How much bigger is 33x44mm MF than FF?

Doppler9000 said:

Greg7579 said:

This is not about Jim. I'm a big fan of Jim. (But that is funny - good job.) FF Agency! I like it.

What we need is a MF agency. LOL.

Doppler9000 said:

His mission - to somewhat understate the advantages of 33x44mm cameras.

Click to expand...

No, that is not Jim's mission. However, that effort does appear to be in the interest of someone I know in the camera equipment social media arena and who is probably a pretty good guy. I would love to meet him.

Click to expand...

A question of logic:

Jim started a thread proposing a metric that he believes more accurately describes the advantages of going to a larger sensor.

I agree that the metric, a linear rather than an area measure, better describes deltas.

You disagree with me.

How can it be that you agree with Jim, if Jim and I agree?

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

You are correct, it is very difficult to do testing perfectly, especially if you are not practiced at it and don't have a well polished method. That's me all right. Which I happily accept means I'm not in a position to make a definitive statement that other people can trust and rely on.

I do think, however, that having said all the above, if you set about repeating tests as best you are able, you are eventually going to average out the worst of the problems and end up with a reasonable idea of the typical differences, at least as far as your own workflow is concerned. Maybe not good enough to publish as a formal review, but good enough to inform your own opinion.

Now, I am only really interested in big differences. The kind of differences that would have any viewer say "Wow, that one is so much better". I don't really care at all about the sort of minute differences that means you have to squint at the pictures for half an hour, scratching your head and umming and aaaing until you eventually, doubtfully, say "I think that one might be a tiny bit better, but I'm not really sure". What I'm looking for is differences that would routinely show up in normal fieldwork, not just under careful test conditions.

In that spirit, I can overlook small methodological problems that don't effectively change the result for my own purposes but would give critics cause to complain. But in the interest of fair play, I'm happy to keep repeating the test in an attempt to remove these caveats.

I'd be very surprised if tightening the test parameters made me change my conclusions substantially, the images are just too close to call.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and give it a go David. I won't say anything no matter what the result and I won't give you any flak.

This is more for you than for us anyway. It will be fun, and you will learn a lot playing around with the equivalencies. Pick a good deep scene and just experiment. DOF and OOF pixels (wrong term I know) on the MF vs FF shots are a bit of a challenge, but you'll get a good impression if you get it somewhat close on the equivalencies.

If you want to get more technical, use a slant target and/or star chart and test like Jim does with lenses and some other specific cases. But that can quickly become more about the lens differences between the two cameras and equivalency problems.

But you should see something that effects your opinion of FF vs MF image fidelity.

I do it a lot and I already know what I think.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

Doppler9000 said:

Greg7579 said:

This is not about Jim. I'm a big fan of Jim. (But that is funny - good job.) FF Agency! I like it.

What we need is a MF agency. LOL.

Greg7579 said:

His mission - to somewhat understate the advantages of 33x44mm cameras.

Click to expand...

No, that is not Jim's mission. However, that effort does appear to be in the interest of someone I know in the camera equipment social media arena and who is probably a pretty good guy. I would love to meet him.

Click to expand...

A question of logic:

Jim started a thread proposing a metric that he believes more accurately describes the advantages of going to a larger sensor.

I agree that the metric, a linear rather than an area measure, better describes deltas.

You disagree with me.

How can it be that you agree with Jim, if Jim and I agree?

Click to expand...

Look, Jim does the same thing by trying to name sensors by their dimension measurements. The industry, press and forum posters (and what few real camera users are left) just say what they have been saying for a long time: MFT, APSC, FF and MF (MF being the GFX / new Hassy sensor).

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

There is no problem with doing that as long as you don't slap down attempts to state the area differences as if one found it offensive or somehow misleading

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

to state the fact that the MF sensor is 1.7 times bigger or 70% larger than the FF sensor.

I don't think Jim is doing that by the way.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

But I could name a couple of guys who I think are.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

Gandolphi said:

So the area of a Fuji/Hasselblad medium format sensor is about 70% bigger than a full frame sensor but we shouldn’t place too much importance on this piece of information.

Click to expand...

