Medium format look – a topic debated at nauseam but now with a visual twist

koweb · Oct 8, 2022

TransientEye said:
Here you go. The first image is the GFX100s shot with the GF 63mm f2.8, and the second an OM-1 (micro 4/3) shot with the 25mm f1.2, both wide open and at 1/8000th second.

The lenses are almost equivalent, with the pupil diameters approximately 21mm for the Olympus and 22mm for the Fuji. The Olympus was shot at its base ISO of 200, giving a shutter speed of 1/8000. The Fuji had to be shot at ISO 1250 to give the same speed. The Fuji image here has been down-sampled to the same resolution as the Olympus.

GF 63mm at f2.8 ISO 1250 1/8000

Olympus 25mm at f1.2 ISO 200 1/8000

Processing is with the defaults in Capture One. The Olympus lens shows more colour fringing (a weakness of the 25mm f1.2) and a fractionally smaller blur diameter (because the equivalence is not quite exact).

The Fuji obviously has a huge resolution advantage, and of course in this case I could have used a lower ISO and shutter speed, although for static subjects such as this, I can also boost the Olympus performance using its computational multi-shot modes. But for many applications, the two images are for practical purposes identical, despite the 6x difference in sensor area.

This for me is why the two systems are very complementary. I can mix images from both, using the Fuji where resolution, low noise and editing flexibility counts, and the Olympus where fast AF, small size/weight, or relatively long focal lengths are more important.

Thank you for posting these comparisons!

Well, I would have a hard time saying there was a difference in fall off from in focus to out of focus. IOW, is there a "MF look" here in regards to focus fall off? Not that I can tell.

However, that said, it's hard to say these images are "for practical purposes" identical - the quality is very different to me. To qualify, I suppose if you are saying to post to IG, then perhaps they are, but then couldn't we throw a new smartphone into the mix then?

But, to me, for anyone seriously considering MF, the image difference jumps out and it's not even close. For example, the sharpness in the lower right corner, in the area where there are some rust spots shows a difference in sharpness that is significant. And, as hinted at, the CA on the MFT image is noticeable; but to me it's disturbing and would exclude the image from any critical examination.

I can perhaps ignore the color differences, but they are there as well; in my mind more pleasing in the Fuji image. But, I'm willing to admit that's subjective and I wasn't there so cannot comment on which would seem more accurate.

Since you downsampled the Fuji image, I'm confused as to what I'm seeing here. I've stated my observations as above, and believe they are very significant. I just don't see them as comparable if we are comparing IQ. But, I'd like to hear your perspective; I'm no expert here, so maybe I'm missing something?

--
Bradk
“This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock.” – Edward Weston

Erik Kaffehr · Oct 8, 2022

koweb said:
TransientEye said:

Here you go. The first image is the GFX100s shot with the GF 63mm f2.8, and the second an OM-1 (micro 4/3) shot with the 25mm f1.2, both wide open and at 1/8000th second.

The lenses are almost equivalent, with the pupil diameters approximately 21mm for the Olympus and 22mm for the Fuji. The Olympus was shot at its base ISO of 200, giving a shutter speed of 1/8000. The Fuji had to be shot at ISO 1250 to give the same speed. The Fuji image here has been down-sampled to the same resolution as the Olympus.

GF 63mm at f2.8 ISO 1250 1/8000

Olympus 25mm at f1.2 ISO 200 1/8000

Processing is with the defaults in Capture One. The Olympus lens shows more colour fringing (a weakness of the 25mm f1.2) and a fractionally smaller blur diameter (because the equivalence is not quite exact).

The Fuji obviously has a huge resolution advantage, and of course in this case I could have used a lower ISO and shutter speed, although for static subjects such as this, I can also boost the Olympus performance using its computational multi-shot modes. But for many applications, the two images are for practical purposes identical, despite the 6x difference in sensor area.

This for me is why the two systems are very complementary. I can mix images from both, using the Fuji where resolution, low noise and editing flexibility counts, and the Olympus where fast AF, small size/weight, or relatively long focal lengths are more important.

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting these comparisons!

Well, I would have a hard time saying there was a difference in fall off from in focus to out of focus. IOW, is there a "MF look" here in regards to focus fall off? Not that I can tell.

