Is there really a medium format "look"?

Started Jul 17, 2017 | Discussions
Marie Meyer Regular Member • Posts: 480
Is there really a medium format "look"?
2

I'm curious: do you medium format readers agree that there is a medium format "look"? I've seen it expressed thusly:

"But print size aside, it's often easy to detect medium format images even when viewing on the web. It has a certain something, a signature look that is often recognizable but hard to articulate. It comes from the lack of perspective distortion. This makes photos look more natural, closer to what your eye sees in the real world."

Do you agree?

 Marie Meyer's gear list:Marie Meyer's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8
wuzup Senior Member • Posts: 1,244
Re: Is there really a medium format "look"?
3

Yes, there is no dissolution. You see things that you can't see with the naked eye. It looks like 8x10 in that you can sense the space around the objects in the photo. It is not 3 dimensional but you experience a kind of volumn....

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 3,309
Anyone who says ...
10

"But ... it's often easy to detect medium format images .... It has a certain something, a signature look that is often recognizable but hard to articulate. It comes from the lack of perspective distortion."

Anyone who says that has proven himself or herself ignorant enough not to be trusted. It's just plain wrong. Perspective distortion is a function only of the relative positions of the camera and the subject.

IMO historically--and by that I mean with film--the medium-format look is mostly / to most people the greatly reduced graininess / noise compared to 35mm film, and also to a lesser extent the greater sharpness / detail (different but related things) and smoother tonality.

FWIW, the ignorant sometimes say that medium format has reduced perspective distortion because the lenses are longer in absolute focal length (in mm or whatever). But what's important for perspective distortion is the equivalent focal length. Whether you use a 6x6 Hasselblad with an 80mm lens or a 35mm camera with a 43mm lens,* the degree of perspective distortion will be the same if you take the picture from the same position relative to the subject--and the field of view of a 16x20 inch print will be the same, but the print from 35mm will show a lot more grain and substantially lower sharpness.

*There even was a 43mm lens for 35mm: the Pentax 43mm f/1.9.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S110 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
CANUXR Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Is there really a medium format "look"?
5

I do believe there is a medium format look. I also believe not everyone is able to see it. We are all wired differently.

Also I believe some part of the look is provided by the lens quality and micro contrasting.

To me the images pop up or have some kind of 3d look to them. It is hard to describe. Some pictures have it, others its impossible to notice like far away landscapes.

 CANUXR's gear list:CANUXR's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Hasselblad X1D Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +4 more
mostlylost Contributing Member • Posts: 589
Re: Is there really a medium format "look"?

I am a long time Leica user, and hear a similar question rather frequently. Is there a Leica look? Beats me. I kinda think I like the look of Leica files, but have never done anything like a blind taste test to see if I could pick one out. Maybe yes, Maybe no. I like it though and since it's my checkbook I'm going with what I like.

I'm not about to get involved in a debate about MF look, particularly because I've owned a MF camera for about 3 hours now . I would, however, think that perhaps a brief description of what I just observed might possibly serve some use for you.

As I mentioned, I have zero MF experience, but have been making images since the late 1960's and have at least some small useful experience base. I took the new MF camera that was delivered this morning, figured out how to turn the bloody thing on, and locked it down on a tripod next to my Nikon D800e, which is also on a tripod. I put a 75mm f2.8 on the MF and a 60mm macro on the Nikon. Not ideal, but hey it's what's in the closet and I'm in a hurry to get out and make some actual photographs. (Which I'm doing right now actually. I'm at lunch after shooting for an hour.)

I have what I consider my standard real world test target in my back yard, a multicolor 3 dimensional statue with lots of fine detail, a flat focusing spot with detail conducive to good focusing, and a sloping surface that potentially gives some indication of front or back focus.

Put it in direct sun and made an exposure at 1/800 and f8 with each camera.

Loaded the raw images into Photoshop on a I1 Display Pro calibrated 27" monitor.

I didn't have any trouble telling why people rave about MF.

What did I see? Beats the hell out of me. I'm not qualified to attempt some sort of explanation as to what the difference might be and why I'm seeing it, but as far as I'm concerned it's definitely there, I like it a lot, and for me the MF camera cost was worthwhile. YMMV. But I bet not

-- hide signature --

But honestly, it's probably the unicorns.