The Fuji Hassy MF sensor is 70 percent bigger than FF sensors. That is the main reason we buy those cameras other than the glass in Fuji's case.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

There are people and many companies that don't like that fact and would prefer it not to be harped on.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

You are correct, it is very difficult to do testing perfectly, especially if you are not practiced at it and don't have a well polished method. That's me all right. Which I happily accept means I'm not in a position to make a definitive statement that other people can trust and rely on.

I do think, however, that having said all the above, if you set about repeating tests as best you are able, you are eventually going to average out the worst of the problems and end up with a reasonable idea of the typical differences, at least as far as your own workflow is concerned. Maybe not good enough to publish as a formal review, but good enough to inform your own opinion.

Now, I am only really interested in big differences. The kind of differences that would have any viewer say "Wow, that one is so much better". I don't really care at all about the sort of minute differences that means you have to squint at the pictures for half an hour, scratching your head and umming and aaaing until you eventually, doubtfully, say "I think that one might be a tiny bit better, but I'm not really sure". What I'm looking for is differences that would routinely show up in normal fieldwork, not just under careful test conditions.

In that spirit, I can overlook small methodological problems that don't effectively change the result for my own purposes but would give critics cause to complain. But in the interest of fair play, I'm happy to keep repeating the test in an attempt to remove these caveats.

I'd be very surprised if tightening the test parameters made me change my conclusions substantially, the images are just too close to call.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and give it a go David. I won't say anything no matter what the result and I won't give you any flak.

This is more for you than for us anyway. It will be fun, and you will learn a lot playing around with the equivalencies. Pick a good deep scene and just experiment. DOF and OOF pixels (wrong term I know) on the MF vs FF shots are a bit of a challenge, but you'll get a good impression if you get it somewhat close on the equivalencies.

If you want to get more technical, use a slant target and/or star chart and test like Jim does with lenses and some other specific cases. But that can quickly become more about the lens differences between the two cameras and equivalency problems.

But you should see something that effects your opinion of FF vs MF image fidelity.

I do it a lot and I already know what I think.

Click to expand...

Everyone does, Greg

I'm not interested in what I think, only what is, under the conditions I make photos. Even though I already have spent the money on Fuji gear, there is still the question of whether I should be using it for normal photography as well as for long exposure work. I'd much rather lug the Sony gear than the big Fuji gear. But if there were a significant difference in image quality, that might possibly sway me back to the Fuji. At the moment, it's not looking like there is. But let's do this properly before deciding.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

You are correct, it is very difficult to do testing perfectly, especially if you are not practiced at it and don't have a well polished method. That's me all right. Which I happily accept means I'm not in a position to make a definitive statement that other people can trust and rely on.

I do think, however, that having said all the above, if you set about repeating tests as best you are able, you are eventually going to average out the worst of the problems and end up with a reasonable idea of the typical differences, at least as far as your own workflow is concerned. Maybe not good enough to publish as a formal review, but good enough to inform your own opinion.

Now, I am only really interested in big differences. The kind of differences that would have any viewer say "Wow, that one is so much better". I don't really care at all about the sort of minute differences that means you have to squint at the pictures for half an hour, scratching your head and umming and aaaing until you eventually, doubtfully, say "I think that one might be a tiny bit better, but I'm not really sure". What I'm looking for is differences that would routinely show up in normal fieldwork, not just under careful test conditions.

In that spirit, I can overlook small methodological problems that don't effectively change the result for my own purposes but would give critics cause to complain. But in the interest of fair play, I'm happy to keep repeating the test in an attempt to remove these caveats.

I'd be very surprised if tightening the test parameters made me change my conclusions substantially, the images are just too close to call.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and give it a go David. I won't say anything no matter what the result and I won't give you any flak.

This is more for you than for us anyway. It will be fun, and you will learn a lot playing around with the equivalencies. Pick a good deep scene and just experiment. DOF and OOF pixels (wrong term I know) on the MF vs FF shots are a bit of a challenge, but you'll get a good impression if you get it somewhat close on the equivalencies.

If you want to get more technical, use a slant target and/or star chart and test like Jim does with lenses and some other specific cases. But that can quickly become more about the lens differences between the two cameras and equivalency problems.