However, that said, it's hard to say these images are "for practical purposes" identical - the quality is very different to me. To qualify, I suppose if you are saying to post to IG, then perhaps they are, but then couldn't we throw a new smartphone into the mix then?

But, to me, for anyone seriously considering MF, the image difference jumps out and it's not even close. For example, the sharpness in the lower right corner, in the area where there are some rust spots shows a difference in sharpness that is significant. And, as hinted at, the CA on the MFT image is noticeable; but to me it's disturbing and would exclude the image from any critical examination.

I can perhaps ignore the color differences, but they are there as well; in my mind more pleasing in the Fuji image. But, I'm willing to admit that's subjective and I wasn't there so cannot comment on which would seem more accurate.

Since you downsampled the Fuji image, I'm confused as to what I'm seeing here. I've stated my observations as above, and believe they are very significant. I just don't see them as comparable if we are comparing IQ. But, I'd like to hear your perspective; I'm no expert here, so maybe I'm missing something?

Hi,

No doubt that larger formats having more pixels can deliver better image quality than smaller formats.

But, it is often stated that they yield a different look. So, it is down to the definition of the term look. I would suggest that to most readers a look means a difference that is image size independent.

I think that the images shared look very similar, when viewed at default size.

Regarding image quality it is a bit more complex. It is difficult to make an f/1.2 lens that is very well corrected at full aperture, while f/2.8 is not very demanding.

Would the experiment have been done at f/11 on the GFX and f/4 on the m4/3, the look would still be similar, but the GF lens would be mildly affected by diffraction, while m4/3 lens would be near optimum.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

koweb · Oct 8, 2022

Erik Kaffehr said:
koweb said:

TransientEye said:

Here you go. The first image is the GFX100s shot with the GF 63mm f2.8, and the second an OM-1 (micro 4/3) shot with the 25mm f1.2, both wide open and at 1/8000th second.

The lenses are almost equivalent, with the pupil diameters approximately 21mm for the Olympus and 22mm for the Fuji. The Olympus was shot at its base ISO of 200, giving a shutter speed of 1/8000. The Fuji had to be shot at ISO 1250 to give the same speed. The Fuji image here has been down-sampled to the same resolution as the Olympus.

GF 63mm at f2.8 ISO 1250 1/8000

Olympus 25mm at f1.2 ISO 200 1/8000

Processing is with the defaults in Capture One. The Olympus lens shows more colour fringing (a weakness of the 25mm f1.2) and a fractionally smaller blur diameter (because the equivalence is not quite exact).

The Fuji obviously has a huge resolution advantage, and of course in this case I could have used a lower ISO and shutter speed, although for static subjects such as this, I can also boost the Olympus performance using its computational multi-shot modes. But for many applications, the two images are for practical purposes identical, despite the 6x difference in sensor area.

This for me is why the two systems are very complementary. I can mix images from both, using the Fuji where resolution, low noise and editing flexibility counts, and the Olympus where fast AF, small size/weight, or relatively long focal lengths are more important.

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting these comparisons!

Well, I would have a hard time saying there was a difference in fall off from in focus to out of focus. IOW, is there a "MF look" here in regards to focus fall off? Not that I can tell.

However, that said, it's hard to say these images are "for practical purposes" identical - the quality is very different to me. To qualify, I suppose if you are saying to post to IG, then perhaps they are, but then couldn't we throw a new smartphone into the mix then?

But, to me, for anyone seriously considering MF, the image difference jumps out and it's not even close. For example, the sharpness in the lower right corner, in the area where there are some rust spots shows a difference in sharpness that is significant. And, as hinted at, the CA on the MFT image is noticeable; but to me it's disturbing and would exclude the image from any critical examination.

I can perhaps ignore the color differences, but they are there as well; in my mind more pleasing in the Fuji image. But, I'm willing to admit that's subjective and I wasn't there so cannot comment on which would seem more accurate.

Since you downsampled the Fuji image, I'm confused as to what I'm seeing here. I've stated my observations as above, and believe they are very significant. I just don't see them as comparable if we are comparing IQ. But, I'd like to hear your perspective; I'm no expert here, so maybe I'm missing something?

Click to expand...

Hi,

No doubt that larger formats having more pixels can deliver better image quality than smaller formats.

