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

[TransientEye]

Further complicating any comparison is the change in the ratio of the format. Even moving down from 35mm to micro 4/3 gives a change in look that may favor the smaller format if you like 4:3.

A pretty good illustration of equivalence is to shoot the GF 63mm f2.8 against a micro 4/3 Olympus 25mm f1.2. Same formats and near exact equivalence.

Having done this, it is uncanny how similar the images look, from the background blur to the focus fall-off. Shooting the Olympus at f1.2 and ISO 200 I have to shoot the GFX at f2.8 and ISO 1000-1250 to get the same shutter speed. The noise in the two images ends up very similar.

The choice to take out one rather than the other all comes down to what trade-offs are appropriate. And it can be surprisingly quite difficult to see the image quality benefits from the GFX unless making large prints or extreme raw edits.

 

[Roswitz]

The MF look is 4:3 whereas the FF look is 3:2

 

[Charles_S]

Following this discussion with interest...

As to your comment above that I've highlighted - didn't the OP already do what you suggested they do and use 2 different focal lengths? Or am I confused?

I did. Look at the pdf. Also the example in the first post is with different focal lengths

 

[Charles_S]

Further complicating any comparison is the change in the ratio of the format. Even moving down from 35mm to micro 4/3 gives a change in look that may favor the smaller format if you like 4:3.

A pretty good illustration of equivalence is to shoot the GF 63mm f2.8 against a micro 4/3 Olympus 25mm f1.2. Same formats and near exact equivalence.

Having done this, it is uncanny how similar the images look, from the background blur to the focus fall-off. Shooting the Olympus at f1.2 and ISO 200 I have to shoot the GFX at f2.8 and ISO 1000-1250 to get the same shutter speed. The noise in the two images ends up very similar.

The choice to take out one rather than the other all comes down to what trade-offs are appropriate. And it can be surprisingly quite difficult to see the image quality benefits from the GFX unless making large prints or extreme raw edits.

Would you mind sharing the images ?

 

[Charles_S]

So why do so many get this wrong? Because many photographer's idea of equivalence is based on maintaining equivalent composition and therefore changing the camera position or focal lengths between shots.

I think we are talking about the same thing. You see it as "getting it wrong" I see it as how I can use MF differently and thereby creating different results.

It's valid to say you prefer the look of an image created by changing the camera position or focal length, which is required by changing sensor size formats to maintain the same composition – but it doesn't fit the definition of equivalence.

It's a bit like comparing images taken at different resolutions but comparing them at different print sizes. Yes, it's a valid way to compare if you plan on taking advantage of the higher resolution by making larger prints – but it's not an equivalent test.

I wasn't aiming for an equivalence test. I am trying to make sense of my observations

 

[TransientEye]

Further complicating any comparison is the change in the ratio of the format. Even moving down from 35mm to micro 4/3 gives a change in look that may favor the smaller format if you like 4:3.

A pretty good illustration of equivalence is to shoot the GF 63mm f2.8 against a micro 4/3 Olympus 25mm f1.2. Same formats and near exact equivalence.

Having done this, it is uncanny how similar the images look, from the background blur to the focus fall-off. Shooting the Olympus at f1.2 and ISO 200 I have to shoot the GFX at f2.8 and ISO 1000-1250 to get the same shutter speed. The noise in the two images ends up very similar.

The choice to take out one rather than the other all comes down to what trade-offs are appropriate. And it can be surprisingly quite difficult to see the image quality benefits from the GFX unless making large prints or extreme raw edits.

Would you mind sharing the images ?

Unfortunately, I can not share the original se, but I will take the chance to shoot some public images that I can post later this week.

 

[Mike Ox]

Out of interest, is there a definitive photograph that contains the MF look (that is not replicable in any other format)?

Isn't it really down to how, and what with, the photographer shot and then processed the image, that people identify a look with? Not just a bit of kit that instantly 'gives' anyone a 'look' at any given time?

 

[Charles_S]

Out of interest, is there a definitive photograph that contains the MF look (that is not replicable in any other format)?

Isn't it really down to how, and what with, the photographer shot and then processed the image, that people identify a look with? Not just a bit of kit that instantly 'gives' anyone a 'look' at any given time?

Here is my suggestion: Martin Schoeller

There are a bunch of youtube BTS videos about him in action and explaining what he is looking for.

 

[SrMi]

The MF look is 4:3 whereas the FF look is 3:2

Many of my FF shots, especially the vertical ones, are cropped to 4:3. Did I convert them to MF look? :-D

 

[tex]

First of all, as far as I can tell it has little to do with DOF*, as has been shown again and again.

Several things I believe are pretty true, however, with respect to "that look":

• It has a great deal more to do with tonality transitions and possibly also color fidelity**
• These transitions are really subtle, and don't/won't matter to the very vast majority of viewers. They matter to me, but as an artist I am by definition an outlier and weirdo. They also matter to museums, see below.
• It's going to vary from image to image whether they can be seen at all. I have done side by side comparisons (and seen some others) between FF and MF images, and I know where to look and when there's going to be a difference, and I know it won't be all over the image or even present.
• 99% of the time the differences can't be seen online with the sizes we generally look at. You need to see the image at 100%.
• I have only seen one side by side test online, some years ago, a YouTube video, where the comparison shots were set up correctly to show the difference---and you could see the difference. It will be hard to find that video again, I didn't bookmark it or subscribe to the Youtube channel. But it's out there---it was 2 guys, west coast I think, and the shots were urban---involved mid-rise to tall modern buildings and shooting down a broad avenue.
• I know of no "optical bench testing" that exists that measures tonality. Jim can correct me I guess.

* Where DOF may be involved is how tonality transitions affect focus fall off.

** If there was no difference, then what's up with this, the Federal Agencies Digital Guidelines Initiative (FADGI)?

BTW, however, even a "believer" like me questions the utility of the differences even in professional settings. It's just that given how "cheap" shooting with (almost) the best equipment is today, why not use best practices? I do draw the line at $40K cameras, though....

 

[JimKasson]

First of all, as far as I can tell it has little to do with DOF*, as has been shown again and again.

Several things I believe are pretty true, however, with respect to "that look":

• It has a great deal more to do with tonality transitions and possibly also color fidelity**
• These transitions are really subtle, and don't/won't matter to the very vast majority of viewers. They matter to me, but as an artist I am by definition an outlier and weirdo. They also matter to museums, see below.
• It's going to vary from image to image whether they can be seen at all. I have done side by side comparisons (and seen some others) between FF and MF images, and I know where to look and when there's going to be a difference, and I know it won't be all over the image or even present.
• 99% of the time the differences can't be seen online with the sizes we generally look at. You need to see the image at 100%.
• I have only seen one side by side test online, some years ago, a YouTube video, where the comparison shots were set up correctly to show the difference---and you could see the difference. It will be hard to find that video again, I didn't bookmark it or subscribe to the Youtube channel. But it's out there---it was 2 guys, west coast I think, and the shots were urban---involved mid-rise to tall modern buildings and shooting down a broad avenue.
• I know of no "optical bench testing" that exists that measures tonality. Jim can correct me I guess.

You can measure SNR. But unless you're going to put more photons on the MF sensor (abandoning equivalence), you won't see a big SNR difference with same sensor tech.

* Where DOF may be involved is how tonality transitions affect focus fall off.

And that is highly lens dependent. MF lenses are in general slower, and therefore more ideal for that.

** If there was no difference, then what's up with this, the Federal Agencies Digital Guidelines Initiative (FADGI)?

BTW, however, even a "believer" like me questions the utility of the differences even in professional settings. It's just that given how "cheap" shooting with (almost) the best equipment is today, why not use best practices? I do draw the line at $40K cameras, though....

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[JimKasson]

** If there was no difference, then what's up with this, the Federal Agencies Digital Guidelines Initiative (FADGI)?

For that kind of work, you can put as much light on the sensor as you want.

 

[SrMi]

Out of interest, is there a definitive photograph that contains the MF look (that is not replicable in any other format)?

Isn't it really down to how, and what with, the photographer shot and then processed the image, that people identify a look with? Not just a bit of kit that instantly 'gives' anyone a 'look' at any given time?

Here is my suggestion: Martin Schoeller

He is shooting with an Rz67 film camera (Portra 800).

There are a bunch of youtube BTS videos about him in action and explaining what he is looking for.

 

[JimKasson]

Out of interest, is there a definitive photograph that contains the MF look (that is not replicable in any other format)?

Isn't it really down to how, and what with, the photographer shot and then processed the image, that people identify a look with? Not just a bit of kit that instantly 'gives' anyone a 'look' at any given time?

Here is my suggestion: Martin Schoeller

He is shooting with an Rz67 film camera (Portra 800).

Piker. He should be going for the banquet camera look.

 

[SrMi]

Out of interest, is there a definitive photograph that contains the MF look (that is not replicable in any other format)?

Isn't it really down to how, and what with, the photographer shot and then processed the image, that people identify a look with? Not just a bit of kit that instantly 'gives' anyone a 'look' at any given time?

Here is my suggestion: Martin Schoeller

He is shooting with an Rz67 film camera (Portra 800).

Piker. He should be going for the banquet camera look.

Great, I learned two new terms: piker and banquet camera .

 

[Roswitz]

The MF look is 4:3 whereas the FF look is 3:2

Many of my FF shots, especially the vertical ones, are cropped to 4:3. Did I convert them to MF look? :-D

You got it! But honestly, the GFX 4:3 format is a main reason, why I like MF.

 

[MercedRiver]

The medium format look is 1:1. I miss the square.

 

[SrMi]

The MF look is 4:3 whereas the FF look is 3:2

Many of my FF shots, especially the vertical ones, are cropped to 4:3. Did I convert them to MF look? :-D

You got it! But honestly, the GFX 4:3 format is a main reason, why I like MF.

There are MF cameras with a 3:2 format (Leica), but I do not know of any FF camera with a 4:3 format (unless an in-camera crop is enabled).

 

[MercedRiver]

So yes, micro four thirds gives the medium format look!

 

[JimKasson]

The MF look is 4:3 whereas the FF look is 3:2

Many of my FF shots, especially the vertical ones, are cropped to 4:3. Did I convert them to MF look? :-D

You got it! But honestly, the GFX 4:3 format is a main reason, why I like MF.

There are MF cameras with a 3:2 format (Leica), but I do not know of any FF camera with a 4:3 format (unless an in-camera crop is enabled).

Isn’t FF by definition 24x36 mm? There was briefly a Nikon that shot 24x32 images.