Jay A Senior Member • Posts: 2,031
Re: Is there really a medium format "look"?

The "medium format look" really is no mystery. It is the same thing that appears anytime you go from one sensor to another bigger one, and compare prints. And it was the same thing with film as well.

The difference is that as you go bigger, there is more sense of depth to the subject matter.

I was crowded around a group of photographers all looking at two prints one time. They were comparing a print made from an image using a 5D MKII and another using a smaller sensor point and shoot camera (don't remember which one). They asked me if I could tell which shot was done with which camera and I immediately said "this is with the 5DMKII and this is with the point and shoot." It was obvious to me but not all of them were able to do the same thing.

Again, it's the sense of depth to objects in the image. Over the years, I have seen that the less an image needs to be blown up to X sized print, the more of this apparent depth is retained. Objects photographed using smaller sensor cameras tend to look more 2 dimensional than those photographed with larger sensor cameras. There is a subtle difference but it's there and a larger sensor medium format will show it even more than a small sensor medium format. Also, this apparent depth as I call it has nothing to do with depth-of-field (although obvious differences happen with different size formats). Rather it relates to for lack of better terminology, a more 3 dimensional look to object, more roundness to them in the 2 dimensional flat world that they reside in.

Do I see a difference between GFX images and say Nikon D810 images? Yes but the difference is subtle at best. Do I see a bigger difference between a GF and say an XT-2 image? Yes and the difference here is greater.

Again, it's all very subtle and many people don't really know or can appreciate the differences enough to truly justify the price of a medium format camera...but it's there alright.

Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Senior Member • Posts: 2,963
Re: Anyone who says ...
1

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

"But ... it's often easy to detect medium format images .... It has a certain something, a signature look that is often recognizable but hard to articulate. It comes from the lack of perspective distortion."

Anyone who says that has proven himself or herself ignorant enough not to be trusted. It's just plain wrong. Perspective distortion is a function only of the relative positions of the camera and the subject.

IMO historically--and by that I mean with film--the medium-format look is mostly / to most people the greatly reduced graininess / noise compared to 35mm film, and also to a lesser extent the greater sharpness / detail (different but related things) and smoother tonality.

FWIW, the ignorant sometimes say that medium format has reduced perspective distortion because the lenses are longer in absolute focal length (in mm or whatever). But what's important for perspective distortion is the equivalent focal length. Whether you use a 6x6 Hasselblad with an 80mm lens or a 35mm camera with a 43mm lens,* the degree of perspective distortion will be the same if you take the picture from the same position relative to the subject--and the field of view of a 16x20 inch print will be the same, but the print from 35mm will show a lot more grain and substantially lower sharpness.

*There even was a 43mm lens for 35mm: the Pentax 43mm f/1.9.

Hi,

  • Perspective is no distortion, it is perspective
  • Perspective is only dependent on standpoint

Both the points above are facts and anyone denying them is in desperate need of reading some text books.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

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

Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Senior Member • Posts: 2,963
I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
3

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

On the other hand, there are some factors that may yield an impression of a medium format look:

  • MFD cameras may be more often used on tripod
  • You need to use a larger aperture on a smaller format for same depth of field. Older 24x36mm lenses were not so great at maximum aperture. But, many new lenses are very good at full aperture.
  • MFD is often used with primes while smaller formats are often used with zooms.

Larger pixels make less demand on the lens, but they will produce fake detail with good lenses. Fat pixels may show a lot of good detail, but it may all be fake detail.

This is not about format, but some MFD cameras have leaf shutters. Leaf shutters have some nice advantages over focal plane shutters when shooting flash in daylight and when the flash is used as main light. Very few, if any, professional level 24x36 mm cameras have leaf shutters.

An 80MP to 100MP digital back has a resolution that no 24x36 mm can match, as long as you can shoot it at optimum aperture, say f/5.6 - f/8.

If you can expose near saturation, known as Expose to The Right (ETTR) at base ISO a larger sensor can collect more photons, leading to lower noise.

In many cases, the crop factor on an digital back will work better than the standard 3:2 ratio on 24x36 mm.