But, it is often stated that they yield a different look. So, it is down to the definition of the term look. I would suggest that to most readers a look means a difference that is image size independent.

I think that the images shared look very similar, when viewed at default size.

Regarding image quality it is a bit more complex. It is difficult to make an f/1.2 lens that is very well corrected at full aperture, while f/2.8 is not very demanding.

Would the experiment have been done at f/11 on the GFX and f/4 on the m4/3, the look would still be similar, but the GF lens would be mildly affected by diffraction, while m4/3 lens would be near optimum.

Best regards

Erik

Thanks Erik, I appreciate your weighing in on this

I guess if you say that "default size" is as presented - namely compressed and downsized for viewing here, then it could be said they are similar. However, I am having a problem thinking that anyone would spend the money or the effort to buy MF just to post at the sizes seen here. I just cannot reconcile these images as being similar if I consider that the use case would be to view large or print large.

I do agree that much of the challenge and confusion is on defining "look". As shown by these images, similar aspect ratios along with similar bokeh can get similar looking images, as long as one does not check the details closely. If printed small, they also may have a very similar look.

So here's where I end up on this; I'm not sold on the idea that just because a sensor is larger than FF that it somehow takes on magical abilities. However, it is really hard to ignore that the IQ gets noticeably better as the sensor gets larger (at least given similar generations of tech). How much of that is due to larger sensor, or how much due to larger lenses being easier to manufacture to higher standard - well I leave that to others more knowledgeable. Either way, I still come back to - there is a difference, and it is noticeable. To some, that may define enough of a "look" for them to spend the money and accept the differences in the systems.

--
Bradk
“This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock.” – Edward Weston

Charles_S · Oct 8, 2022

TransientEye said:
Here you go. The first image is the GFX100s shot with the GF 63mm f2.8, and the second an OM-1 (micro 4/3) shot with the 25mm f1.2, both wide open and at 1/8000th second.

The lenses are almost equivalent, with the pupil diameters approximately 21mm for the Olympus and 22mm for the Fuji. The Olympus was shot at its base ISO of 200, giving a shutter speed of 1/8000. The Fuji had to be shot at ISO 1250 to give the same speed. The Fuji image here has been down-sampled to the same resolution as the Olympus.

GF 63mm at f2.8 ISO 1250 1/8000

Olympus 25mm at f1.2 ISO 200 1/8000

Processing is with the defaults in Capture One. The Olympus lens shows more colour fringing (a weakness of the 25mm f1.2) and a fractionally smaller blur diameter (because the equivalence is not quite exact).

The Fuji obviously has a huge resolution advantage, and of course in this case I could have used a lower ISO and shutter speed, although for static subjects such as this, I can also boost the Olympus performance using its computational multi-shot modes. But for many applications, the two images are for practical purposes identical, despite the 6x difference in sensor area.

This for me is why the two systems are very complementary. I can mix images from both, using the Fuji where resolution, low noise and editing flexibility counts, and the Olympus where fast AF, small size/weight, or relatively long focal lengths are more important.

Very interesting

--

Home - charles s.

www.charles-s.com

https://twitter.com/charlessphoto

https://www.tiktok.com/@charlessphoto

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Instagram

Create an account or log in to Instagram - Share what you're into with the people who get you.

www.instagram.com

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnYqvF6ScGApqCOqTAAG9kA

TransientEye · Oct 8, 2022

koweb said:
Well, I would have a hard time saying there was a difference in fall off from in focus to out of focus. IOW, is there a "MF look" here in regards to focus fall off? Not that I can tell.

However, that said, it's hard to say these images are "for practical purposes" identical - the quality is very different to me. To qualify, I suppose if you are saying to post to IG, then perhaps they are, but then couldn't we throw a new smartphone into the mix then?

But, to me, for anyone seriously considering MF, the image difference jumps out and it's not even close. For example, the sharpness in the lower right corner, in the area where there are some rust spots shows a difference in sharpness that is significant. And, as hinted at, the CA on the MFT image is noticeable; but to me it's disturbing and would exclude the image from any critical examination.

I can perhaps ignore the color differences, but they are there as well; in my mind more pleasing in the Fuji image. But, I'm willing to admit that's subjective and I wasn't there so cannot comment on which would seem more accurate.