But you should see something that effects your opinion of FF vs MF image fidelity.

I do it a lot and I already know what I think.

Click to expand...

Everyone does, Greg

I'm not interested in what I think, only what is, under the conditions I make photos. Even though I already have spent the money on Fuji gear, there is still the question of whether I should be using it for normal photography as well as for long exposure work. I'd much rather lug the Sony gear than the big Fuji gear. But if there were a significant difference in image quality, that might possibly sway me back to the Fuji. At the moment, it's not looking like there is. But let's do this properly before deciding.

Click to expand...

Well, keep at it. In your case (Sony FF vs your GFX gear) we have been talking about this for a few months now. I fact, I thought you had already made up your mind 6 months ago that you greatly preferred your FF gear and that you had made a mistake spending your money on GFX. That is OK, but I didn't know you were still deciding.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

You are correct, it is very difficult to do testing perfectly, especially if you are not practiced at it and don't have a well polished method. That's me all right. Which I happily accept means I'm not in a position to make a definitive statement that other people can trust and rely on.

I do think, however, that having said all the above, if you set about repeating tests as best you are able, you are eventually going to average out the worst of the problems and end up with a reasonable idea of the typical differences, at least as far as your own workflow is concerned. Maybe not good enough to publish as a formal review, but good enough to inform your own opinion.

Now, I am only really interested in big differences. The kind of differences that would have any viewer say "Wow, that one is so much better". I don't really care at all about the sort of minute differences that means you have to squint at the pictures for half an hour, scratching your head and umming and aaaing until you eventually, doubtfully, say "I think that one might be a tiny bit better, but I'm not really sure". What I'm looking for is differences that would routinely show up in normal fieldwork, not just under careful test conditions.

In that spirit, I can overlook small methodological problems that don't effectively change the result for my own purposes but would give critics cause to complain. But in the interest of fair play, I'm happy to keep repeating the test in an attempt to remove these caveats.

I'd be very surprised if tightening the test parameters made me change my conclusions substantially, the images are just too close to call.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and give it a go David. I won't say anything no matter what the result and I won't give you any flak.

This is more for you than for us anyway. It will be fun, and you will learn a lot playing around with the equivalencies. Pick a good deep scene and just experiment. DOF and OOF pixels (wrong term I know) on the MF vs FF shots are a bit of a challenge, but you'll get a good impression if you get it somewhat close on the equivalencies.

If you want to get more technical, use a slant target and/or star chart and test like Jim does with lenses and some other specific cases. But that can quickly become more about the lens differences between the two cameras and equivalency problems.

But you should see something that effects your opinion of FF vs MF image fidelity.

I do it a lot and I already know what I think.

Click to expand...

Everyone does, Greg

I'm not interested in what I think, only what is, under the conditions I make photos. Even though I already have spent the money on Fuji gear, there is still the question of whether I should be using it for normal photography as well as for long exposure work. I'd much rather lug the Sony gear than the big Fuji gear. But if there were a significant difference in image quality, that might possibly sway me back to the Fuji. At the moment, it's not looking like there is. But let's do this properly before deciding.

Click to expand...

Well, keep at it. In your case (Sony FF vs your GFX gear) we have been talking about this for a few months now. I fact, I thought you had already made up your mind 6 months ago that you greatly preferred your FF gear and that you had made a mistake spending your money on GFX. That is OK, but I didn't know you were still deciding.

Click to expand...

Deja vu all over again. We have discussed many times what I use my GFX gear for and that I certainly don't consider it a waste of money. Many, many, many times. Including stating it written in capital letters, bolded and underlined and surrounded by a box of blinking asterisks.

Print this post out

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

and tape it to your monitor to save me the bother of repeating myself yet again. Please!

The only decision I could have left to make is whether there is any reason to lug the goddamn heavy beast around when shooting in the street.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

To do that I would need a convincing reason. That convincing reason might be the incredible superiority of the image quality that you proselytise.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

I promised myself when I upgraded my A7R2 to an Riv that I would do a comparison; I just haven't been able to summon the motivation because I don't expect it to convince me to change anything. But, foolishly, this thread generated just enough motivation to make the effort.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Several people are arguing that the relevant metric is sensor area, using analogies.