I have some limited experience using MFD for three years. After those three years my MFD usage went zero, for practical reasons. My Sony A7rII outperformed my Hasselblad V/P45+ gear in all test. My shoots involved aerial travel with weight limits so MFD stuff was left behind.

Shooting MFD can be fun, but I need a full frame kit covering my needs on travel. I have also found that MFD doesn't really yield those great images I hang on the wall.

The images here populate the walls of our office. Which two are MFD?

https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

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

JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 25,845
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
2

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

On the other hand, there are some factors that may yield an impression of a medium format look:

  • MFD cameras may be more often used on tripod
  • You need to use a larger aperture on a smaller format for same depth of field. Older 24x36mm lenses were not so great at maximum aperture. But, many new lenses are very good at full aperture.
  • MFD is often used with primes while smaller formats are often used with zooms.

Larger pixels make less demand on the lens, but they will produce fake detail with good lenses. Fat pixels may show a lot of good detail, but it may all be fake detail.

This is not about format, but some MFD cameras have leaf shutters. Leaf shutters have some nice advantages over focal plane shutters when shooting flash in daylight and when the flash is used as main light. Very few, if any, professional level 24x36 mm cameras have leaf shutters.

An 80MP to 100MP digital back has a resolution that no 24x36 mm can match, as long as you can shoot it at optimum aperture, say f/5.6 - f/8.

If you can expose near saturation, known as Expose to The Right (ETTR) at base ISO a larger sensor can collect more photons, leading to lower noise.

In many cases, the crop factor on an digital back will work better than the standard 3:2 ratio on 24x36 mm.

I have some limited experience using MFD for three years. After those three years my MFD usage went zero, for practical reasons. My Sony A7rII outperformed my Hasselblad V/P45+ gear in all test. My shoots involved aerial travel with weight limits so MFD stuff was left behind.

Shooting MFD can be fun, but I need a full frame kit covering my needs on travel. I have also found that MFD doesn't really yield those great images I hang on the wall.

The images here populate the walls of our office. Which two are MFD?

A I agree with you, Eirk. I have recently performed some testing using the GFX and the 110/2 vs the a7RII and the Otus 85. Except for color differences, I find prints with images sizes of 12x16 inches and smaller, the results at equivalent apertures are for the most part virtually visually identical except for color. Of course, the GFX comes on strong at large print sizes.

An exception to the above: the GFX is somewhat more susceptible to aliasing than the a7RII, so that can be a giveaway (but not as often as you'd think).

I believe that historically the medium format "look" has been mainly:

  • Aliasing caused by sharp lenses and big pixels. Sometime aliasing can be attractive. in the GFX, the pixel pitch is about that of many FF cameras.
  • Color from raw developers such as Phocus and C1 being tuned expertly to the MF sensors.
  • The fact that, taken as a group, MF users tend to be more skilled than users of smaller formats. Take a look at the Fuji GFX Facebook page for a demonstration of that.
  • The fact that modern MF lenses tend to be of very high quality. Note that I had to put an Otus on the a7RII to do the above comparison.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Fujifilm GFX 50S Sony a9 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 +5 more
wuzup Senior Member • Posts: 1,244
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
1

OK....this is where logic and reason bite the dust. All you say could be true but I don't think it matters or applies to the original question. I made a print from a GFX raw file. I went into PS and upsampled 200% to get a 41x55 in. print. I put it on the wall and the models head was more than life size. I could see the texture of the mascara on each eyelash. I would not say the photo was three dimensional but I could feel the space between objects in the photo. I really have never had an experience like this. I shot fine grain film in an 8x10 and made very large prints and I am a master printer. The GFX is a better tool. That's it. No argument will ever change my mind. For me the proof is in the pudding.  

CANUXR Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
2

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

Erik,

Images will NOT be identical. This has been tested too many times in the FF vs crop sensors. The same applies in medium vs ff sensor.

Just do a quick google search, there are many tests using the same method you describe and the results are that the images are NOT identical.  You can either have the same foreground in the frame  but the background will be different, or the same background in the frame but the foreground in the frame will not be the same, you can't have both the same, thus giving a different look.

I have yet to see a test that proves your point.