Since you downsampled the Fuji image, I'm confused as to what I'm seeing here. I've stated my observations as above, and believe they are very significant. I just don't see them as comparable if we are comparing IQ. But, I'd like to hear your perspective; I'm no expert here, so maybe I'm missing something?

Yes, of course the images are not identical - but for typical online use I doubt that anyone looking at images from the two systems would be able to point at one and claim that it had some magical "medium format" sauce.

The differences in colour are usually not terribly important, coming from a number of things but not least the RAW processor / colour profiles that are used. If I had used Lightroom or DXO, the default colours will be different again, but it is usually easy to edit the colours to match if necessary.

I think that the easiest way to understand equivalence is to realise that for any two cameras there will be a set of overlapping ISO, shutter-speed and apertures that that will - in the case of idealised lenses and sensors - exactly the same images. What the larger sensor cameras do is widen that envelope, so that you can (for example) shoot with lower noise by either using a longer exposure time or a shallower depth of field. The price you pay for that extra flexibility is usually a hugely bigger, slower and heavier system.

The rider 'idealised lenses and sensors' is the main reason why the Fuji and Olympus images are completely identical. Each vendor makes its own choices about what practical trade-offs are made for the camera, sensor and lenses.

For the GFX, Fuji seems to have mostly prioritised resolution and optical performance, while keeping the size and weight tolerable for hand-held use. So you have lenses that are (mostly) quite slow (aperture and focus speed) but which have extremely good optical behaviour right in to the corners.

The main reason I would choose to shoot the GFX is because I need a specific lens (eg the 110mm) or because I need clinically sharp optical performance with a lot of resolution and editing flexibility. If my idea of the 'medium format look' is a widish-angle FOV with shallow DOF, I would be better off using a full-frame mirrorless with one of the many ultra-fast lenses that exist today.

SigmaChrome · Oct 9, 2022

Erik Kaffehr said:
SigmaChrome said:

MercedRiver said:

When I used film I could see the medium format look because my 6x9 transparencies were so much larger than my 35mm. Now I can get the "medium format" look using micro four thirds and a quality lens. Today noise removal is so easy if it is even needed. Sorry, I couldn't resist poking at the hornet nest.

Click to expand...

OK, prove it.

Click to expand...

Well, micro four thirds cannot produce more than around 20MP, using what we have.

But, 20MP can be good enough for quite large prints and most images images are viewed on computer screens.

Some referred to Ctein shooting with micro four thirds and saying it delivers IQ like something between 6x7 and 4”x5” on film.

All film is not related equal, of course. We can drum scan Technical Pan at 10000 PPI and get a lot of detail. But IQ is not only about detail.

As long as we limit us to 20MP resolution, it may be possible to show that 4/3 can match larger formats.

One of my friends shoots 4/3 and she really makes some great images. But, she doesn’t print very large.

Personally I don't see what you seem to see.

How about some actual photographic comparative evidence?

koweb · Oct 9, 2022

TransientEye said:
koweb said:

Well, I would have a hard time saying there was a difference in fall off from in focus to out of focus. IOW, is there a "MF look" here in regards to focus fall off? Not that I can tell.

However, that said, it's hard to say these images are "for practical purposes" identical - the quality is very different to me. To qualify, I suppose if you are saying to post to IG, then perhaps they are, but then couldn't we throw a new smartphone into the mix then?

But, to me, for anyone seriously considering MF, the image difference jumps out and it's not even close. For example, the sharpness in the lower right corner, in the area where there are some rust spots shows a difference in sharpness that is significant. And, as hinted at, the CA on the MFT image is noticeable; but to me it's disturbing and would exclude the image from any critical examination.

I can perhaps ignore the color differences, but they are there as well; in my mind more pleasing in the Fuji image. But, I'm willing to admit that's subjective and I wasn't there so cannot comment on which would seem more accurate.

Since you downsampled the Fuji image, I'm confused as to what I'm seeing here. I've stated my observations as above, and believe they are very significant. I just don't see them as comparable if we are comparing IQ. But, I'd like to hear your perspective; I'm no expert here, so maybe I'm missing something?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course the images are not identical - but for typical online use I doubt that anyone looking at images from the two systems would be able to point at one and claim that it had some magical "medium format" sauce.