For them, I have a challenge:

Name three important photographically-useful metrics that increase by 300% when the linear dimensions of a sensor are doubled.

Partial credit for one such metric.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

In college, I sometimes employed dimensional analysis to figure out the right way to set up a problem that I didn't totally understand, which has to count as a perverse use of the technique, even if it was surprisingly effective.

Click to expand...

Barry Twycross said:

JimKasson said:

Several people are arguing that the relevant metric is sensor area, using analogies.

For them, I have a challenge:

Name three important photographically-useful metrics that increase by 300% when the linear dimensions of a sensor are doubled.

Partial credit for one such metric.

Click to expand...

Are you just trying to confuse people

Click to expand...

Barry Twycross said:

by asking for metrics which go with the square of the linear dimension,

Click to expand...

Barry Twycross said:

but in an obfuscated manner?

I'll go for light gathering,

Click to expand...

Barry Twycross said:

and cost to manufacture (but that's probably more than square).

Click to expand...

Doppler9000 said:

Greg7579 said:

Gandolphi said:

So the area of a Fuji/Hasselblad medium format sensor is about 70% bigger than a full frame sensor but we shouldn’t place too much importance on this piece of information.

Click to expand...

The Fuji Hassy MF sensor is 70 percent bigger than FF sensors. That is the main reason we buy those cameras other than the glass in Fuji's case.

Click to expand...

70% bigger by area, 28% bigger by diagonal.

Doppler9000 said:

There are people and many companies that don't like that fact and would prefer it not to be harped on.

Click to expand...

You finally figured it out - this day had to come, I suppose.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Ok, figured out why the focus point wasn't the same in my previous attempt: the fuji was set to manual focus, mashing the shutter wasn't focusing at all Lucky it came out as well as it did.

Attempt #2

No sharpening or noise reduction. Slight adjustment to colour balance and lightness to attempt a match





Added sharpening, local contrast and a bit of noise reduction

Click to expand...

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

JimKasson said:

Barry Twycross said:

JimKasson said:

Several people are arguing that the relevant metric is sensor area, using analogies.

For them, I have a challenge:

Name three important photographically-useful metrics that increase by 300% when the linear dimensions of a sensor are doubled.

Partial credit for one such metric.

Click to expand...

Are you just trying to confuse people

Click to expand...

I thought that what I wrote was unambiguous. I wasn't trying to confuse anybody. I don't see why the above formulation is confusing.

JimKasson said:

by asking for metrics which go with the square of the linear dimension,

Click to expand...

I would say "are proportional to", not "go with".

JimKasson said:

but in an obfuscated manner?

I'll go for light gathering,

Click to expand...

Light gathering, in and of itself, is not photographically useful, although it affects other metrics. As I explained in the original post, the most useful effects go as the square root of the area.

JimKasson said:

and cost to manufacture (but that's probably more than square).

Click to expand...

Again, not a photographically useful metric, although it indirectly affects selling price.

Click to expand...

mujana said:

JimKasson said:

Barry Twycross said:

JimKasson said:

Several people are arguing that the relevant metric is sensor area, using analogies.

For them, I have a challenge:

Name three important photographically-useful metrics that increase by 300% when the linear dimensions of a sensor are doubled.

Partial credit for one such metric.

Click to expand...

Are you just trying to confuse people

Click to expand...

I thought that what I wrote was unambiguous. I wasn't trying to confuse anybody. I don't see why the above formulation is confusing.

mujana said:

by asking for metrics which go with the square of the linear dimension,

Click to expand...

I would say "are proportional to", not "go with".

mujana said:

but in an obfuscated manner?

I'll go for light gathering,

Click to expand...

Light gathering, in and of itself, is not photographically useful, although it affects other metrics. As I explained in the original post, the most useful effects go as the square root of the area.

mujana said:

and cost to manufacture (but that's probably more than square).

Click to expand...

Again, not a photographically useful metric, although it indirectly affects selling price.

Click to expand...

Around 5 months ago in a thread "Personal reasons for using MF", I asked to everyone :

"...why do YOU use MF instead of something like FF?..."