 CANUXR's gear list:CANUXR's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Hasselblad X1D Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +4 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 25,845
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
4

CANUXR wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

Erik,

Images will NOT be identical. This has been tested too many times in the FF vs crop sensors. The same applies in medium vs ff sensor.

Just do a quick google search, there are many tests using the same method you describe and the results are that the images are NOT identical. You can either have the same foreground in the frame but the background will be different, or the same background in the frame but the foreground in the frame will not be the same, you can't have both the same, thus giving a different look.

I have yet to see a test that proves your point.

Oh, my. I hope we don't have to go round and round on this issue again.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Fujifilm GFX 50S Sony a9 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 +5 more
CANUXR Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...

JimKasson wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

On the other hand, there are some factors that may yield an impression of a medium format look:

  • MFD cameras may be more often used on tripod
  • You need to use a larger aperture on a smaller format for same depth of field. Older 24x36mm lenses were not so great at maximum aperture. But, many new lenses are very good at full aperture.
  • MFD is often used with primes while smaller formats are often used with zooms.

Larger pixels make less demand on the lens, but they will produce fake detail with good lenses. Fat pixels may show a lot of good detail, but it may all be fake detail.

This is not about format, but some MFD cameras have leaf shutters. Leaf shutters have some nice advantages over focal plane shutters when shooting flash in daylight and when the flash is used as main light. Very few, if any, professional level 24x36 mm cameras have leaf shutters.

An 80MP to 100MP digital back has a resolution that no 24x36 mm can match, as long as you can shoot it at optimum aperture, say f/5.6 - f/8.

If you can expose near saturation, known as Expose to The Right (ETTR) at base ISO a larger sensor can collect more photons, leading to lower noise.

In many cases, the crop factor on an digital back will work better than the standard 3:2 ratio on 24x36 mm.

I have some limited experience using MFD for three years. After those three years my MFD usage went zero, for practical reasons. My Sony A7rII outperformed my Hasselblad V/P45+ gear in all test. My shoots involved aerial travel with weight limits so MFD stuff was left behind.

Shooting MFD can be fun, but I need a full frame kit covering my needs on travel. I have also found that MFD doesn't really yield those great images I hang on the wall.

The images here populate the walls of our office. Which two are MFD?

A I agree with you, Eirk. I have recently performed some testing using the GFX and the 110/2 vs the a7RII and the Otus 85. Except for color differences, I find prints with images sizes of 12x16 inches and smaller, the results at equivalent apertures are for the most part virtually visually identical except for color. Of course, the GFX comes on strong at large print sizes.

An exception to the above: the GFX is somewhat more susceptible to aliasing than the a7RII, so that can be a giveaway (but not as often as you'd think).

I believe that historically the medium format "look" has been mainly:

  • Aliasing caused by sharp lenses and big pixels. Sometime aliasing can be attractive. in the GFX, the pixel pitch is about that of many FF cameras.
  • Color from raw developers such as Phocus and C1 being tuned expertly to the MF sensors.
  • The fact that, taken as a group, MF users tend to be more skilled than users of smaller formats. Take a look at the Fuji GFX Facebook page for a demonstration of that.
  • The fact that modern MF lenses tend to be of very high quality. Note that I had to put an Otus on the a7RII to do the above comparison.

Jim

Jim, Could you share some of those images? I am genuinely interested.

Thanks

 CANUXR's gear list:CANUXR's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Hasselblad X1D Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +4 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 25,845
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
1

CANUXR wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

On the other hand, there are some factors that may yield an impression of a medium format look:

  • MFD cameras may be more often used on tripod
  • You need to use a larger aperture on a smaller format for same depth of field. Older 24x36mm lenses were not so great at maximum aperture. But, many new lenses are very good at full aperture.
  • MFD is often used with primes while smaller formats are often used with zooms.

Larger pixels make less demand on the lens, but they will produce fake detail with good lenses. Fat pixels may show a lot of good detail, but it may all be fake detail.

This is not about format, but some MFD cameras have leaf shutters. Leaf shutters have some nice advantages over focal plane shutters when shooting flash in daylight and when the flash is used as main light. Very few, if any, professional level 24x36 mm cameras have leaf shutters.