The differences in colour are usually not terribly important, coming from a number of things but not least the RAW processor / colour profiles that are used. If I had used Lightroom or DXO, the default colours will be different again, but it is usually easy to edit the colours to match if necessary.

I think that the easiest way to understand equivalence is to realise that for any two cameras there will be a set of overlapping ISO, shutter-speed and apertures that that will - in the case of idealised lenses and sensors - exactly the same images. What the larger sensor cameras do is widen that envelope, so that you can (for example) shoot with lower noise by either using a longer exposure time or a shallower depth of field. The price you pay for that extra flexibility is usually a hugely bigger, slower and heavier system.

The rider 'idealised lenses and sensors' is the main reason why the Fuji and Olympus images are completely identical. Each vendor makes its own choices about what practical trade-offs are made for the camera, sensor and lenses.

For the GFX, Fuji seems to have mostly prioritised resolution and optical performance, while keeping the size and weight tolerable for hand-held use. So you have lenses that are (mostly) quite slow (aperture and focus speed) but which have extremely good optical behaviour right in to the corners.

The main reason I would choose to shoot the GFX is because I need a specific lens (eg the 110mm) or because I need clinically sharp optical performance with a lot of resolution and editing flexibility. If my idea of the 'medium format look' is a widish-angle FOV with shallow DOF, I would be better off using a full-frame mirrorless with one of the many ultra-fast lenses that exist today.

Thank you for the commentary; and BTW you have a great eye and I really enjoy your images on your site.

I think we are mostly in agreement here; certainly your examples have shown how close these 2 very disparate systems can be when it comes to the overall "look". It actually surprised me as I did expect more of a difference in the tonal and focus transitions.

But, on the other side, I think your images also highlighted that there is actually a huge difference in the end image quality. So I like your last paragraph as it summarizes what I'm seeing - MF does have the ability to achieve superior sharpness, increased resolution and editing flexibility. That is what keeps nagging me to try MF, but I keep wondering about how many times that will make enough of a difference for the photography I do...

Thanks again, your images and thoughts were very helpful!

DavidMillier · Oct 9, 2022

SigmaChrome said:
Erik Kaffehr said:

SigmaChrome said:

MercedRiver said:

When I used film I could see the medium format look because my 6x9 transparencies were so much larger than my 35mm. Now I can get the "medium format" look using micro four thirds and a quality lens. Today noise removal is so easy if it is even needed. Sorry, I couldn't resist poking at the hornet nest.

Click to expand...

OK, prove it.

Click to expand...

Well, micro four thirds cannot produce more than around 20MP, using what we have.

But, 20MP can be good enough for quite large prints and most images images are viewed on computer screens.

Some referred to Ctein shooting with micro four thirds and saying it delivers IQ like something between 6x7 and 4”x5” on film.

All film is not related equal, of course. We can drum scan Technical Pan at 10000 PPI and get a lot of detail. But IQ is not only about detail.

As long as we limit us to 20MP resolution, it may be possible to show that 4/3 can match larger formats.

One of my friends shoots 4/3 and she really makes some great images. But, she doesn’t print very large.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't see what you seem to see.

How about some actual photographic comparative evidence?

Hi Vitee

As a confirmed m4/3 shooter and a new cropped-MF shooter, what would you like to see?

Perhaps I can assist.

D.

SigmaChrome · Oct 9, 2022

DMillier said:
SigmaChrome said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

SigmaChrome said:

MercedRiver said:

When I used film I could see the medium format look because my 6x9 transparencies were so much larger than my 35mm. Now I can get the "medium format" look using micro four thirds and a quality lens. Today noise removal is so easy if it is even needed. Sorry, I couldn't resist poking at the hornet nest.

Click to expand...

OK, prove it.

Click to expand...

Well, micro four thirds cannot produce more than around 20MP, using what we have.

But, 20MP can be good enough for quite large prints and most images images are viewed on computer screens.

Some referred to Ctein shooting with micro four thirds and saying it delivers IQ like something between 6x7 and 4”x5” on film.

All film is not related equal, of course. We can drum scan Technical Pan at 10000 PPI and get a lot of detail. But IQ is not only about detail.

