Reading mode: Light Dark

What makes medium format digital cameras worth it?

Go to last post
H

hokyungbenjaminbenlee

Well-known member
Messages
220
Reaction score
10
My question is what makes digital medium format cameras worth owning one? Is it the sensor size? Is it the colour bit-depth? Is it the image quality? or is it just for the show? Obviously, with medium format film cameras, the film size is bigger leading to images that are sharper and cleaner without noise however, I am not sure what the advantages are with the digital medium format cameras.

I am posting this because I recently got intrigued by the medium format digital camera after seeing the result from Hasselblad's X1D II 50C medium format digital camera which looked amazing. Naturally, I have done some research online and many of the photographers compared the Hasselblad camera to Sony's a7RIV. The reason is that Hasselblad's sensor is produced by Sony and a7RIV has a higher sensor resolution of 61 megapixels compared to 50 megapixels. I noticed that with a digital system, a bigger sensor doesn't necessarily translate to higher sensor resolution or higher bit-depth. If that is the case are there advantages in spending double or triple the cost of a full-frame camera and acquiring a medium format digital camera such as Hasselblad X1D II 50C or Lecia S3 or Fujifilm GFX 50S II?

I have done some comparisons of common digital medium format cameras, Hasselblad X1D 50C, Leica S3 and Fujifilm GFX 50S II along with Sony a7RIV and noticed that Hasselblad is the only one that has 16-bit depth while others only have 14 bit-depth which is equivalent to most other full-frame cameras. When comparing Leica S3 to Sony a7RIV, Leica has 14 bit-depth, 64 megapixels, 3 FPS contrast-based autofocus burst rate and costs a whopping $19995 while Sony has the same 14 bit-depth, 61 megapixels, 10 FPS phase-detect autofocus burst rate and costs merely $2998.

Looking purely at the spec sheet, it seems like there aren't any clear advantages with medium format cameras when compared to high-end full-frame cameras. I heard people saying that the end result is much nicer when using a medium format camera however, I think that is to do with the particular brand's colour science and the lens being used.

Can someone help me understand why photographers shoot with medium format digital cameras?
 
Last edited:
Solution
Rand 47
It’s not worth it at all if you don’t print - and print fairly large. And, if one is going to put the toes in the water of medium format, and you do print and print large, then the GFX 102 mp bodies are the way to go, to “my” way of thinking in terms of price / performance. If you shoot for FB and IG or other digital presentation modes, then there is not point at all in thinking about medium format.

Something not really explored in your original post is why type of photography you primarily do. There are many shooting situations where medium format would be one of the worst choices.

But, I can tell you this much because I do file optimization and make prints for many photographers using all brands, models, formats, etc. - there is a...
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?

With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?

Or does one of the tubes degrade the lens performance less than the other?

Thanks.
 
Teila Day said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
Macro photography in common-speak is simply the resulting image (no matter whether it's displayed on a monitor or print) is larger than the real life version of that subject matter, which is very useful when it comes to showing off a product because people can see the product in better detail.
Click to expand...
That makes most billboards macro shots, whether they show watches or people.
Click to expand...
No, because most billboards don't show a product in better detail.

Most billboards that I've seen are antithetical to detail.
Click to expand...
The better detail part above attempts to speak to the utility, but is not part of your definition.
 
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
Pansottin said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
Pansottin said:
Or does one of the tubes degrade the lens performance less than the other?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
Macro photography in common-speak is simply the resulting image (no matter whether it's displayed on a monitor or print) is larger than the real life version of that subject matter, which is very useful when it comes to showing off a product because people can see the product in better detail.
Click to expand...
That makes most billboards macro shots, whether they show watches or people.
Click to expand...
No, because most billboards don't show a product in better detail.

Most billboards that I've seen are antithetical to detail.
Click to expand...
The better detail part above attempts to speak to the utility, but is not part of your definition.
Click to expand...
Not my definition - rather such denoting a general definition used by the populous.

When reading the passages that have been written, the topic of the retorts ("macro", "close up") in conjunction with the link that I posted clearly stating that it's common that people co-mingle both terms, and both terms are related to getting more detail, you should be able to infer that irrespective of anything else, more detail is being sought as opposed to less detail which is what you generally get in a billboard.

"...because people can see the product in better detail."

I didn't think I had to state the obvious when the conversation is revolving around photography related to getting more detail whether it be termed "close up", or "macro".

--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com
 
Last edited:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
Click to expand...
:-(

And can this be fixed with firmware for example? Or is there no possible resolution?
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
Click to expand...
;-(

Thanks Jim.
 
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
Click to expand...
:-(

And can this be fixed with firmware for example?
Click to expand...
I doubt it.
Pansottin said:
Or is there no possible resolution?
Pansottin said:
Pansottin said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
Click to expand...
;-(

Thanks Jim.
Click to expand...
 
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
Click to expand...
:-(

And can this be fixed with firmware for example?
Click to expand...
I doubt it.
JimKasson said:
Or is there no possible resolution?
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
Click to expand...
;-(

Thanks Jim.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

Ah! Exactly.

Macro is, to me, 1:1, 1:2, etc all the way to 1:4, or quarter life-size on the imaging surface. See, I care not about film or silicon here. But I want to use silicon. ;)
Click to expand...
That's sensible. Using the term Macro and specifying the magnification is simple enough to me.. it's obvious that something at 1:2 magnification is "close up".
Stan Disbrow said:
Micro is where we get to larger than life-size. And that's in X, not ratio to me. 2x, 3x, etc. All the way to 50x for images from my Leica microscope. That has a camera tube on it with a switchable optical path.
Click to expand...
Now I know who to ask for info on that.
Stan Disbrow said:
Usually, I am in the 5-20x range. And all those I refer to as Microphotography.
Click to expand...
Or even Photomicrography. If you say 5x microphotography - I'm going to know what you mean.
Stan Disbrow said:
But, if you'd like, reverse the ratios and call it out that way if you'd like. But 1:1 is where I draw the line between Macro and Micro. Technically, all shots with camera lenses wind up Macro vs what a microscope sees, but I think of Macro as being the range between Quarter Life Size and Life Size. And that needs a different kind of lens. Called a Macro lens.
Click to expand...
Makes simple sense to me by 1:2 I'd call it macro in general, and add the magnification value when it matters to the conversation up to 2x, 3x, and so forth. If you tell me you photographed something at 20x, that's all I need to hear is the magnification. A "macro" at 20x to me is like saying wet water.

However in context if you say you enjoy Photomicrography, then I assume you like shooting really, really, small subjects.
Stan Disbrow said:
Unless it's Nikon. They want to call that Micro, but I translate. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't mind micro/macro.. I just wish they were in reverse .. :)
Stan Disbrow said:
Stan
Click to expand...
 
Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

This is a case where my Common Speak and my Engineering Speak align.

Macro for me runs from Life Size, meaning the area on the imager equals the size of the object, through Half Life Size to Quarter Life Size.

Then I shoot a *lot* where the size of the object as seen on the imager is greater than it actually is. I call this Micro Photography. And it's done via a microscope, not a camera lens. The Scope has two optical paths to the eyepieces, so a Binocular Scope. One side can be diverted to a camera tube for taking a shot.
Click to expand...
I think way back when the micro lenses covered up to but not including 1:1, where 1:1 and larger magnifications would be considered macro. Makes more sense to me in reverse but I can be kooky like that.
Stan Disbrow said:
This is all to document things electronic. Usually failures of some sort. And I don't use MF on this. The Macro Scope as I call it is an old Kodak 760c, APS-H, 6 MP on a copy stand and one of three (mislabeled, to my mind) Nikon Micro-Nikkor lenses. So, akin to most everyone here when it comes to macro shooting.

The other is my Venerable Leica Scope with a Kodak 520c, APS-C, 2 MP as the Leica Scope tube takes a Canon EF mount. Not a Leica camera of any sort. That part always makes me chuckle.
Click to expand...
I think Leica knows that they better make allowances for Canon if they wan't to sell product.
Stan Disbrow said:
But it could as easily be a Nikon Scope as I've had plenty of those of many models where I've worked. Or Olympus, as they are the third of the camera companies that make Scopes.

But, maybe my aligned Common and Engineering Speak does not align with Photographer Speak....
Click to expand...
Well, sometimes that which aligns with common sense is good enough and just as well.
Stan Disbrow said:
Stan
Click to expand...
 
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
Click to expand...
:-(

And can this be fixed with firmware for example? Or is there no possible resolution?
Click to expand...
Firmware isn't almighty sorcery. The laws of physics still apply.
Pansottin said:
Pansottin said:
Pansottin said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
Click to expand...
;-(

Thanks Jim.
Click to expand...
 
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
JimKasson said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
JimKasson said:
Or does one of the tubes degrade the lens performance less than the other?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Jim, I found this brief explanation as I didn't know what these additional lenses were for in optical design:

Things You Should Know About Your Lenses, But May Not

This is not an article. A good article is like a five course meal, leading you through various tastes until you get to the big point of the whole thing: cheesecake. But I had a few things I wanted to talk about that weren’t an article in themselves, just blurbs, really. So I planned this [...]
www.lensrentals.com

---

Therefore, these internal floating elements are designed and present for lenses that work at shorter distances and that allow close-up or macro; am I correct?

From what I understand, the presence of the tubes does not allow these floating elements to do their work; as you wrote.
Does this cause a loss of sharpness due to lack of aberration correction?

I've been looking at the GF lens specs on the Fujifilm page and they indicate ED, Super ED and Aspherical lenses, in the optical design, but in my technical ignorance, I'm not able to figure out if some of these elements are floating elements ,-(

Will the GF80, GF110 and GF250 lenses, which are not exactly for close focusing, have these floating elements?

On which GF lenses will tubes perform better and worse; even if not for 1:1 macro, but close-up at least?

Thank you so much.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

I'm shooting printed wire board parts mostly. Surface mounted resistors, capacitors, coils and the like. Usually burned out due to a fault in a chip. Sometimes liquid damaged. Sometimes miscounted, bad solder, etc. These parts are very small.

Once I get the package open on a chip, and look inside at that damage, an optical shot of the overall thing is needed. After that, I get to leave the optical world of microscopes for the electron world. More images but we can't call them photographs.

The macro part comes in when I want a wide field view of a section of the PWB. That shows many parts at once. Usually a series of shots go together in a report. Wide field, then optical close up or two and then an SEM image of whatever the root cause is.

Different subjects than most uses for macro lenses though. Boring.

Stan
 
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
Pansottin said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
Pansottin said:
Or does one of the tubes degrade the lens performance less than the other?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Jim, I found this brief explanation as I didn't know what these additional lenses were for in optical design:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/things-you-should-know-about-your-lenses-but-may-not/2
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
Pansottin said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
Pansottin said:
Or does one of the tubes degrade the lens performance less than the other?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Jim, I found this brief explanation as I didn't know what these additional lenses were for in optical design:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/things-you-should-know-about-your-lenses-but-may-not/2

---

Therefore, these internal floating elements are designed and present for lenses that work at shorter distances and that allow close-up or macro; am I correct?

From what I understand, the presence of the tubes does not allow these floating elements to do their work; as you wrote.
Does this cause a loss of sharpness due to lack of aberration correction?

I've been looking at the GF lens specs on the Fujifilm page and they indicate ED, Super ED and Aspherical lenses, in the optical design, but in my technical ignorance, I'm not able to figure out if some of these elements are floating elements ,-(

Will the GF80, GF110 and GF250 lenses, which are not exactly for close focusing, have these floating elements?

On which GF lenses will tubes perform better and worse; even if not for 1:1 macro, but close-up at least?
Click to expand...
Not sure what the relevance of the last question is... No other GF lens with tubes is going to achieve the 1:2 reproduction ratio that the GF 120 offers without tubes. And certainly not at comparable quality.

I thought the issue was having to magnify beyond 1:2. If not, just use the 120 macro.
Pansottin said:
Thank you so much.
Click to expand...
 
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:
JimKasson said:
Teila Day said:
They're not as awful and 'toy-like' feeling as many of the Canon/Nikon lenses that I've used, but absolutely not even in the same universe as my Zeiss 100 makro. My Pentax lenses don't even come remotely close, when I think is shameful on lenses costing thousands of dollars whether they be Pentax, Hasselblad or any other lens. Zeiss is some of the best "feeling" lenses (other than some of the Cinema lenses) that I've had the pleasure of using.
Click to expand...
Try the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit-R ROM, with its double helicoid. Now that's what a focusing mechanism should feel like.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
is this lens you are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim. How does this lens compare to the GF120mm (if the question makes sense)?
Click to expand...
With no tubes, the GF 120 is the better lens.
Click to expand...
Why does this degradation occur in the image with the use of tubes?
Click to expand...
Because the GF 120 uses floating elements, and they aren’t doing their job when you use tubes.
Pansottin said:
With both tubes 18 and 45 equally?
Click to expand...
The 45 is worse than the 18.
Pansottin said:
Or does one of the tubes degrade the lens performance less than the other?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Jim, I found this brief explanation as I didn't know what these additional lenses were for in optical design:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/things-you-should-know-about-your-lenses-but-may-not/2
Click to expand...
As a general matter, most lenses are compromises, particularly as magnification increases but you still want to cover close in subjects.

In some sectors of the industrial lens world, where no compromises are acceptable, a company may make several lenses to cover each each of a number of discrete magnifications.

For example, Schneider has a line of otherwise very similar lenses optimized for each of the following magnifications:

0.07x, 0.23X, 0.29x, 0.35x. 0.5x, 0.7x, 0.876x, 1.143x, 1.43x, 1.75x, 2.0x

Schneider makes the Macro Varon, with a floating element, which must be adjusted precisely and covers 0.5X to 2.0x. This is still a bit of a compromise, and is far more expensive.

The GFX 120mm covers from infinity to 0.5X. The floating elements are moving, as it corrects the image, as the lens gets to higher and higher magnifications. Fuji’s designers decided to stop at 0.5x. (To go 1x would require a longer lens with significantly more extension, roughly half the extension of the effective focal length, which is likely less than 120mm at closer distances, but say 30 - 50mm of additional extension.)

Once you move closer than 0.5x with the 120mm with extension tubes, there is no more adjustment and optimization. You are simply moving the whole assembly, which is not designed for higher magnifications. The impact of moving outside the design range will be seen most clearly in degraded edge and corner performance. Depending on subject matter, this might not be so bad, but there is no fix for the problem, outside of a wholesale redesign and a costlier lens.
 
Last edited:
Doppler9000 said:
The GFX 120mm covers from infinity to 0.5X. The floating elements are moving, as it corrects the image, as the lens gets to higher and higher magnifications. Fuji’s designers decided to stop at 0.5x. (To go 1x would require a longer lens with significantly more extension, roughly half the extension of the effective focal length, which is likely less than 120mm at closer distances, but say 30 - 50mm.)

Once you move closer than 0.5x with the 120mm, there is no more adjustment.
Click to expand...
It's kinda like the second law of thermodynamics; it's worse than that. If you put on a 45 mm tube and want magnification a bit larger than 1:2, you focus the lens to nearly infinity. The lens doesn't know there's a tube there, and sets the floating elements for a magnification somewhere near 0.
Doppler9000 said:
You are simply moving the whole assembly, which is not optimized for higher magnifications. The impact of moving outside the design range will be seen most clearly in degraded edge and corner performance. Depending on subject matter, this might not be so bad, but there is no fix for the problem, outside of a wholesale redesign and a costlier lens.
Click to expand...
For one thing, you'd need smart tubes that the camera could identify electrically. And then you'd need separate motors for focusing and for the corrections.

--
https://blog.kasson.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pansottin said:
Jim, I found this brief explanation as I didn't know what these additional lenses were for in optical design:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/things-you-should-know-about-your-lenses-but-may-not/2

Therefore, these internal floating elements are designed and present for lenses that work at shorter distances and that allow close-up or macro; am I correct?
Click to expand...
Floating elements are sometime also used in lenses with no macro pretentions at all.
Pansottin said:
From what I understand, the presence of the tubes does not allow these floating elements to do their work; as you wrote.
Click to expand...
The tubes confuse the lens as to the actual magnification, and the lens does the wrong thing.
Pansottin said:
Does this cause a loss of sharpness due to lack of aberration correction?
Click to expand...
Yes. Mostly away from the center of the image.
Pansottin said:
I've been looking at the GF lens specs on the Fujifilm page and they indicate ED, Super ED and Aspherical lenses, in the optical design, but in my technical ignorance, I'm not able to figure out if some of these elements are floating elements ,-(

Will the GF80, GF110 and GF250 lenses, which are not exactly for close focusing, have these floating elements?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but I'll bet someone here does.
Pansottin said:
On which GF lenses will tubes perform better and worse; even if not for 1:1 macro, but close-up at least?
Click to expand...
If corner sharpness is not critical and the subject field isn't flat, I think the 18mm tube should be good on any of those three lenses. I have used the 18 mm tube on the 63, and it's been fine for what I was doing with it, but I don't know if it has floating elements.
Pansottin said:
Thank you so much.
Click to expand...
 
JimKasson said:
Doppler9000 said:
The GFX 120mm covers from infinity to 0.5X. The floating elements are moving, as it corrects the image, as the lens gets to higher and higher magnifications. Fuji’s designers decided to stop at 0.5x. (To go 1x would require a longer lens with significantly more extension, roughly half the extension of the effective focal length, which is likely less than 120mm at closer distances, but say 30 - 50mm.)

Once you move closer than 0.5x with the 120mm, there is no more adjustment.
Click to expand...
It's kinda like the second law of thermodynamics; it's worse than that. If you put on a 45 mm tube and want magnification a bit larger than 1:2, you focus the lens to nearly infinity. The lens doesn't know there's a tube there, and sets the floating elements for a magnification somewhere near 0.
Click to expand...
Ugh, yes - even worse than I thought
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
You are simply moving the whole assembly, which is not optimized for higher magnifications. The impact of moving outside the design range will be seen most clearly in degraded edge and corner performance. Depending on subject matter, this might not be so bad, but there is no fix for the problem, outside of a wholesale redesign and a costlier lens.
Click to expand...
For one thing, you'd need smart tubes that the camera could identify electrically. And then you'd need separate motors for focusing and for the corrections.
Click to expand...
Here is an example one half of a dual-motor scheme using

96448846c32a4c74bfdbb44551b512df.jpg

the Schneider Macro Varon. The stepper here adjusts the floating elements in the lens, the focus is adjusted by a stepper-driven bellows. The two steppers are synced, giving continuous optimization. This set up is used for stacking, where the lens is fixed and the sensor is moved using the rear standard of the bellows to change focus, which maintains perspective. FWIW, the Macro Varon will cover a GFX sensor (62mm image circle).
 
Last edited:
I simple bought a medium format (GFX-50R) in order to have 50mp of native 3:4 ratio in RAW. I just wanted to have something other than 2:3. Like the good ol´ days! Other than that, I prefer a RF shaped body to DSLR shaped bodies.
 
Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

I'm shooting printed wire board parts mostly. Surface mounted resistors, capacitors, coils and the like. Usually burned out due to a fault in a chip. Sometimes liquid damaged. Sometimes miscounted, bad solder, etc. These parts are very small.

Once I get the package open on a chip, and look inside at that damage, an optical shot of the overall thing is needed. After that, I get to leave the optical world of microscopes for the electron world. More images but we can't call them photographs.

The macro part comes in when I want a wide field view of a section of the PWB. That shows many parts at once. Usually a series of shots go together in a report. Wide field, then optical close up or two and then an SEM image of whatever the root cause is.

Different subjects than most uses for macro lenses though. Boring.

Stan
Click to expand...
There's something nice to be said about 'boring'. Boards and computer bits and bobs don't speak, cry, or spit up or potty on your hand-painted backdrop canvases. Boring scores big points in that regard. Very interesting/unique use case.

At 1:4 - 1:1, what is your preferred camera format(s) to use for that kind of work?

--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Is medium format noticeably better than full frame DSLR?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
16K
ChristopherIQ
C
AfzalKhanVisuals
I want to upgrade from Full Frame to Medium Format.
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
16K
AfzalKhanVisuals
AfzalKhanVisuals
AfzalKhanVisuals
Upgrade from Full Frame to Medium Format?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
mujana
M
JimKasson
  • Sticky
GFX 100RF review draft
5 6 7
Replies
139
Views
111K
ZilverHaylide
Z
E
Emulating Dynamic Range of Medium Format
Replies
18
Views
2K
JimKasson
JimKasson

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