An 80MP to 100MP digital back has a resolution that no 24x36 mm can match, as long as you can shoot it at optimum aperture, say f/5.6 - f/8.

If you can expose near saturation, known as Expose to The Right (ETTR) at base ISO a larger sensor can collect more photons, leading to lower noise.

In many cases, the crop factor on an digital back will work better than the standard 3:2 ratio on 24x36 mm.

I have some limited experience using MFD for three years. After those three years my MFD usage went zero, for practical reasons. My Sony A7rII outperformed my Hasselblad V/P45+ gear in all test. My shoots involved aerial travel with weight limits so MFD stuff was left behind.

Shooting MFD can be fun, but I need a full frame kit covering my needs on travel. I have also found that MFD doesn't really yield those great images I hang on the wall.

The images here populate the walls of our office. Which two are MFD?

A I agree with you, Eirk. I have recently performed some testing using the GFX and the 110/2 vs the a7RII and the Otus 85. Except for color differences, I find prints with images sizes of 12x16 inches and smaller, the results at equivalent apertures are for the most part virtually visually identical except for color. Of course, the GFX comes on strong at large print sizes.

An exception to the above: the GFX is somewhat more susceptible to aliasing than the a7RII, so that can be a giveaway (but not as often as you'd think).

I believe that historically the medium format "look" has been mainly:

  • Aliasing caused by sharp lenses and big pixels. Sometime aliasing can be attractive. in the GFX, the pixel pitch is about that of many FF cameras.
  • Color from raw developers such as Phocus and C1 being tuned expertly to the MF sensors.
  • The fact that, taken as a group, MF users tend to be more skilled than users of smaller formats. Take a look at the Fuji GFX Facebook page for a demonstration of that.
  • The fact that modern MF lenses tend to be of very high quality. Note that I had to put an Otus on the a7RII to do the above comparison.

Jim

Jim, Could you share some of those images? I am genuinely interested.

Thanks

Here are some images that were created for another, but related, purpose:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fuji-1102-on-gfx-otus-841-4-on-a7rii/

You would need to see prints to see what I was talking about above.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/--
http://blog.kasson.com

Jim

 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Fujifilm GFX 50S Sony a9 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 +5 more
zman500 Regular Member • Posts: 150
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...

JimKasson wrote:

CANUXR wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

Erik,

Images will NOT be identical. This has been tested too many times in the FF vs crop sensors. The same applies in medium vs ff sensor.

Just do a quick google search, there are many tests using the same method you describe and the results are that the images are NOT identical. You can either have the same foreground in the frame but the background will be different, or the same background in the frame but the foreground in the frame will not be the same, you can't have both the same, thus giving a different look.

I have yet to see a test that proves your point.

Oh, my. I hope we don't have to go round and round on this issue again.

Jim

Ok guys, am I correct that in most part Jim proved that the GFX & Sony A7RII is a very close comparison? So what I could take out of it is I just got a GFX and will be doing so test to compare side by side that will I get much better prints for spending $10K for the GFX over the $10K in Sony A7RII and Sony G Master lense??

I am a point that if the Sony A7RII can come very close for landscape photography then I should return the GFX system?

zman

Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Senior Member • Posts: 2,963
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
2

wuzup wrote:

OK....this is where logic and reason bite the dust. All you say could be true but I don't think it matters or applies to the original question. I made a print from a GFX raw file. I went into PS and upsampled 200% to get a 41x55 in. print. I put it on the wall and the models head was more than life size. I could see the texture of the mascara on each eyelash. I would not say the photo was three dimensional but I could feel the space between objects in the photo. I really have never had an experience like this. I shot fine grain film in an 8x10 and made very large prints and I am a master printer. The GFX is a better tool. That's it. No argument will ever change my mind. For me the proof is in the pudding.

Hi,

No one says that the GFX does not deliver a sharper image with more detail than say a Sony A7rII and that difference would not be visible in a 41"x55" print.

But, sharpness is not a look. Also I don't think the discussion  is about the GFX but medium format in general.

I don't think the original question was about 41"x55" mm prints but about a basic difference visible at any size, including smaller sizes.