As long as we limit us to 20MP resolution, it may be possible to show that 4/3 can match larger formats.

One of my friends shoots 4/3 and she really makes some great images. But, she doesn’t print very large.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't see what you seem to see.

How about some actual photographic comparative evidence?

Click to expand...

Hi Vitee

As a confirmed m4/3 shooter and a new cropped-MF shooter, what would you like to see?

Perhaps I can assist.

Please do.

Thanks, Dave.

Doppler9000 · Oct 9, 2022

SigmaChrome said:
DMillier said:

SigmaChrome said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

SigmaChrome said:

MercedRiver said:

When I used film I could see the medium format look because my 6x9 transparencies were so much larger than my 35mm. Now I can get the "medium format" look using micro four thirds and a quality lens. Today noise removal is so easy if it is even needed. Sorry, I couldn't resist poking at the hornet nest.

Click to expand...

OK, prove it.

Click to expand...

Well, micro four thirds cannot produce more than around 20MP, using what we have.

But, 20MP can be good enough for quite large prints and most images images are viewed on computer screens.

Some referred to Ctein shooting with micro four thirds and saying it delivers IQ like something between 6x7 and 4”x5” on film.

All film is not related equal, of course. We can drum scan Technical Pan at 10000 PPI and get a lot of detail. But IQ is not only about detail.

As long as we limit us to 20MP resolution, it may be possible to show that 4/3 can match larger formats.

One of my friends shoots 4/3 and she really makes some great images. But, she doesn’t print very large.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't see what you seem to see.

How about some actual photographic comparative evidence?

Click to expand...

Hi Vitee

As a confirmed m4/3 shooter and a new cropped-MF shooter, what would you like to see?

Perhaps I can assist.

Click to expand...

Please do.

Thanks, Dave.

The ball is in your court - what is it you are looking for?

SigmaChrome · Oct 9, 2022

Doppler9000 said:
SigmaChrome said:

DMillier said:

SigmaChrome said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

SigmaChrome said:

MercedRiver said:

When I used film I could see the medium format look because my 6x9 transparencies were so much larger than my 35mm. Now I can get the "medium format" look using micro four thirds and a quality lens. Today noise removal is so easy if it is even needed. Sorry, I couldn't resist poking at the hornet nest.

Click to expand...

OK, prove it.

Click to expand...

Well, micro four thirds cannot produce more than around 20MP, using what we have.

But, 20MP can be good enough for quite large prints and most images images are viewed on computer screens.

Some referred to Ctein shooting with micro four thirds and saying it delivers IQ like something between 6x7 and 4”x5” on film.

All film is not related equal, of course. We can drum scan Technical Pan at 10000 PPI and get a lot of detail. But IQ is not only about detail.

As long as we limit us to 20MP resolution, it may be possible to show that 4/3 can match larger formats.

One of my friends shoots 4/3 and she really makes some great images. But, she doesn’t print very large.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't see what you seem to see.

How about some actual photographic comparative evidence?

Click to expand...

Hi Vitee

As a confirmed m4/3 shooter and a new cropped-MF shooter, what would you like to see?

Perhaps I can assist.

Click to expand...

Please do.

Thanks, Dave.

Click to expand...

The ball is in your court - what is it you are looking for?

When people make claims about smaller sensor cameras being able to stand up against the medium format "look", then anecdotal evidence is not enough. In terms of pure detail capture I will (and have) happily compared images taken on Fuji 50MP MF cameras with similar ones taken with Sigma Foveon. It takes a lot to beat the Foveon.

Here ya go:

Sigma DP3 Merrill - 50mm lens - resized image

Fujifilm GFX 50R with the GF35-70mm F4.5-5.6 WR - Resized image.

Note: I am doing this from my office and don't have access to full size images.

Neither of these shots can provide any insight into the DOF differences between the two cameras. I can use very fast lenses on APS-C bodies and get quite nice out of focus backgrounds but they don't come close to what can be achieved with MF.

The use of macro lenses or extension tubes are an exception.

Sigma SD1 Merrill, Meyer Optik Görlitz 100mm f2.8 Trioplan - with extension tube

Fujifilm GFX50S II ,Fujifilm FUJINON Lens GF80mm F1.7 R WR

Horses for courses, I plumb reckon.

