ago MF started with app 25.000 now you can get MF solutions with lens and back for below 10.000 that's app the same price as a 1dsMKII with a similair quality lens.

--
http://www.doorhof.nl/blog
 
FrankD7 said:
The problem is that people NOT shooting MF are trying to explain the
difference while I clearly state I'm shooting with both.
I'm also a working photographer so to be real honest IF I could get
the same or close to results with a DSLR costing only 3000-4000 trust
me I would sell ALL my MF gear :D
Click to expand...
I too am working photographer. I think you are suffering from hidden emotions here. When you spend very much money on what you think is the best, it is very hard to find it not the best. Just as many people buy Leica cameras, which are no better than cameras costing very much less, apart from subjective values.
FrankD7 said:
The comment about false detail is a CLEAR fact you really never shot
with MF digital (or at least not the modern ones),
Click to expand...
Your clear fact is not right. I have shot with digital MF. I do not deny it can produce better photos, I think that the reasons why are not what you say, unless the laws of optics have changed.
FrankD7 said:
I'm shooting a lot
of hair for hairdressers and the detail is just stunning, when
compared to the 5DMKII with a good lens the hair in the 5D is simply
put a lot less defined.
Click to expand...
I do not deny this.
FrankD7 said:
Try talking to photographers who work outside with flash and you will
notice that having that real ISO25/50 and the option of leaf shutter
lenses is a REAL big issue.
Click to expand...
Why is ISO 25/50 advantage - it can be replicated with ND filter much less costly than buying MF. Slow sensors of MF is disadvantage, advantage is large sensors which can gather more light and make less noisey images.
FrankD7 said:
I don't see a risc of shooting tethered, on location I use quickertek
accus which run a MBP17" with everything on full for app 10 hours
straight with a back connected. I cannot judge commercial work on a
tiny display not even the wonderful display on the 5DMKII.

The funny thing is that when I show people the workflow and quality
of the MF system (and I only use a 22MP leaf back on most occassions)
people who always said to NEVER switch to MF are now thinking of
switching, especially with prices coming down so hard, a few years
ago MF started with app 25.000 now you can get MF solutions with lens
and back for below 10.000 that's app the same price as a 1dsMKII with
a similair quality lens.
Click to expand...
I never have said MF does not give better quality. I think your explanation of why it does is unscientific and wrong. I hope you do not take offense at that, it is what I think.

--
Asqeez
 
Bigger pixels....with some nice lens technology over those pixels.

16bit instead of DSLR 12 and 14 bit give smoother transitions between gradiations of color.

DR is at a solid usable 12-13 stops.

Lenses for MF gear are usually of a quality that starts where DSLR lenses stop....and go better.

Those are a fe reasons I know of.

Roman
--

The best tools of a successful photographer as well as a 'well lived' life is appreciation and a sense of adventure.

These are the tools of mastery of all things.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Medium-format photographers are generally better photographers than those who approach the profession from the smaller formats. It's both attitude and discipline.

My other explanation is the difference between CMOS and CCD. The sensor technologies do not see light the same way and the CMOS sensors generally require more "bit-bending" to get the curves correct. The more adjustment needed, the less tonal smoothness. It's really that simple. Certain 35mm and crop-sensor cameras which used Kodak CCD sensors were/are also known for distinct color/tonality differences as compared to CMOS sensors. It's not just about noise and pixel counts.

--

 
You've shot with MF you state but do you own one, I guess not.

Trust me, I don't want to spend money unless the jump in quality is HUGE.

I own a complete Canon setup and was planning buying the 1DsIII but when I tested a MF digital system for a week I switched to MF completly and trust me I was never planning to, in my opinion it was too slow, too bad high ISO, too heavy and too expensive (and all the other things that are often mentioned).

However when looking at the results I simply could not resist anymore and now have three complete systems, a Canon system (5DMKII), RZ67ProII and a 645AFD/III system with Leaf Aptus back.

I shoot with all three systems on various shoots and it's all horses for courses, there's no emotional issue what so ever it's just simple facts and cameras are tools and you also don't jam in a nail with the back of a screwdriver.

