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

[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).

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

Yes. It seems that most formats (MFT, APS-C, FF, ..) have defined ratios.

 

[highdesertmesa]

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

Ditto. I've been screaming for Fujifilm to release a 44x44 100R rangefinder-style GFX. I don't think any of the GF primes have a 4:3 baffle over the rear element, but maybe some of the zooms do. Unfortunately, Sony would have to make a custom sensor for this, so not much economy of scale.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Site had given me an error. So I reposted. And now I see it. So, a dupe. And I can't delete it as it's been too long.

So, ignore this one and read the other one

Stan

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

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Oh, Dear....

Yes.

You did.

Look at all those replies in such a short time frame.

Stan

 

[JimKasson]

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

Ditto. I've been screaming for Fujifilm to release a 44x44 100R rangefinder-style GFX.

I don't think the GF lenses will cover a format with a 62.2 mm diagonal, but maybe they will.

I don't think any of the GF primes have a 4:3 baffle over the rear element, but maybe some of the zooms do. Unfortunately, Sony would have to make a custom sensor for this, so not much economy of scale.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Until I use the plasma cutter tool in fotoshop to slice off the 3:2 ends and make it 5:4 to print an 8x10. I do the same with a 4:3 shot except my intended print size is now 16x20.

All I do is make use of an old MF 44x33mm sensor to gain the extra pixels for the larger print. 40 MP v 16 MP.

Wasn't any different between 135 format and 645 format film. Larger neg equals bigger print.

So I keep it really simple and don't bother about 'look'.

Oh, it is there. My 16 MP is CMOS and my 40 MP is CCD and then very different CFAs.

But that isn't SF v MF. If such is there, it's lost in the sauce.

Stan

 

[TechTalk2]

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

Ditto. I've been screaming for Fujifilm to release a 44x44 100R rangefinder-style GFX.

I also really like shooting with square format. Hasselblad showed a 40x40 mm 75 megapixel concept design at Photokina in 2016.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/hasselblad-shows-75mp-square-format-v-style-v1d-concept-camera

Hasselblad was granted a design patent in December 2019 for it, but that doesn't mean it will ever be produced. I would love to see that concept, or something like it, pursued to development and release someday.

I enjoyed watching this interview with the designer credited in the patent. He's fairly restrained until the end of the video when he starts to becomes quite enthusiastic discussing the body milling and all the little holes he had engineering drill into it.

 

[Doppler9000]

An issue with the term “medium format look” is that it is based on the idea that there is some discrete sensor size threshold where a visible phenomenon emerges. This threshold, it seems, lies somewhere between 24 x 36 mm and 33 x 44 mm, and is independent of resolution, pixel pitch, etc.

In my view, any theory of the “medium format look” must explain this discrete crossover point. When I have asked this question in the past, the answers have usually relied on poorly-disguised mysticism, or pointed to rare levels of perceptual acuity that make the “look” visible to only a few.

So, for those who believe:

At what sensor dimensions does the “medium format look” emerge?

Why?

 

[koweb]

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

That's what I thought... so doesn't that mean the comment from NAWlins that your method was "nonsense".... actually mean their comment was nonsense? At least, what they said made no sense to me...

 

[JimKasson]

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

Ditto. I've been screaming for Fujifilm to release a 44x44 100R rangefinder-style GFX.

I also really like shooting with square format. Hasselblad showed a 40x40 mm 75 megapixel concept design at Photokina in 2016.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/hasselblad-shows-75mp-square-format-v-style-v1d-concept-camera

Hasselblad was granted a design patent in December 2019 for it, but that doesn't mean it will ever be produced. I would love to see that concept, or something like it, pursued to development and release someday.

I enjoyed watching this interview with the designer credited in the patent. He's fairly restrained until the end of the video when he starts to becomes quite enthusiastic discussing the body milling and all the little holes he had engineering drill into it.

For a long time I used a Kodak 36x36 mm back on a 503c.

 

[JimKasson]

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

That's what I thought... so doesn't that mean the comment from NAWlins that your method was "nonsense".... actually mean their comment was nonsense? At least, what they said made no sense to me...

You have to use the right focal lengths. Just making the focal lengths different is not sufficient.

 

[koweb]

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

That's what I thought... so doesn't that mean the comment from NAWlins that your method was "nonsense".... actually mean their comment was nonsense? At least, what they said made no sense to me...