I love using my GFX cameras and wouldn't give them up for anything, but I still reach for my Sigma gear when I want that special high detail, glorious colour look.

Now it would be nice to see some M-43 comparison shots, as I have never used one.

--
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!

Galleries by Vitee

www.pbase.com

Doppler9000 · Oct 9, 2022

SigmaChrome said:
Doppler9000 said:

SigmaChrome said:

DMillier said:

SigmaChrome said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

SigmaChrome said:

MercedRiver said:

When I used film I could see the medium format look because my 6x9 transparencies were so much larger than my 35mm. Now I can get the "medium format" look using micro four thirds and a quality lens. Today noise removal is so easy if it is even needed. Sorry, I couldn't resist poking at the hornet nest.

Click to expand...

OK, prove it.

Click to expand...

Well, micro four thirds cannot produce more than around 20MP, using what we have.

But, 20MP can be good enough for quite large prints and most images images are viewed on computer screens.

Some referred to Ctein shooting with micro four thirds and saying it delivers IQ like something between 6x7 and 4”x5” on film.

All film is not related equal, of course. We can drum scan Technical Pan at 10000 PPI and get a lot of detail. But IQ is not only about detail.

As long as we limit us to 20MP resolution, it may be possible to show that 4/3 can match larger formats.

One of my friends shoots 4/3 and she really makes some great images. But, she doesn’t print very large.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't see what you seem to see.

How about some actual photographic comparative evidence?

Click to expand...

Hi Vitee

As a confirmed m4/3 shooter and a new cropped-MF shooter, what would you like to see?

Perhaps I can assist.

Click to expand...

Please do.

Thanks, Dave.

Click to expand...

The ball is in your court - what is it you are looking for?

Click to expand...

When people make claims about smaller sensor cameras being able to stand up against the medium format "look", then anecdotal evidence is not enough. In terms of pure detail capture I will (and have) happily compared images taken on Fuji 50MP MF cameras with similar ones taken with Sigma Foveon. It takes a lot to beat the Foveon.

You were asked what you wanted to see and answered “please do”. I was just reiterating the question.

I think people are confusing or conflating the superior image quality potential of a medium format camera with a distinctive “look” that is derived solely because the sensor is larger. Not many here would argue that 33 x 44mm cameras offer no perceivable advantages - the issue is whether this accrues solely to the larger sensor or not.

SigmaChrome said:
Here ya go:

Sigma DP3 Merrill - 50mm lens - resized image

Fujifilm GFX 50R with the GF35-70mm F4.5-5.6 WR - Resized image.

Note: I am doing this from my office and don't have access to full size images.

Neither of these shots can provide any insight into the DOF differences between the two cameras. I can use very fast lenses on APS-C bodies and get quite nice out of focus backgrounds but they don't come close to what can be achieved with MF.

The use of macro lenses or extension tubes are an exception.

Sigma SD1 Merrill, Meyer Optik Görlitz 100mm f2.8 Trioplan - with extension tube

Fujifilm GFX50S II ,Fujifilm FUJINON Lens GF80mm F1.7 R WR

Horses for courses, I plumb reckon.

I love using my GFX cameras and wouldn't give them up for anything, but I still reach for my Sigma gear when I want that special high detail, glorious colour look.

What are the images intended to show?

SigmaChrome said:
Now it would be nice to see some M-43 comparison shots, as I have never used one.

SigmaChrome · Oct 9, 2022

Doppler9000 said:
SigmaChrome said:

Doppler9000 said:

SigmaChrome said:

DMillier said:

SigmaChrome said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

SigmaChrome said:

MercedRiver said:

When I used film I could see the medium format look because my 6x9 transparencies were so much larger than my 35mm. Now I can get the "medium format" look using micro four thirds and a quality lens. Today noise removal is so easy if it is even needed. Sorry, I couldn't resist poking at the hornet nest.

Click to expand...

OK, prove it.

Click to expand...

Well, micro four thirds cannot produce more than around 20MP, using what we have.

But, 20MP can be good enough for quite large prints and most images images are viewed on computer screens.

Some referred to Ctein shooting with micro four thirds and saying it delivers IQ like something between 6x7 and 4”x5” on film.