Or in other words I'm not putting ND filters in front of L glass when I can do the same thing with a MF back by dropping to ISO25/50 and still shoot with a nice shallow DOF.
--
http://www.doorhof.nl/blog
 
FrankD7 said:
You've shot with MF you state but do you own one, I guess not.
Click to expand...
You guess what not? I do not own MF but I have borrowed and rented several times
FrankD7 said:
Trust me, I don't want to spend money unless the jump in quality is
HUGE.
Click to expand...
I do not know your motives
FrankD7 said:
I own a complete Canon setup and was planning buying the 1DsIII but
when I tested a MF digital system for a week I switched to MF
completly and trust me I was never planning to, in my opinion it was
too slow, too bad high ISO, too heavy and too expensive (and all the
other things that are often mentioned).
Click to expand...
I have never said there is no quality difference. This I do not deny.
FrankD7 said:
However when looking at the results I simply could not resist anymore
and now have three complete systems, a Canon system (5DMKII),
RZ67ProII and a 645AFD/III system with Leaf Aptus back.
I shoot with all three systems on various shoots and it's all horses
for courses, there's no emotional issue what so ever it's just simple
facts and cameras are tools and you also don't jam in a nail with the
back of a screwdriver.
Click to expand...
You maybe use the back of your RZ67Proll.
FrankD7 said:
Or in other words I'm not putting ND filters in front of L glass when
I can do the same thing with a MF back by dropping to ISO25/50 and
still shoot with a nice shallow DOF.
Click to expand...
ND filter on 35mm gives ISO25 and DOF as narrow as MF. MF have less photon noise due to bigger sensor, but FF have plenty of DR for most use.
--
Asqeez
 
riddell said:
riddell said:
Not all pixels are equal... I guess is the answer... because what you
are seeing, as got little to do with the numbers.
Click to expand...
Yes. I know and totally agree with that.

But is it actually the sensor thats the great thing here? or the
lens? or the bit depth? or the RAW conversion? or the lenses?

Or just a combination of all of the above?
Click to expand...
It's definitely all of the above, and in the right combination. Hasselblad H50D (& beyond) is stunning, better than most need with the advent of D3X, but there are no shortcuts to ultimate quality.

--
All the best,
Nick

New & updated galleries, reviews & more at :
http://lx3imaging.wordpress.com (LX3)
http://nickbland.blogspot.com (CX1)
http://nickbland.zenfolio.com (CX1/LX3/D3/F100fd/F30)
http://www.proweddingphotos.co.uk (D3/D200)
 
FrankD7 said:
However when looking at the results I simply could not resist anymore and now have three complete systems, a Canon system (5DMKII), RZ67ProII and a 645AFD/III system with Leaf Aptus back.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the belated interest. Not enough time to keep up here.

I still have the original RZ. Will the Leaf be operational with that model and if not why?

Thanks.
 
I read somewhere a long time ago and thought it was common knowledge at least in the film days that 35mm lenses were of a higher quality. that the larger format film still overcame the slightly lower resolving characteristics of the lenses.

Before anyone takes this a step further I never heard that said about large format lenses.
--
I shot the White Album and other untruths by,
David Phipps
 
1. Dynamic range
2. Better glass resolution per capture area
3.-Pickier more commited photographers

IMHO
Eduardo
 
riddell said:
I don't want to enter the MF vs 1ds type arguments, its been done many times.
Click to expand...
I you are looking at a DSLR able to seriously challenge MF backs, then the D3x is clearly that camera. Besides resolution, the D3x measures and feels as good or better than the best backs in terms of DR and colors.
riddell said:
and in my opinion an MF backed output blows the 1ds away. Its a dynamic punch of impact.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with this statement. Backs do have more resolution, but their pixel size is similar to that of a D3x, 1ds3. There is no theroretical reason why they should have more DR, and they are not measured to have more, on the contrary.

Regaridng sharpness, a correctly focused d3x has pretty impressive pixel level sharpness and the gap with AA less backs isn't as huge as the annoyance generated by moire in my opinion. The main gap really is in resolution and stitching with a DSLR can often cancel that out very well. If you stitch you want to do it with a DSLR for various obivous reasons.

So really, the only domain where backs make sense is in high end fashion/commercial shooting where productivity and reliability are key. For the other applications (starting with landscape), a D3x and stitching will deliver higher quality results for a lot less money.

A 250 megapixel sample.


riddell said:
This question is more just why is that?

No matter what I do that 1ds image, wtih lighting or in post, great and unfaultable as it is, still lacks the punch and impact of that of the MF backed image.
Click to expand...
I would argue that even a 1ds3 can get real close to backs when used properlly. The images linkes below were shot with a 1ds3: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35189&st=0&start=0

Cheers,
Bernard
 
David Phipps said:
I read somewhere a long time ago and thought it was common knowledge at least

in the film days that 35mm lenses were of a higher quality. that the larger format
film still overcame the slightly lower resolving characteristics of the lenses.
Click to expand...
Old wive's tale in an effort by the smaller-format photographers to justify their own purchasing decisions to not use the larger formats.

The key is that with the smaller format lenses, they MUST be absolutely top-notch. With medium and large format lenses, they don't have to be quite as good, but the good ones really are.

Back in the film days (some of still live in them at least part time), the larger formats gave us cropping options. The actual subject size on the tranny wasn't that much bigger on 6x6 than 35mm, but the 6x6 tranny could be used for multiple uses as there was plenty of white-space surrounding the subject. To withstand the cropping, the lenses had to be awefully good--and they were.

Show up with a Nikon or Canon to a product shoot instead of a Hassleblad or 4x5, and you better have had a stronger argument than "my lenses are sharper". That excuse didn't fly in the real-world.

--

 
ekn said:
Old wive's tale in an effort by the smaller-format photographers to justify their own purchasing decisions to not use the larger formats.

The key is that with the smaller format lenses, they MUST be absolutely top-notch. With medium and large format lenses, they don't have to be quite as good, but the good ones really are.
Click to expand...
Really? Considering that the pixel size of 50MP back is exactly the same as that of a Nikon D3x, how do you intend to tap into the resolution potential of your sensor if the lenses you put in front of it aren't as good?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that MF lenses are bad. Some are excellent and the Digitars are truly excellent.
ekn said:
Back in the film days (some of still live in them at least part time), the larger formats gave us cropping options. The actual subject size on the tranny wasn't that much bigger on 6x6 than 35mm, but the 6x6 tranny could be used for multiple uses as there was plenty of white-space surrounding the subject. To withstand the cropping, the lenses had to be awefully good--and they were.
Click to expand...
Sure, but as I am sure you know, the level of detaild that can be captured by a 50MP back is much higher than what a piece of 6x45 film could do.

Cheers,
Bernard
 
Yes, this is true based on every test I have ever seen. Can you find a med. format lens that will beat a 35? Of course. But the top samples of 35 will have more resolving power than the top med. format. Advantage is always based simply on larger image area of film or sensor.
David Phipps said:
I read somewhere a long time ago and thought it was common knowledge at least in the film days that 35mm lenses were of a higher quality. that the larger format film still overcame the slightly lower resolving characteristics of the lenses.

Before anyone takes this a step further I never heard that said about large format lenses.
--
I shot the White Album and other untruths by,
David Phipps
Click to expand...
 
ekn said:
ekn said:
I read somewhere a long time ago and thought it was common knowledge at least

in the film days that 35mm lenses were of a higher quality. that the larger format
film still overcame the slightly lower resolving characteristics of the lenses.
Click to expand...
Old wive's tale in an effort by the smaller-format photographers to justify their own purchasing decisions to not use the larger formats.

The key is that with the smaller format lenses, they MUST be absolutely top-notch. With medium and large format lenses, they don't have to be quite as good, but the good ones really are.
Click to expand...
The old wife had some smarts. Anytime you design a lens for greater coverage area you end up compromising the per unit area of resolving power to some degree. Med. format lenses have to be designed for a larger circle of coverage. It is that simple and has nothing to do with the greater needs of 35mm film. AGAIN, the larger data capture of med. or large format film or sensor more than makes up for the lower resolving power of the lenses. So obviously you have better images from the larger systems.
 
the same reasons.

I think the diffraction limitations mentioned above, and pixel quantity and DR are the primary reasons today.... I agree 35mm form factor can't touch current MF backs used properly. But...for alot of work, that quality isn't necessary nor missed by the masses. The problem with MF is that they don't have the money to throw at the lenses to bring them up to the demands of the new digital backs.....but that is all that is wrong with the larger formats.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
 
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