You have to use the right focal lengths. Just making the focal lengths different is not sufficient.

Of course, so 40mm vs 90mm isn't close enough? It should have been 80mm?

Either way, the assertion that the focal lengths needed to be different was incorrect as stated, as they were different...

 

[JimKasson]

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

That's what I thought... so doesn't that mean the comment from NAWlins that your method was "nonsense".... actually mean their comment was nonsense? At least, what they said made no sense to me...

You have to use the right focal lengths. Just making the focal lengths different is not sufficient.

Of course, so 40mm vs 90mm isn't close enough? It should have been 80mm?

They should scale with format height if aspect ratio is the same. If aspect ratio isn't the same, they should be cropped so that they use all of the pixels in one direction, and the focal lengths should be based on that ratio.

The camera location should also be the same.

The resulting images need to be scaled to same print size.

Either way, the assertion that the focal lengths needed to be different was incorrect as stated, as they were different...

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[Mike Ox]

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

Ditto. I've been screaming for Fujifilm to release a 44x44 100R rangefinder-style GFX.

I also really like shooting with square format. Hasselblad showed a 40x40 mm 75 megapixel concept design at Photokina in 2016.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/hasselblad-shows-75mp-square-format-v-style-v1d-concept-camera

Hasselblad was granted a design patent in December 2019 for it, but that doesn't mean it will ever be produced. I would love to see that concept, or something like it, pursued to development and release someday.

I enjoyed watching this interview with the designer credited in the patent. He's fairly restrained until the end of the video when he starts to becomes quite enthusiastic discussing the body milling and all the little holes he had engineering drill into it.

For a long time I used a Kodak 36x36 mm back on a 503c.

I still pull out my P20 for my Phase One/Mamiya, its really quite nice.

 

[koweb]

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

That's what I thought... so doesn't that mean the comment from NAWlins that your method was "nonsense".... actually mean their comment was nonsense? At least, what they said made no sense to me...

You have to use the right focal lengths. Just making the focal lengths different is not sufficient.

Of course, so 40mm vs 90mm isn't close enough? It should have been 80mm?

They should scale with format height if aspect ratio is the same. If aspect ratio isn't the same, they should be cropped so that they use all of the pixels in one direction, and the focal lengths should be based on that ratio.

The camera location should also be the same.

The resulting images need to be scaled to same print size.

Either way, the assertion that the focal lengths needed to be different was incorrect as stated, as they were different...

Interesting, thanks. As you said earlier, not as easy to test as one might think...

 

[Bashir Lunat]

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

MF= Mcro Fourthird ?

 

[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

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

Until he started shooting with P1

 

[MercedRiver]

According to Ctein it is micro four thirds.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/03/when-will-micro-43-equal-medium-format-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html

That being said, I'm sure Digital Medium format has a more flexible raw file for post processing, eg better shadow recovery.

 

[Doppler9000]

According to Ctein it is micro four thirds.

https://theonlinephotographer.typep...ormat-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html

And that was in 2016!

That being said, I'm sure Digital Medium format has a more flexible raw file for post processing, eg better shadow recovery.

Of course.

 

[highdesertmesa]

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

Ditto. I've been screaming for Fujifilm to release a 44x44 100R rangefinder-style GFX.

I don't think the GF lenses will cover a format with a 62.2 mm diagonal, but maybe they will.

Yes, some may cover and some may suffer a bit in the far corners when not stopped down. Fujifilm could also introduce a GF2 line of lenses designed for 44x44, and the GF(1) lenses could still be used for vertical or horizontal crops of 44x33 without changing the orientation of the camera – think of how nice it would be to have a function button mapped to changing the shot from horizontal to vertical. And for those of us adapting film-era medium format lenses to the GFX, the 44x44 sensor would be really nice, too. I'm sure Hasselblad would start using them, too, if Sony made them.

Fujifilm could even go an entirely new direction with a 44x44 camera and GF2 lenses – the body could be reminiscent of the Mamiya 6x6 or Fujifilm's 645 rangefinders, and the lenses could be completely manual focus with DOF scales. Crazy, but I'd for sure buy a camera like that over the 100S.

I don't think any of the GF primes have a 4:3 baffle over the rear element, but maybe some of the zooms do. Unfortunately, Sony would have to make a custom sensor for this, so not much economy of scale.