All film is not related equal, of course. We can drum scan Technical Pan at 10000 PPI and get a lot of detail. But IQ is not only about detail.

As long as we limit us to 20MP resolution, it may be possible to show that 4/3 can match larger formats.

One of my friends shoots 4/3 and she really makes some great images. But, she doesn’t print very large.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't see what you seem to see.

How about some actual photographic comparative evidence?

Click to expand...

Hi Vitee

As a confirmed m4/3 shooter and a new cropped-MF shooter, what would you like to see?

Perhaps I can assist.

Click to expand...

Please do.

Thanks, Dave.

Click to expand...

The ball is in your court - what is it you are looking for?

Click to expand...

When people make claims about smaller sensor cameras being able to stand up against the medium format "look", then anecdotal evidence is not enough. In terms of pure detail capture I will (and have) happily compared images taken on Fuji 50MP MF cameras with similar ones taken with Sigma Foveon. It takes a lot to beat the Foveon.

Click to expand...

You were asked what you wanted to see and answered “please do”. I was just reiterating the question.

I thought Dave was offering to post some m4/3 - MF comparison images. Which is why he said, "... what would you like to see? Perhaps I can assist."

Doppler9000 said:
I think people are confusing or conflating the superior image quality potential of a medium format camera with a distinctive “look” that is derived solely because the sensor is larger. Not many here would argue that 33 x 44mm cameras offer no perceivable advantages - the issue is whether this accrues solely to the larger sensor or not.

Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:

Here ya go:

Sigma DP3 Merrill - 50mm lens - resized image

Fujifilm GFX 50R with the GF35-70mm F4.5-5.6 WR - Resized image.

Note: I am doing this from my office and don't have access to full size images.

Neither of these shots can provide any insight into the DOF differences between the two cameras. I can use very fast lenses on APS-C bodies and get quite nice out of focus backgrounds but they don't come close to what can be achieved with MF.

The use of macro lenses or extension tubes are an exception.

Sigma SD1 Merrill, Meyer Optik Görlitz 100mm f2.8 Trioplan - with extension tube

Fujifilm GFX50S II ,Fujifilm FUJINON Lens GF80mm F1.7 R WR

Horses for courses, I plumb reckon.

I love using my GFX cameras and wouldn't give them up for anything, but I still reach for my Sigma gear when I want that special high detail, glorious colour look.

Click to expand...

What are the images intended to show?

Differences. No more, no less... and not intended to be strictly scientific.

What do you think they show?

--
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!

Galleries by Vitee

www.pbase.com

DavidMillier · Oct 9, 2022

My micro 4/3 camera is 20MP - obviously it won't stand up to MF for resolution, dynamic range and low noise, no real point in comparing those (although the HR pixel shift mode makes a difference, and Pany implemented this well).

But if we are looking for a MF look caused specifically by the sensor size, well there is a big difference in sensor size but the aspect ratios are the same. Happy to prepare some comparisons if anyone can specify what they want tested.

SrMi · Oct 9, 2022

DMillier said:
My micro 4/3 camera is 20MP - obviously it won't stand up to MF for resolution, dynamic range and low noise, no real point in comparing those (although the HR pixel shift mode makes a difference, and Pany implemented this well).

Side note: GH6 pixels shift does not improve noise much as in Olympus cameras. P2P measurements at ISO 800 show equal noise with Olympus HR as with GFX100.

DavidMillier said:
But if we are looking for a MF look caused specifically by the sensor size, well there is a big difference in sensor size but the aspect ratios are the same. Happy to prepare some comparisons if anyone can specify what they want tested.

SigmaChrome · Oct 9, 2022

DMillier said:
My micro 4/3 camera is 20MP - obviously it won't stand up to MF for resolution, dynamic range and low noise, no real point in comparing those (although the HR pixel shift mode makes a difference, and Pany implemented this well).

But if we are looking for a MF look caused specifically by the sensor size, well there is a big difference in sensor size but the aspect ratios are the same. Happy to prepare some comparisons if anyone can specify what they want tested.

Thanks, Dave. But don't do it on my account. Based on what you're saying, I don't think you have anything to prove.

I was responding to this post.

--
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!
http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries

Medium format look – a topic debated at nauseam but now with a visual twist

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Community Leader

Forum Pro

Community Leader

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts