The "MF look"?

Guys,

About 2 months ago, I had a bit of a windfall. Long story short, I have about $5K to spend. I was thinking about getting a 4K OLED tv, but saw a Youtube video about the Fuji medium format camera.

This post says there is something called the "MF look:" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64802521

Perhaps I'm betraying my ignorance, but could somebody please point it out to me.

I'm looking to make an informed decision, so any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Bigga Donga said:

About 2 months ago, I had a bit of a windfall. Long story short, I have about $5K to spend. I was thinking about getting a 4K OLED tv, but saw a Youtube video about the Fuji medium format camera.

Click to expand...

You are not thinking properly when buying a camera. You should be saying things like I want to shoot grass in a field and what would take to get a good shot of that. Cameras are tools are record light for you.

Medium format is used to get dense images of things, and usually slowly in a studio, you can do other things with it, but that is what it excels at.

Bigga Donga said:

This post says there is something called the "MF look:" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64802521

Perhaps I'm betraying my ignorance, but could somebody please point it out to me.

Click to expand...

you may need accessories with a tv but you will need lots of accessories with a camera, so make sure you have a budget for that, computers, hard drives, memory cards, bags or camera holders as some of what you need.

If you have see what you looking to buy, I suggest going to a store or seeing about renting.

Bigga Donga said:

I'm looking to make an informed decision, so any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

$5K is barely enough for a body; and then you need a lens, maybe even more than one...

Bigga Donga said:

This post says there is something called the "MF look:"

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64802521

Click to expand...

When discussing 35mm format in relation to smaller formats, equivalence is often an accepted basis for explaining the circumstances in which the shooting envelopes overlap. But when using equivalence to explain how 35mm can not only overlap but in some cases exceed the shooting envelope of MF (especially the small MF Fuji cameras), pushback often occurs. It's an interesting phenomenon.

A photo like that should be obtainable with a 35mm f/2 lens on 35mm format, shouldn't it? Or one could easily go to an f/1.4 version and have even narrower DOF.

Now, if only you hadn't chosen such an obvious username, nobody here would realize you're just trolling, and you might have gotten all of us to waste more time with you.

It used to be a thing in the film days when it was blatantly obvious that a photo was taken on a medium format camera.

Take a look at these examples here:


Those pictures have two striking properties:

1. They were taken on film

2. They use a larger format than 35mm

I suppose it's a combination of colours, resolution and depth of field.

These days there is no such look. There is a difference between Medium format digital and Full frame, but those differences are subtle and not noticeable as a global image.

When I first got seriously nerdy about photography, people would swear blind that there was a "Leica look". Nowadays, nobody uses that term and it's almost universally thought to be nonsense. "Medium format look" is today's "Leica look". It's a form of gatekeeping as the cost of entry is high.

Tim Reidy Productions said:

Tim Reidy Productions said:

About 2 months ago, I had a bit of a windfall. Long story short, I have about $5K to spend. I was thinking about getting a 4K OLED tv, but saw a Youtube video about the Fuji medium format camera.

Click to expand...

You are not thinking properly when buying a camera. You should be saying things like I want to shoot grass in a field and what would take to get a good shot of that. Cameras are tools are record light for you.

Medium format is used to get dense images of things, and usually slowly in a studio, you can do other things with it, but that is what it excels at.

Tim Reidy Productions said:

This post says there is something called the "MF look:" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64802521

Perhaps I'm betraying my ignorance, but could somebody please point it out to me.

Click to expand...

you may need accessories with a tv but you will need lots of accessories with a camera, so make sure you have a budget for that, computers, hard drives, memory cards, bags or camera holders as some of what you need.

If you have see what you looking to buy, I suggest going to a store or seeing about renting.

Tim Reidy Productions said:

I'm looking to make an informed decision, so any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tim, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I definitely won't be shooting in a studio. I guess I just wanted a new toy.

You see, for just about anything, I currently use my cellphone. So, if I'm going to get something, I want it to be much better and if I show the images to someone, I want them to say, "it looks like a great camera took those shots."

I know enough to know medium format has the biggest sensor (I looked up on Wikipedia), and the thing is, the post I linked to says the image has "the MF look."

So I guess my main question is whether that something only the cognoscenti can see?

J A C S said:

$5K is barely enough for a body; and then you need a lens, maybe even more than one...

Click to expand...

It appears you are right. If at all I do choose it, I would be able to afford at most only one lens. I would have to grow into it, adding anything else only after a little while.

Swordman said:

It used to be a thing in the film days when it was blatantly obvious that a photo was taken on a medium format camera.

Take a look at these examples here:

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/20...rica-in-the-1950s-have-finally-been-published

Those pictures have two striking properties:

1. They were taken on film

2. They use a larger format than 35mm

I suppose it's a combination of colours, resolution and depth of field.

These days there is no such look. There is a difference between Medium format digital and Full frame, but those differences are subtle and not noticeable as a global image.

When I first got seriously nerdy about photography, people would swear blind that there was a "Leica look". Nowadays, nobody uses that term and it's almost universally thought to be nonsense. "Medium format look" is today's "Leica look". It's a form of gatekeeping as the cost of entry is high.

Click to expand...

Very illuminating, thank you. So, it's a settled matter, then--i.e., there is no such look?

I confess I was rather hoping that wasn't the case. You see, when I was looking at TVs, there was a tangible difference between the regular LED sets at the OLED ones.

sybersitizen said:

Bigga Donga said:

This post says there is something called the "MF look:"

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64802521

Click to expand...

When discussing 35mm format in relation to smaller formats, equivalence is often an accepted basis for explaining the circumstances in which the shooting envelopes overlap. But when using equivalence to explain how 35mm can not only overlap but in some cases exceed the shooting envelope of MF (especially the small MF Fuji cameras), pushback often occurs. It's an interesting phenomenon.

A photo like that should be obtainable with a 35mm f/2 lens on 35mm format, shouldn't it?

Click to expand...

I was hoping you could tell me that.

sybersitizen said:

Or one could easily go to an f/1.4 version and have even narrower DOF.

Click to expand...

sybersitizen said:

Now, if only you hadn't chosen such an obvious username, nobody here would realize you're just trolling, and you might have gotten all of us to waste more time with you.

Click to expand...

Yes, check his slightly different post on the Beginners Forum, "How to make photo look like this?" (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64829311) :

For the past two months, I've been trying to decide between a big screen TV and a camera. Now, I confess the TV was winning out. You see, I still have an old HD plasma, and the 4K clarion call was getting too hard to resist.

But then I saw these photos here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63699649

I thought "that's a nice camera that took those photos. Maybe I should get one." Then I saw the price tag.

Can such a look be got with a cheaper camera? If so, which one?

Reminds me of the old story "If I only had a pen like yours, I could also write such great novels". :-D

Poster PhotoTeach2 had a perfect reply:

Those photos were not taken with a "camera" ... they were taken by a very-good/excellent PHOTOGRAPHER, (who also had excellent post-processing skills).

He may indeed have used an expensive camera, but he did not "have" to. Literally, ANY camera could have taken those.

It seems Kurzschwänzchen is just a little bored and looking for some conversation here.

Liewenberger

Bigga Donga said:

This post says there is something called the "MF look:" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64802521

Perhaps I'm betraying my ignorance, but could somebody please point it out to me.

I'm looking to make an informed decision, so any advice would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

As I would often say to my clients, "if you can't see the difference, then there is no difference" - but if you can, then my next question would be, are you prepared to pay more for that ;-)

Seriously though, I believe that everyone sees things differently and sees different things too - but there usually needs to be a number of things that look different before anyone will really notice that there is something different looking - and so that "Look", which others may refer to as "something or other" later on, is usually a combination of things - one of which could be to do with the camera system you use or the lens you use or just how using those things makes you think differently about everything else... like about the lighting or the styling or the composition or as I would often talk about "the feel".

And so you will now spend the rest of your life trying to figure-out what the hell that means, as well as what someone means when they talk about a "3D look" ;-)

And then there is the 'media use' to take into account - or as Mark Tucker would say, "when the real ink hits the page" - because that can also make a big difference or even reduce the difference too ;-)

So yes, he probably could have produced that same image if he had used a 35mm system instead - but, the question is: if he had used a 35mm instead, would he have produced that same image, in that same way, from that same position, etc, etc, in the first place?

The pictures that you have taken with your 35mm camera, do they look the same as the ones that you have take with your iPhone?

If not, what’s the difference?

Same thing here - in others words, I believe there is a lot more to creating a "Look" than what a lab result can show you.

Cheers
Ashley

www.ashleymorrison.com

Bigga Donga said:

Guys,

About 2 months ago, I had a bit of a windfall. Long story short, I have about $5K to spend. I was thinking about getting a 4K OLED tv, but saw a Youtube video about the Fuji medium format camera.

This post says there is something called the "MF look:" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64802521

Perhaps I'm betraying my ignorance, but could somebody please point it out to me.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure either way now. With film a bigger format allowed the capture of more detail so medium format was often recognisable just by the extra clarity of the pictures. With digital two things have happened: first, the most modern digital sensors can capture more detail than film and, second, most digital medium format cameras have smaller sensors than MF film. This has largely eliminated the most obvious difference offered by MF.

There are more subtle things, like finer distinctions of colour, that are claimed for MF. I'm sure they exist at a level that can be measured but that doesn't mean that I (or you or anyone else) will always be sable to see them.

Bigga Donga said:

I'm looking to make an informed decision, so any advice would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

As already mentioned, consider the cost of a full system. You'll need at least three lenses to cover the usual range of things that people photograph and they will cost more than your $5k, as well as the camera itself tripod (I see in another post that you say you don't use a tripod, but for a lot of MF work you can't really do without one), memory cards etc. I think you need about double what you have available.

But, frankly, I think the main factor is that it's just far too big a step up from using a phone. It's much like buying a high-performance sports car as your very first car. It's true that you won't kill yourself driving a MF camera but you won't be able to use it to its full capacity for a long time.

If you want to go up from a phone camera start with a mid-price crop-sensor model for a fraction of your budget.

Bigga Donga said:

You see, for just about anything, I currently use my cellphone. So, if I'm going to get something, I want it to be much better and if I show the images to someone, I want them to say, "it looks like a great camera took those shots."

I know enough to know medium format has the biggest sensor (I looked up on Wikipedia), and the thing is, the post I linked to says the image has "the MF look."

Click to expand...

LOLZ! Classic!

150 posts for sure!

My only complaint is you should have said you only post to FB and Instagram.

I've never worked out what it means, and I have one of those cameras. They do take really nice pictures. Try the Medium Format forum if you're not a troll.

for a lot of things, a pentax q would be better than a cell phone with the same size sensor,

and remember you can blur in post with everything, so you do not need a particular camera to own a look.

R Liewenberger said:

sybersitizen said:

Now, if only you hadn't chosen such an obvious username, nobody here would realize you're just trolling, and you might have gotten all of us to waste more time with you.

Click to expand...

Yes, check his slightly different post on the Beginners Forum, "How to make photo look like this?" (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64829311) :

For the past two months, I've been trying to decide between a big screen TV and a camera. Now, I confess the TV was winning out. You see, I still have an old HD plasma, and the 4K clarion call was getting too hard to resist.

But then I saw these photos here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63699649

I thought "that's a nice camera that took those photos. Maybe I should get one." Then I saw the price tag.

Can such a look be got with a cheaper camera? If so, which one?

Reminds me of the old story "If I only had a pen like yours, I could also write such great novels". :-D

Poster PhotoTeach2 had a perfect reply:

Those photos were not taken with a "camera" ... they were taken by a very-good/excellent PHOTOGRAPHER, (who also had excellent post-processing skills).

He may indeed have used an expensive camera, but he did not "have" to. Literally, ANY camera could have taken those.

It seems Kurzschwänzchen is just a little bored and looking for some conversation here.

Liewenberger

Click to expand...

So sad how many people think the GEAR took the shot. That's like assuming the images came out of the camera looking like that...

Bigga Donga said:

Guys,

About 2 months ago, I had a bit of a windfall. Long story short, I have about $5K to spend. I was thinking about getting a 4K OLED tv, but saw a Youtube video about the Fuji medium format camera.

This post says there is something called the "MF look:" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64802521

Perhaps I'm betraying my ignorance, but could somebody please point it out to me.

I'm looking to make an informed decision, so any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

4K TV is probably more sensible as your $5K won't buy you much MF equipment.