Your answer:

"If I want the best image quality, I use MF" (you did notice " horses for courses" )

My second question was:

"In your opinion (and based on tests you most likely did), is that better IQ related to tonality/ smoothness/ DR maybe / malleability of files / colour?"

Your answer:

"DR, evenness of illumination, relative lack of lens aberration, focus bracketing implementation, future proofing of captures."

To me it's not like MF/Fuji GFX100 results are day and night difference from FF results, but would you consider these points "photographical useful metrics" ?

Click to expand...

mujana said:

JimKasson said:

Barry Twycross said:

JimKasson said:

Several people are arguing that the relevant metric is sensor area, using analogies.

For them, I have a challenge:

Name three important photographically-useful metrics that increase by 300% when the linear dimensions of a sensor are doubled.

Partial credit for one such metric.

Click to expand...

Are you just trying to confuse people

Click to expand...

I thought that what I wrote was unambiguous. I wasn't trying to confuse anybody. I don't see why the above formulation is confusing.

mujana said:

by asking for metrics which go with the square of the linear dimension,

Click to expand...

I would say "are proportional to", not "go with".

mujana said:

but in an obfuscated manner?

I'll go for light gathering,

Click to expand...

Light gathering, in and of itself, is not photographically useful, although it affects other metrics. As I explained in the original post, the most useful effects go as the square root of the area.

mujana said:

and cost to manufacture (but that's probably more than square).

Click to expand...

Again, not a photographically useful metric, although it indirectly affects selling price.

Click to expand...

Around 5 months ago in a thread "Personal reasons for using MF", I asked to everyone :

"...why do YOU use MF instead of something like FF?..."

Your answer:

"If I want the best image quality, I use MF" (you did notice " horses for courses" )

My second question was:

"In your opinion (and based on tests you most likely did), is that better IQ related to tonality/ smoothness/ DR maybe / malleability of files / colour?"

Your answer:

"DR, evenness of illumination, relative lack of lens aberration, focus bracketing implementation, future proofing of captures."

To me it's not like MF/Fuji GFX100 results are day and night difference from FF results, but would you consider these points "photographical useful metrics" ?

Thank you

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

mujana said:

JimKasson said:

Barry Twycross said:

JimKasson said:

Several people are arguing that the relevant metric is sensor area, using analogies.

For them, I have a challenge:

Name three important photographically-useful metrics that increase by 300% when the linear dimensions of a sensor are doubled.

Partial credit for one such metric.

Click to expand...

Are you just trying to confuse people

Click to expand...

I thought that what I wrote was unambiguous. I wasn't trying to confuse anybody. I don't see why the above formulation is confusing.

JimKasson said:

by asking for metrics which go with the square of the linear dimension,

Click to expand...

I would say "are proportional to", not "go with".

JimKasson said:

but in an obfuscated manner?

I'll go for light gathering,

Click to expand...

Light gathering, in and of itself, is not photographically useful, although it affects other metrics. As I explained in the original post, the most useful effects go as the square root of the area.

JimKasson said:

and cost to manufacture (but that's probably more than square).

Click to expand...

Again, not a photographically useful metric, although it indirectly affects selling price.

Click to expand...

Around 5 months ago in a thread "Personal reasons for using MF", I asked to everyone :

"...why do YOU use MF instead of something like FF?..."

Your answer:

"If I want the best image quality, I use MF" (you did notice " horses for courses" )

My second question was:

"In your opinion (and based on tests you most likely did), is that better IQ related to tonality/ smoothness/ DR maybe / malleability of files / colour?"

Your answer:

"DR, evenness of illumination, relative lack of lens aberration, focus bracketing implementation, future proofing of captures."

To me it's not like MF/Fuji GFX100 results are day and night difference from FF results, but would you consider these points "photographical useful metrics" ?

Click to expand...

Most of the last ones, yes. DR, limited by photon noise, is proportional to the square root of the area, not the area itself. Evenness of illumination is a function of lens design and equivalent apertures. Focus bracketing implementation is not a function of sensor size at all. Future proofing is not a metric.

Click to expand...