Make me appreciate GFX..

Erik Kaffehr · Sep 7, 2022

Charles_S said:
Charles_S said:

there isn’t really a Medium Format “look” some others out there sold me on.

Click to expand...

The MF look is in the interplay between sensor size (or film size), focal length, FOV and DOF.

For a given focal length, a larger sensor delivers a wider FOV which allows you to move in closer to your subject (for the same framing as an FF would give you), which gives you a narrower DOF, but above all stronger focus fall-off or background blur. The bigger the sensor (or film), the stronger the effect. The Fuji sensor size cannot deliver the same degree of effect as say a 6x7 film camera for that reason. It is physics. If you compare to FF, the effect is there, but might be too small to notice.

Not really. On a smaller format we may use a shorter lens. Shooting on:

33x44 mm we may use a 63 mm lens
24x36 mm we may use a 50 mm lens
APS-C we may use a 33 mm lens

These lenses would yield about the same FOV, on the diagonal. The aspect ratio is different so these number may vary with cropping.

To get the same DoF we would need more stopping down on the larger formats:

63 mm at f/8 would yield the same FOV and DoF as:
50 mm at f/6.3 on 24x36 mm or:
33 mm at f/4.2 on APS-C

Would we shoot images with good lenses at those setting with each system and scale to the same size, those images would yield the same look.

Charles_S said:
I also switched from an XT-3 to a 50s for studio portraits, and find that I have gained in nicer transitions between darks and brights, resolution, and much more malleable files particularly for shadow recovery. I have lost in AF, speed of operation, weight and cost. The MF look is barely noticeable.

On the whole I am happy with the move I made, but I kept my X-Pro 2 for when I need a light unobtrusive camera.

There may be a couple of reasons that lenses for larger formats may be very good performers. The 63/2.8 lens for the GFX may deliver good image quality fully open.

A corresponding 50 mm lens at f/2.2 may still have a very good performance.

The APS-c system would need a 33 mm lens at f/1.45. Very few lens designs would be optimally sharp at f/1.45.

Another advantage of larger formats is that they can collect more light, that is more photons, than smaller sensor when exposure is the same. That larger number of captured photons means reduced noise.

In the end, as long as the images are good enough for a given print size, they would be very similar.

Best regards

Erik

Stan Disbrow · Sep 7, 2022

Hi,

I first picked up MF with film. As in a Mamiya 645, and that was used alongside a Nikon FE in SF.

And it was all about printing things larger with a clearer final result. And the scheme worked.

With early digital (2003) and, the highest resolution I had was 6 MP with SF, but I could get 16 MP with MF. So, that was a Kodak back on a Contax 645. And again, the end result was superior prints. And that scheme worked.

Today, I'm back with 16 MP in SF and 40 MP in MF and, once again, the scheme works.

It also tells me I ought to just sit back and accept that I'm gonna have both a SF and a MF system.

If I upped my game such that my SF body had 45 MP, I'd be then getting a MF body with 100 MP to go with it. And then I'd need a bigger printer to boot.

However, seeing the Medium Format look, I dunno. I'm unsure I ever saw it with film. But then I only shot B+W in those days. It was what I could process on my own. I did shoot some 135 color and had a lab process it, but I never shot 120 color.

And, the most important of what I did shoot in 120 B+W was a portrait of my paternal Grandmother. I made lots of prints for aunt's, uncle's and cousins. An excellent 8x10, if I must say so myself. She looked much better with MF than she did SF and I did shoot the same shot of her at the same time with both.

And that's what I always think of when I hear about the MF Look. And it's really just the smaller film grain due to the larger negative at the 8x10 print size.

Stan

Stan Disbrow · Sep 7, 2022

Hi,

I saw plenty of difference between APS-C and APS-H and Full Frame. The greatest was between APS-C and APS-H, actually. But I think all of what I see is due to the sensors themselves and not the formats.

Same as I see a difference between my Full Frame now and that old P645D. It isn't the format size differences. It's the silicon. It's not just my resolution differences, it's the CMOS v CCD.

And I expect I'd see a similar difference between a Nikon Z9 and a Fujifilm GFX 100. Different silicon would be the greatest part of it.

Stan

NAwlins Contrarian · Sep 7, 2022

Stan Disbrow said:
I first picked up MF with film. As in a Mamiya 645, and that was used alongside a Nikon FE in SF.

I think there's still, deep in a case in a closet, a Mamiya M645 system that I co-own with my brother. I keep saying I'm going to use it again for some B&W, but my gut tells me if I checked, it might be approaching a decade since I last exposed a frame in it.

Stan Disbrow said:
And it was all about printing things larger with a clearer final result. And the scheme worked....

Yep. And same for all those steps--up to a point, larger film and/or a larger sensor with more pixels makes a better, larger-size print.

Stan Disbrow said:
However, seeing the Medium Format look, I dunno. I'm unsure I ever saw it with film....

And that's what I always think of when I hear about the MF Look. And it's really just the smaller film grain due to the larger negative at the 8x10 print size.

Agree. Both 35mm film and a 6 MP DSLR result in prints that are visibly less-than at sizes of 8x10" or larger. I think both 645 film and 16 MP DSLRs can produce very good-looking prints at 8x10" and 11x14". Much beyond that, I think you again start to see some advantages of even larger film and/or bigger-sensor / higher-pixel digital. And if I had a Canon Pro-4100 to play with ...

Stan Disbrow · Sep 7, 2022

Hi,

In Electrical Engineering, a Meter is something else entirely.

This one uses units called Amperes.

And it's about as old as film.

But I have a set of such oldies but goodies. Compared to the digital multimeters of today, I'd say this one is Large Format.

Sorry for the crappy cell phone shot. It's what I use in the Electronics Lab these days rather than the old Polaroids - which I can't get film for anyway!

Stan

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume
your bank account, it will! Like mine, it did!

Charles_S · Sep 7, 2022

JimKasson said:
Charles_S said:

JimKasson said:

there isn’t really a Medium Format “look” some others out there sold me on.

Click to expand...

The MF look is in the interplay between sensor size (or film size), focal length, FOV and DOF.

For a given focal length, a larger sensor delivers a wider FOV which allows you to move in closer to your subject (for the same framing as an FF would give you), which gives you a narrower DOF, but above all stronger focus fall-off or background blur. The bigger the sensor (or film), the stronger the effect.

Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. Here’s what I think is going on.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/format-size-and-image-quality/

I would like to offer a visual example in the work of Martin Schoeller: Martin Schoeller

Most of his tight portraits in his later work were shot on a P1. It is clearly a different look than anything else I have seen. My interpretation of the MF look follows this example

---------------------------------------

Here is something to play with to have a simulation for different sensor sizes, focal lengths etc.

DOF simulator - Camera depth of field calculator with visual background blur and bokeh simulation.

If you use a portrait as reference, and keep a 85mm @f/5.6 constant here is what happens:

(sensor format / subject distance / DOF)

FF / 170cm / 12cm

645 / 120cm / 7.7 cm

6x9 / 70cm / 4.6 cm

-----------------------------------

I am not a lecturer of optics, but I use this simplified formula as a reference

DoF = u² × 2 × N × C / f²

where u = distance to subject, N = f/stop, c = circle of confusion ( degree of blur that you calibrate for), f= the focal length.

The smaller the distance, the less DOF, the longer the lens the less DOF, MF benefits from both because it has a wider FOV at a given focal length in comparison to smaller formats.

I have shot with 35mm/ 6x6 / 8x10, APS-C / MFD and FF, and I have wrestled with this question as well. What I stated is how I reconciled the different looks that I got from each of these systems.

Help me understand where I missed something; there is always something new to learn

JimKasson · Sep 7, 2022

Charles_S said:
JimKasson said:

Charles_S said:

Charles_S said:

there isn’t really a Medium Format “look” some others out there sold me on.

Click to expand...

The MF look is in the interplay between sensor size (or film size), focal length, FOV and DOF.

For a given focal length, a larger sensor delivers a wider FOV which allows you to move in closer to your subject (for the same framing as an FF would give you), which gives you a narrower DOF, but above all stronger focus fall-off or background blur. The bigger the sensor (or film), the stronger the effect.

Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. Here’s what I think is going on.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/format-size-and-image-quality/

Click to expand...

I would like to offer a visual example in the work of Martin Schoeller: Martin Schoeller

Most of his tight portraits in his later work were shot on a P1. It is clearly a different look than anything else I have seen. My interpretation of the MF look follows this example

Equivalence

NAwlins Contrarian · Sep 7, 2022

Stan Disbrow said:
In Electrical Engineering, a Meter is something else entirely.

This one uses units called Amperes.

And it's about as old as film.

But I have a set of such oldies but goodies. Compared to the digital multimeters of today, I'd say this one is Large Format.

My dad still has, and occasionally uses, a generally-similar meter than may be seventy (yes, 7-0) years old, and is very likely at least sixty.

The problem with you EEs is that you use units that nobody else understands--it ain't like kilometers versus miles or liters versus quarts. How many Americans can fully explain the difference between Amperes D.C. and Washington, D.C.?

The other day I was trying to explain some basic electrical point to somebody. I find you have to use water in a pipe as an analogy for electricity in a wire. If you say Volts are like pressure, Amps are like flow rate, and Watts are the product of the first two and basically at what rate you can get the work from water-wheel driven mill, many of them sort of get it. Then again, I think that's about right, but maybe not: the one class in circuits I had to take in college was definitely not my favorite.

NAwlins Contrarian · Sep 7, 2022

Charles_S said:
Here is something to play with to have a simulation for different sensor sizes, focal lengths etc.

DOF simulator - Camera depth of field calculator with visual background blur and bokeh simulation.

If you use a portrait as reference, and keep a 85mm @f/5.6 constant here is what happens:

(sensor format / subject distance / DOF)

FF / 170cm / 12cm

645 / 120cm / 7.7 cm

6x9 / 70cm / 4.6 cm

But a knowledgeable photographer does not keep the focal length and/or taking aperture constant when changing formats.

If you find that on FF an 85mm lens at f/5.6 gives you the portrait look you want, then you need to use (roughly, depending on crop):

* on 645 [FN1], a 135mm lens at f/9; and/or

* on 6x9 [FN2], a 200mm lens at f/13.

If you do (roughly) that, then the subject distance and DoF will be the same.

[FN1] Actual 645 as a film size, meaning 56 x 41.5 mm for most brands and 56x42mm for Pentax, as distinguished from the "645" of e.g. the Pentax 645Z, which is about 44 x 33 mm.

[FN2] Actual 6x9 as a film size, meaning 56 x 83 mm or thereabouts.

JimKasson · Sep 7, 2022

NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:

In Electrical Engineering, a Meter is something else entirely.

This one uses units called Amperes.

And it's about as old as film.

But I have a set of such oldies but goodies. Compared to the digital multimeters of today, I'd say this one is Large Format.

Click to expand...

My dad still has, and occasionally uses, a generally-similar meter than may be seventy (yes, 7-0) years old, and is very likely at least sixty.

The problem with you EEs is that you use units that nobody else understands--it ain't like kilometers versus miles or liters versus quarts.

The Ampere is an SI unit. The coulomb is derived unit.

NAwlins Contrarian said:
How many Americans can fully explain the difference between Amperes D.C. and Washington, D.C.?

I think that Ampere's D.C. is a deli.

NAwlins Contrarian said:
The other day I was trying to explain some basic electrical point to somebody. I find you have to use water in a pipe as an analogy for electricity in a wire. If you say Volts are like pressure, Amps are like flow rate, and Watts are the product of the first two and basically at what rate you can get the work from water-wheel driven mill, many of them sort of get it. Then again, I think that's about right,

Close enough. I use that analogy in reverse when I'm trying to figure out plumbing.

NAwlins Contrarian said:
but maybe not: the one class in circuits I had to take in college was definitely not my favorite.

OTOH, I loved my first circuits course. Twinkle, twinkle little star; power equals I squared R. Little star up in the sky; power equals E times I.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

Stan Disbrow · Sep 7, 2022

Hi,

One Volt of Electromotive Force will flow One Ampere of current thru a One Ohm resistor.

Ha!

And the water in a pipe analogy works. For Direct Current.

You then have to fill the pipe with ping pong balls such that you now have one more ball than you can fit in that length of pipe. Then push Mr Extra Ball in one end and pop one out the other. Then immediately push that one back in such that the first one pops back out. Keep this up. Sixty times a second in the US. Fifty times a second in the EU.

And that's Alternating Current.

And also American v Metric power! See. We can't even get that right.

Next up, you get to explain why Neutral is a power conductor and Ground is not, even though they are connected together at the breaker box!

The EU folks don't worry about that as much as the US folks do. We like our center tapped mains transformers here in the US.

Then try and describe a three phase AC system where sometimes we us that Neutral and sometimes we don't. Wye vs Delta. Have fun!

And it gets worse. I'm a Radio Frequency engineer. And I will go and ground a hot circuit at just this here point.... And then it'll work a lot better! See: Gamma Match.

Next up: Real v Imaginary aspects of circuits and the Smith Chart!

Just Kidding. Unless you want to take one of my Amateur Extra exams. Or the commercial General Radiotelephone Operator's Licence (shipboard radio). I'm also an FCC license examiner.

Stan

Aka W2CK

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume
your bank account, it will! Like mine, it did!

Stan Disbrow · Sep 7, 2022

Hi,

Ha! Yes!

All sorts of fun sayings and rhymes.

But I draw the line at using what we did to remember the old component color code. Taint politically correct any longer.

Stan

Charles_S · Sep 7, 2022

JimKasson said:
Charles_S said:

JimKasson said:

Charles_S said:

JimKasson said:

there isn’t really a Medium Format “look” some others out there sold me on.

Click to expand...

The MF look is in the interplay between sensor size (or film size), focal length, FOV and DOF.

For a given focal length, a larger sensor delivers a wider FOV which allows you to move in closer to your subject (for the same framing as an FF would give you), which gives you a narrower DOF, but above all stronger focus fall-off or background blur. The bigger the sensor (or film), the stronger the effect.

Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. Here’s what I think is going on.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/format-size-and-image-quality/

Click to expand...

I would like to offer a visual example in the work of Martin Schoeller: Martin Schoeller

Most of his tight portraits in his later work were shot on a P1. It is clearly a different look than anything else I have seen. My interpretation of the MF look follows this example

Click to expand...

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

It's an interesting article and a bone-dry read. I have to admit I didn't make it to the end.

The part that I did read, talked about comparisons that are comparing formats in a different way than what I intended. I suppose I will need to do a visual demonstration and come back to this.

NAwlins Contrarian · Sep 7, 2022

JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:

The other day I was trying to explain some basic electrical point to somebody. I find you have to use water in a pipe as an analogy for electricity in a wire. If you say Volts are like pressure, Amps are like flow rate, and Watts are the product of the first two and basically at what rate you can get the work from water-wheel driven mill, many of them sort of get it. Then again, I think that's about right,

Click to expand...

Close enough. I use that analogy in reverse when I'm trying to figure out plumbing.

Glad to hear it. Unfortunately, these days, when I'm trying to figure out plumbing, the answers are usually more like "Drano" or 'packing in that old valve is leaking'.

JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:

but maybe not: the one class in circuits I had to take in college was definitely not my favorite.

Click to expand...

OTOH, I loved my first circuits course. Twinkle, twinkle little star; power equals I squared R. Little star up in the sky; power equals E times I.

Back in the day, I liked fluid dynamics. Reynolds numbers, laminar flow (or not), etc.

That different people have differing interests and abilities is probably a good thing for all of us. Now, to paraphrase Goose, 'Come on, Jim, do some of that EE sh**!' when you get your X2D system. (Actually I realize a lot of what you do and blog about is not within the realm of EE, but ....)

JimKasson · Sep 7, 2022

Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

Ha! Yes!

All sorts of fun sayings and rhymes.

But I draw the line at using what we did to remember the old component color code. Taint politically correct any longer.

Bad boys... er, uh. Better stop there. The Gold, Silver, None coda was foul, too.

JimKasson · Sep 7, 2022

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:
Back in the day, I liked fluid dynamics.

At Stanford, the fluid dynamics lab was fun, but it smelled funny.

NAwlins Contrarian said:
Reynolds numbers, laminar flow (or not), etc.

That different people have differing interests and abilities is probably a good thing for all of us. Now, to paraphrase Goose, 'Come on, Jim, do some of that EE sh**!' when you get your X2D system. (Actually I realize a lot of what you do and blog about is not within the realm of EE, but ....)

Charles_S · Sep 7, 2022

NAwlins Contrarian said:
But a knowledgeable photographer does not keep the focal length and/or taking aperture constant when changing formats.

If you find that on FF an 85mm lens at f/5.6 gives you the portrait look you want, then you need to use (roughly, depending on crop):

* on 645 [FN1], a 135mm lens at f/9; and/or

* on 6x9 [FN2], a 200mm lens at f/13.

If you do (roughly) that, then the subject distance and DoF will be the same.

I think there are two points to this:

1) you are right if you are trying to replicate the same image of the main subject across sensor sizes - which was not my point.

2) the relationship between the subject and the background changes with the focal length - which is part of the look

As I responded to Jim's comment, I will do a visual demo. It will take me a while, and then I will come back to this point

JimKasson · Sep 7, 2022

Charles_S said:
JimKasson said:

Charles_S said:

JimKasson said:

Charles_S said:

Charles_S said:

there isn’t really a Medium Format “look” some others out there sold me on.

Click to expand...

The MF look is in the interplay between sensor size (or film size), focal length, FOV and DOF.

For a given focal length, a larger sensor delivers a wider FOV which allows you to move in closer to your subject (for the same framing as an FF would give you), which gives you a narrower DOF, but above all stronger focus fall-off or background blur. The bigger the sensor (or film), the stronger the effect.

Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. Here’s what I think is going on.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/format-size-and-image-quality/

Click to expand...

I would like to offer a visual example in the work of Martin Schoeller: Martin Schoeller

Most of his tight portraits in his later work were shot on a P1. It is clearly a different look than anything else I have seen. My interpretation of the MF look follows this example

Click to expand...

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Click to expand...

It's an interesting article and a bone-dry read.

I don't think it was written with the idea of maximizing entertainment value. I certainly don't read it for amusement.

Charles_S said:
I have to admit I didn't make it to the end.

The part that I did read, talked about comparisons that are comparing formats in a different way than what I intended.

Bingo!

Charles_S said:
I suppose I will need to do a visual demonstration and come back to this.

All the visual demonstrations that I've performed back up James' assertions. In a blog post that I've cited in this thread, I talk about the limitations of equivalence, but, taken within its limitations, it is accurate.

JimKasson · Sep 7, 2022

Charles_S said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:

But a knowledgeable photographer does not keep the focal length and/or taking aperture constant when changing formats.

If you find that on FF an 85mm lens at f/5.6 gives you the portrait look you want, then you need to use (roughly, depending on crop):

* on 645 [FN1], a 135mm lens at f/9; and/or

* on 6x9 [FN2], a 200mm lens at f/13.

If you do (roughly) that, then the subject distance and DoF will be the same.

Click to expand...

I think there are two points to this:

1) you are right if you are trying to replicate the same image of the main subject across sensor sizes - which was not my point.

2) the relationship between the subject and the background changes with the focal length - which is part of the look

For equivalent lenses and settings at the same subject and background distances, the relationship between the subject and the background doesn't change.

Charles_S said:
As I responded to Jim's comment, I will do a visual demo. It will take me a while, and then I will come back to this point

Charles_S · Sep 7, 2022

alpshiker said:
Charles_S said:

alpshiker said:

there isn’t really a Medium Format “look” some others out there sold me on.

Click to expand...

The MF look is in the interplay between sensor size (or film size), focal length, FOV and DOF.

For a given focal length, a larger sensor delivers a wider FOV which allows you to move in closer to your subject (for the same framing as an FF would give you), which gives you a narrower DOF, but above all stronger focus fall-off or background blur. The bigger the sensor (or film), the stronger the effect. The Fuji sensor size cannot deliver the same degree of effect as say a 6x7 film camera for that reason. It is physics. If you compare to FF, the effect is there, but might be too small to notice.

I also switched from an XT-3 to a 50s for studio portraits, and find that I have gained in nicer transitions between darks and brights, resolution, and much more malleable files particularly for shadow recovery. I have lost in AF, speed of operation, weight and cost. The MF look is barely noticeable.

On the whole I am happy with the move I made, but I kept my X-Pro 2 for when I need a light unobtrusive camera.

Click to expand...

To bounce back on this idea which I totally agree with and to help me in my own decisions, I would like to submit this image here for a blind test. Do you believe that the capture format can be determined from the rendering of this image, and what format would you attribute to it?

I couldn't. But this image also does not represent what I call the medium format look. I am referring mostly to portraiture. Martin Schoeller's close-in portraits are one reference where it is easily visible.

--