Just an illustration, a friend and me visited a photo store that was selling Leica S, a 30x45 mm camera with a special made sensor for Sony. The Leica S has the same aspect ratio as 24x36mm.

They had a bunch of decent size images hanging on the that has been shut with the Leica S. My friend and I pointed at the image that was best in our opinion saying yes that is a really nice image. The guy shooting that image told us that was one of his Canon 5DIII images.

My guess that the OP asks about a basic difference that is obvious pretty independent of image size.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

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

Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Senior Member • Posts: 2,963
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...

zman500 wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

CANUXR wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

Erik,

Images will NOT be identical. This has been tested too many times in the FF vs crop sensors. The same applies in medium vs ff sensor.

Just do a quick google search, there are many tests using the same method you describe and the results are that the images are NOT identical. You can either have the same foreground in the frame but the background will be different, or the same background in the frame but the foreground in the frame will not be the same, you can't have both the same, thus giving a different look.

I have yet to see a test that proves your point.

Oh, my. I hope we don't have to go round and round on this issue again.

Jim

Ok guys, am I correct that in most part Jim proved that the GFX & Sony A7RII is a very close comparison? So what I could take out of it is I just got a GFX and will be doing so test to compare side by side that will I get much better prints for spending $10K for the GFX over the $10K in Sony A7RII and Sony G Master lense??

I am a point that if the Sony A7RII can come very close for landscape photography then I should return the GFX system?

zman

Hi,

That is your money and your eyes. It seems that the GFX can deliver better detail than say a Sony A7rII, an advantage that will be visible in large prints at close viewing. Jim Kasson describes this in one of his postings.

Kevin Raber has posted the results of one day of shooting with the GFX and A7rII with A7rII using GMaster lenses, here: https://luminous-landscape.com/fuji-gfx-50s-sunday-road-trip/

As fars as I recall you can zoom into Kevins samples for full detail.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

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

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 3,309
Re: Anyone who says ...
1

Erik, I agree with you that what we call "perspective distortion" is arguably not a distortion. But you know how people are: if they look up somewhat at a building, their eyes don't see anything unusual in how the vertical lines tend to converge above the building; but show them the same thing in a photo and they see it as distorted. Somehow they think the photo should (magically!) look like an elevation engineering drawing.

It is very funny, but also ridiculous and sad, how much of the discussion in this thread at the same time claims that medium format looks better because it eliminates (or reduces) perspective distortion, and then also claims that it makes the photos 'look more 3D' or 'have more depth'. Argh! That 'perspective distortion' is part of what makes the image look 3D. If we totally eliminated perspective distortion, necessarily the view would that of an engineering elevation, i.e., the view from a perspective infinitely-far away. That would look (be) extremely 2D, not 3D at all.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S110 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 3,309
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
3

Images will NOT be identical. This has been tested too many times in the FF vs crop sensors. The same applies in medium vs ff sensor.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong, and Erik is right.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S110 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 25,845
Re: I don't think there is a medium format look, but...
1

zman500 wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

CANUXR wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't think there is a medium format look.

Try to do this:

Set camera on tripod.

  • Shoot three images with MFD, 24x36, APS-C
  • Use focal lengths giving the same crop
  • Use apertures giving the same depth of field

Those images will be near identical, except for experimental error.

Erik,

Images will NOT be identical. This has been tested too many times in the FF vs crop sensors. The same applies in medium vs ff sensor.

Just do a quick google search, there are many tests using the same method you describe and the results are that the images are NOT identical. You can either have the same foreground in the frame but the background will be different, or the same background in the frame but the foreground in the frame will not be the same, you can't have both the same, thus giving a different look.

I have yet to see a test that proves your point.

Oh, my. I hope we don't have to go round and round on this issue again.

Ok guys, am I correct that in most part Jim proved that the GFX & Sony A7RII is a very close comparison?

If you print small.

So what I could take out of it is I just got a GFX and will be doing so test to compare side by side that will I get much better prints for spending $10K for the GFX over the $10K in Sony A7RII and Sony G Master lense??

Not if you print small.

I am a point that if the Sony A7RII can come very close for landscape photography then I should return the GFX system?

You should if you print small.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Fujifilm GFX 50S Sony a9 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads